Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   "If I see one more corporation declare itself 'green,' I'm going to start burning tires in my backyard,"   (hosted.ap.org ) divider line
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

9917 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Dec 2008 at 9:45 AM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



214 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-12-31 02:45:58 PM  
"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it's full complement of species,returning throughout the world."
-Dave Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
 
2008-12-31 02:47:41 PM  
"Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor."
- Sir James Lovelock,
Healing Gaia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man."
- Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.
We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to
the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many
apparently brutal and heartless decisions.''
- Prof Paul Ehrlich,
The Population Bomb
 
2008-12-31 02:49:52 PM  
Just feeling more trolltastic than normal today nick?

Incidentally, those random quotes you're pulling still have no bearing on what scientific inquery has shown.
 
2008-12-31 02:52:25 PM  
nicksteel 2008-12-31 02:40:53 PM
"What does that make him??? And you by association???"

Nothing, as I do not share the same opinion as Michael Oppenheimer. However you, nicksteel, at 2008-12-31 10:12:20 AM today openly admitted that you agree with the usage of terrorism against proponents of the scientific theory of Global Warming. Admit it, you shared in a fantasy to commit the mass murder of political opponents and I have it on record.

It is people like you, through tactics of violence and coercion, that will bring about a resurgence of McCartyistic thought:
"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Green Party of the United States?"
 
2008-12-31 02:55:21 PM  
BergZ

Hrm, never occurred to me to fire his own words back at him with them carried to the logical conclusion. Wonder if he'll melt down again like yesterday?
 
2008-12-31 02:55:31 PM  

BergZ: nicksteel 2008-12-31 02:40:53 PM
"What does that make him??? And you by association???"

Nothing, as I do not share the same opinion as Michael Oppenheimer. However you, nicksteel, at 2008-12-31 10:12:20 AM today openly admitted that you agree with the usage of terrorism against proponents of the scientific theory of Global Warming. Admit it, you shared in a fantasy to commit the mass murder of political opponents and I have it on record.

It is people like you, through tactics of violence and coercion, that will bring about a resurgence of McCartyistic thought:
"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Green Party of the United States?"


No, what I share is a complete lack of respect and concern for communists who want to destroy this country.

It is nice to see that you realize that this is a political issue and not a scientific one. You are making progress.
 
2008-12-31 02:58:19 PM  

BergZ: nicksteel 2008-12-31 02:40:53 PM
"What does that make him??? And you by association???"

Nothing, as I do not share the same opinion as Michael Oppenheimer. However you, nicksteel, at 2008-12-31 10:12:20 AM today openly admitted that you agree with the usage of terrorism against proponents of the scientific theory of Global Warming. Admit it, you shared in a fantasy to commit the mass murder of political opponents and I have it on record.

It is people like you, through tactics of violence and coercion, that will bring about a resurgence of McCartyistic thought:
"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Green Party of the United States?"


a few other thoughts:

What was proposed was not terrorism. It was murder.

At of a very long and accurate post, all you got out of it was the last sentence. That is sad.
 
2008-12-31 03:02:05 PM  

nicksteel: At of a very long and accurate post


Accurate? Well then, answer these questions for me if his anti-science spiel was accurate:

Tell me either of you 2: how is pumping many millions of tons of excess greenhouse gases into the atmosphere NOT affecting the climate? What mechanism is there for counteracting the effect of us burning fossil fuels and emitting all those gases? Have you ever even heard of acid rain, a climate affecting result of dirty industry? Or global dimming, something that has been on the decline since many countries enacted emissions restrictions to curtail particulate matter?

Don't forget to include citations from actual scientific findings, not a fundy denialist website with no data.
 
2008-12-31 03:02:45 PM  

oroku_saki: Zafler: littleray42: Xerxes99: Only arrogant people think they can affect the climate. Leave it to the over inflated egos of the left to blame mankind for the cyclical nature of weather patterns on this planet. Leave it to the bloated self absorbed idealogues to think that mankind can control the cycles of the sun. Leave it to the elitist carbon assprint sheeple crowd to preach to the rest of us.. the whole do as I say not as I do crap! Fark em! Screw burning tires... I say we stack up the environmental wackjobs out there like cords of wood and burn them!

YYYYYYYYYYYes! I think I just blew a load reading that!

I was going to just let this pass, but someone agreeing with it means it should probably be addressed.

Tell me either of you 2: how is pumping many millions of tons of excess greenhouse gases into the atmosphere NOT affecting the climate? What mechanism is there for counteracting the effect of us burning fossil fuels and emitting all those gases? Have you ever even heard of acid rain, a climate affecting result of dirty industry? Or global dimming, something that has been on the decline since many countries enacted emissions restrictions to curtail particulate matter?

I will await answers, these are all well known and documented results of human activity.

Paying indulgences to environmental groups through carbon credits isn't going to do jack shiat, especially when the money raised is merely used to line the pockets of people instead of actual research to help the environment. On top of that, all carbon credits does is allow people to expel as much carbon as they want long as their checkbook is big enough to appease Al Gore. As long as corporations are able to pay for their carbon emissions, nothing is going to change their emission rates. And if it gets to be too much of an expense, they'll just move their operations to a country that doesn't give a shiat.

I agree that we should do what we can to help preserve the environment, but many of the people of the green movement seem to be doing it wrong, assuming they are doing anything at all.


HA! The "evil corporations" don't "pay for carbon emissions", the end user of the product/service does, and net result is a TAX! This also moves jobs overseas. We the people always pay for gov't bullshiat down the line. Man! Get a clue!
 
2008-12-31 03:09:24 PM  

Zafler: Rodddxl

That was an editing error on my part, didn't catch it, was supposed to be: (less than the cost to build and run normal coal power plants)


The other al gore backed surprise you didn't catch is that no green technology has shown itself to not lose money. Since I'll be paying for it, and you want to spend my money against my will, that's kind of a big "didn't catch it" don't you think?
 
2008-12-31 03:12:45 PM  

forfarkonly: Zafler: Rodddxl

That was an editing error on my part, didn't catch it, was supposed to be: (less than the cost to build and run normal coal power plants)

The other al gore backed surprise you didn't catch is that no green technology has shown itself to not lose money. Since I'll be paying for it, and you want to spend my money against my will, that's kind of a big "didn't catch it" don't you think?


Your sacrifice of money (and mine) will allow zafler to live in the world that he wants to live in. That is what all of this is about.
 
2008-12-31 03:18:54 PM  
nicksteel 2008-12-31 02:58:19 PM
"What was proposed was not terrorism. It was murder."

Yeah, that's so much better now that you're only advocating the mass murder of proponents of the scientific theory of Global Warming. I guess that makes you more akin to Stalin/Hitler than McVeigh.

"At of a very long and accurate post, all you got out of it was the last sentence. That is sad."

I am not obligated to debate with people who do not make logical arguments.

/PS. It doesn't count as a "Godwin" when the person has, themselves, advocated the brutal suppression of dissenting opinions.
 
2008-12-31 03:21:32 PM  
forfarkonly

Never heard of wind turbines? Or nuclear (fast fission by preference, 90%+ effecient and lo 1/2 life by-products)? Or hell, even solar panels are getting to the point where it's less than 10 year turn around on investment. That's the whole point: develop the technology more, as we have not reached the limits of it the way we have with internal combustion (for the most part).
 
2008-12-31 03:22:27 PM  
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes. Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years." [Telegraph]

Global warming and melting polar ice caps are not just problems here on Earth. Mars is facing similar global changes, researchers say, with temperatures across the red planet rising by around 0.65 degrees over the last few decades. [Register]

UPDATE: Since this article was first written, the sun has gone into a quiet phase. There are no sunspots, and the Ulysses spacecraft is confirming that the sun has dimmed slightly and the solar wind slowed down. Inevitably, and to nobody's surprise (except perhaps Al Gore), the Earth is now showing signs of cooling. Defying the predictions of an ice-free arctic sea this summer, the north polar icecap actually increased its area by twice the size of Germany.
For about 300 years Jupiter's banded atmosphere has shown a remarkable feature to telescopic viewers, a large swirling storm system known as The Great Red Spot. In 2006, another red storm system appeared, actually seen to form as smaller whitish oval-shaped storms merged and then developed the curious reddish hue. Now, Jupiter has a third red spot, again produced from a smaller whitish storm. ... Jupiter's recent outbreak of red spots is likely related to large scale climate change as the gas giant planet is getting warmer near the equator. [NASA]
Neptune has been getting brighter since around 1980; furthermore, infrared measurements of the planet since 1980 show that the planet has been warming steadily from 1980 to 2004. As they say on Neptune, global warming has become an inconvenient truth. [World Climate Report]
 
2008-12-31 03:24:41 PM  

BergZ: Xerxes99 2008-12-31 10:01:30 AM
"Only arrogant people think they can affect the climate... I say we stack up the environmental wackjobs out there like cords of wood and burn them!"

In a move that should surprise absolutely no one, a Global Warming Denialist (and his supporters nicksteel & littleray42) fantasize about committing acts of politically motivated violence (AKA "terror") against ideological opponents.

I've been telling people since the early 2000's that Global Warming Denialists are fascists... to date they have never failed to prove my point for me.


Your logic terrifies me.
 
2008-12-31 03:25:02 PM  
Zafler 2008-12-31 02:55:21 PM
"Hrm, never occurred to me to fire his own words back at him with them carried to the logical conclusion. Wonder if he'll melt down again like yesterday?"

Melt down? He's in full glacier mode!

The best part about Global Warming Denialists is that they keep handing you more rhetorical ammunition.
 
2008-12-31 03:25:46 PM  
The UN secretary-general today called on world leaders for immediate action on climate change - before flying thousands of miles to the US for a music concert and then leaving in the interval to jet to Europe. [Evening Standard 12/12/07]
 
2008-12-31 03:26:42 PM  

BergZ: Zafler 2008-12-31 02:55:21 PM
"Hrm, never occurred to me to fire his own words back at him with them carried to the logical conclusion. Wonder if he'll melt down again like yesterday?"

Melt down? He's in full glacier mode!

The best part about Global Warming Denialists is that they keep handing you more rhetorical ammunition.


You have deluded yourself at many different levels.
 
2008-12-31 03:28:17 PM  

BergZ: nicksteel 2008-12-31 02:58:19 PM
"What was proposed was not terrorism. It was murder."

Yeah, that's so much better now that you're only advocating the mass murder of proponents of the scientific theory of Global Warming. I guess that makes you more akin to Stalin/Hitler than McVeigh.

"At of a very long and accurate post, all you got out of it was the last sentence. That is sad."

I am not obligated to debate with people who do not make logical arguments.

/PS. It doesn't count as a "Godwin" when the person has, themselves, advocated the brutal suppression of dissenting opinions.


It is a war, the tree huggers obviously want to destroy the USA. Killing them is a patriotic act.
 
2008-12-31 03:29:18 PM  

Zafler: Just feeling more trolltastic than normal today nick?

Incidentally, those random quotes you're pulling still have no bearing on what scientific inquery has shown.


You never played connect the dots, did you?
 
2008-12-31 03:30:04 PM  
nicksteel

Oh son of a...the Sun bulshiat again? How many times has Jon Snow smacked that idiocy around for you?

Damn, that's just, damn. Why not just out yourself as a troll already and be done with it?

Hell, I'm not even going to bother typing it out myself, here's a link for you to ignore: Link (new window)

Complte with citations to actual data and not copy-pasta jobs from reporters.
 
2008-12-31 03:32:01 PM  

forfarkonly: Zafler: Just feeling more trolltastic than normal today nick?

Incidentally, those random quotes you're pulling still have no bearing on what scientific inquery has shown.

You never played connect the dots, did you?


true that!! He is so blinded by his love for global warming that he doesn't realize that what the politicians say is what matters. The scientists that go along with them are in it for money. Can you imagine how easy it is to get a book published on the evils of global warming??? The publishers would beat a path to your door and people like zafler, who would buy the book would make you rich.
 
2008-12-31 03:34:02 PM  
Ahh, yes, more ad hominems...good job, I guess.

/Seriously, just admit to being a troll, your level of deliberate obtuseness is rarely achieved without conscious effort.
 
2008-12-31 03:40:25 PM  
As a collaborator on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), professor Michael Oppenheimer is honored by the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the IPCC, and shared with Al Gore, for its work in understanding the climate change crisis and pointing the way forward to solving it.

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are."
- Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund


And this guy got a Noble PEACE prize. Sounds like he wants to destroy the USA to me, how peaceful is that???
 
2008-12-31 03:42:54 PM  
Zafler, BergZ, oroku_saki...three sheep in a large flock, led by their shepherd, al gore. They listen to his voice, and follow him wherever he goes. They graze on bullshiat put out by NASA, the UN, and hypocritical, globalist, rich elitists. Of course, they are what they eat, and what they shiat is more of the same.
 
2008-12-31 03:47:16 PM  

forfarkonly: Zafler, BergZ, oroku_saki...three sheep in a large flock, led by their shepherd, al gore. They listen to his voice, and follow him wherever he goes. They graze on bullshiat put out by NASA, the UN, and hypocritical, globalist, rich elitists. Of course, they are what they eat, and what they shiat is more of the same.


We can only hope that he leads them over a very high cliff. It does amaze me gullible they are. Their own gurus are in this for a profit and these boys think that it is all so serious.
 
2008-12-31 03:51:39 PM  

Zafler: Ahh, yes, more ad hominems...good job, I guess.

/Seriously, just admit to being a troll, your level of deliberate obtuseness is rarely achieved without conscious effort.


Classic response from a libtard, "you must be trolling, bla, bla, bla..." Not buying bullshiat from a libdupetard is always a troll for you isn't it Zaflar? No Zaflar, you've been duped, with millions, and this "thing" is a political scam, it's preacher of doom and salvation through carbon credits is a politician, those that demand action are politicians, and those actions undermine our nation's freedoms from UN idiots. And here you are helping the them out without knowing it. Zaflar, wake up.
 
2008-12-31 03:52:14 PM  
Looking at annual global temperatures, it is apparent that the last decade shows no warming trend and recent successive annual global temperatures are well within each year's measurement errors. Statistically the world's temperature is flat. The world certainly warmed between 1975 and 1998, but in the past 10 years it has not been increasing at the rate it did. No scientist could honestly look at global temperatures over the past decade and see a rising curve. It is undisputed that the sun of the later part of the 20th century was behaving differently from that of the beginning. Its sunspot cycle is stronger and shorter and, technically speaking, its magnetic field leakage is weaker and its cosmic ray shielding effect stronger. So we see that when the sun's activity was rising, the world warmed. When it peaked in activity in the late 1980s, within a few years global warming stalled. [Telegraph]

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snow cover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. [DailyTech 2/27/2008]
 
2008-12-31 03:55:47 PM  
First of all, greenhouse effect is not a bad thing. Without it, our planet would not support life as we know it, as the average temperature would be too cold to support liquid water.

Water vapor is the single most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, trapping more heat than carbon dioxide and methane put together. Estimates of the impact of water vapor on global warming vary widely from a minimum of 60% of all greenhouse effect to 98% of all greenhouse effect, but even at the minimum of 60%, that leaves 40% of greenhouse effect to be shared by all other chemicals combined, including carbon dioxide and methane (which has ten times the greenhouse capacity pound for pound as carbon dioxide).

Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

So, if humans ceased all technological activity, we would still see 99.883% of the carbon dioxide remain in the atmosphere, assuming all other factors remain stable (which is, of course, silly.)

Over the last few years, there have been very careful studies in Antarctica which clearly show global temperatures rising together with atmospheric carbon dioxide. Global warmers have sent me several of these research papers with the usual "Ah HA!" type comment, but on reading the papers it is clear that the global warmers stopped at the abstract, because what these recent studies show is that Carbon Dioxide levels increased AFTER the rise in global temperature. Let me re-state that. Studies of Antarctic ice show that the Earth would get warmer, and THEN Carbon Dioxide levels would increase. And there is nothing at all mysterious about this. Carbon dioxide is a very unique chemical in that it is more effectively dissolved in liquids in lower temperatures. Normally, air will hold more water when warm, sugar will dissolve in water more quickly when warm, but carbon dioxide will escape from solution as the temperature rises, which is why your beer will soak your shirt if it is too warm when you open it.

So, as the sun warms the Earth (as recorded in the ice) carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans and lakes bubbles into the sky like too-warm soda pop fizzing over the top of the glass, and as the Antarctic ice reveals, winds up in the atmosphere.
 
2008-12-31 03:57:37 PM  
Stop doing un-attributed copy pasta jobs, especially from a truther website. (new window)

Now do you have a point in ignoring the science and posting articles from the media? Or are you just having fun trolling with your copy-pasta from articles written by people that have been payed to deny things like dangers of smoking?
 
2008-12-31 03:59:41 PM  
You could just save a lot of people scrolling and post the link directly to the truther website, that way everyone can see the idiocy first hand. (new window)

Also, you don't understand absorption bans, radiative physics, atmospheric effects, nor well, pretty much anything having to do with the subject.
 
2008-12-31 04:00:43 PM  
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming.html
Can't make links to it so here copy paste it, and enjoy the idiocy everyone.
 
2008-12-31 04:01:38 PM  
I will bet there are a bunch of folks in Tennessee right now wishing their electric company was using anything but "CLEAN" COAL technology!

LOL frickin LOL!


/like arsenic biatches?
 
2008-12-31 04:06:51 PM  

Zafler: You could just save a lot of people scrolling and post the link directly to the truther website, that way everyone can see the idiocy first hand. (new window)

Also, you don't understand absorption bans, radiative physics, atmospheric effects, nor well, pretty much anything having to do with the subject.


And your data comes from NASA which has been retracting its "facts" all along the way, the head person there is al gore's buddy. Four organizations keep earth's temp data records, three show global cooling, one announced some gw-bullshiat and retracted when the other three said, "WTF is wrong with you and your data?". And we're to take you seriously? You haven't admitted this blatant joke...we're all waiting...
 
2008-12-31 04:09:23 PM  

forfarkonly: Zafler: You could just save a lot of people scrolling and post the link directly to the truther website, that way everyone can see the idiocy first hand. (new window)

Also, you don't understand absorption bans, radiative physics, atmospheric effects, nor well, pretty much anything having to do with the subject.

And your data comes from NASA which has been retracting its "facts" all along the way, the head person there is al gore's buddy. Four organizations keep earth's temp data records, three show global cooling, one announced some gw-bullshiat and retracted when the other three said, "WTF is wrong with you and your data?". And we're to take you seriously? You haven't admitted this blatant joke...we're all waiting...


BTW, Zafler admits that he is not an expert. Seems kinda silly for him to attack you on your understanding when he admits that he is a layman.

Would that fit the definition of hypocrite?
 
2008-12-31 04:12:13 PM  
forfarkonly

None of my citations in this thread were courtesy of NASA, however, the one error was a computerised one where data from 1 month was mistakenly applied to the next, and it was not even anything NASA had anything to do with. You're lack of knowledge on what happened is seriously saddening, considering how vociferously you have been ignoring data and citations that fly in the face of your fundy beliefs.

Oh, and btw, it was actually for data used by NOAA, not NASA. (new window)
 
2008-12-31 04:15:35 PM  
nicksteel

No, I was making a statement of fact, since you posting that spiel implies you think it is correct. That statement was directed at you BTW.

Also, I may be a layman, but I have actually read the official postings and data made available from the scientific organizations that are responsible for monitoring the information. That'd make me more in line with being an informed layman, to a certain extent.

What is your next insult towards me going to be? I'm kinda curious as to which direction your troll is going to turn.
 
2008-12-31 04:18:34 PM  
Excuse me, it was the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a subsidiary of NASA, that was using data supplied from NOAA networks.
 
2008-12-31 04:19:02 PM  

Zafler: littleray42: Xerxes99: Only arrogant people think they can affect the climate. Leave it to the over inflated egos of the left to blame mankind for the cyclical nature of weather patterns on this planet. Leave it to the bloated self absorbed idealogues to think that mankind can control the cycles of the sun. Leave it to the elitist carbon assprint sheeple crowd to preach to the rest of us.. the whole do as I say not as I do crap! Fark em! Screw burning tires... I say we stack up the environmental wackjobs out there like cords of wood and burn them!

YYYYYYYYYYYes! I think I just blew a load reading that!

I was going to just let this pass, but someone agreeing with it means it should probably be addressed.

Tell me either of you 2: how is pumping many millions of tons of excess greenhouse gases into the atmosphere NOT affecting the climate? What mechanism is there for counteracting the effect of us burning fossil fuels and emitting all those gases? Have you ever even heard of acid rain, a climate affecting result of dirty industry? Or global dimming, something that has been on the decline since many countries enacted emissions restrictions to curtail particulate matter?

I will await answers, these are all well known and documented results of human activity.


Obviously it is affecting the climate, just not in a statistically meaningful or consistently measurable way.
 
2008-12-31 04:19:16 PM  

forfarkonly: Zafler: You could just save a lot of people scrolling and post the link directly to the truther website, that way everyone can see the idiocy first hand. (new window)

Also, you don't understand absorption bans, radiative physics, atmospheric effects, nor well, pretty much anything having to do with the subject.

And your data comes from NASA which has been retracting its "facts" all along the way, the head person there is al gore's buddy. Four organizations keep earth's temp data records, three show global cooling, one announced some gw-bullshiat and retracted when the other three said, "WTF is wrong with you and your data?". And we're to take you seriously? You haven't admitted this blatant joke...we're all waiting...


In case you, Zafler, didn't connect the dots, it was NASA that has been retracting it's bullshiat temp facts; the latest, they used Sept 08 temps for October 08, then declared "the warmest month ever" or some bullshiat. That's bullshiat incompetency at best don't you agree? If we went by your rules, al gore's buddy should be fired for such negligent oversight, right? But those just happen to be the facts you have been relying on for your religion, and our pleasure.
 
2008-12-31 04:19:44 PM  
The IPCC's AGW hypothesis has not gone unchallenged in scientific journals. There are at least eight major issues where the data and/or the conclusions are being disputed in the scientific community with increasing frequency.

December 27, 2008
by William DiPuccio
ScienceandPublicpolicy.org
 
2008-12-31 04:21:03 PM  

forfarkonly: forfarkonly: Zafler: You could just save a lot of people scrolling and post the link directly to the truther website, that way everyone can see the idiocy first hand. (new window)

Also, you don't understand absorption bans, radiative physics, atmospheric effects, nor well, pretty much anything having to do with the subject.

And your data comes from NASA which has been retracting its "facts" all along the way, the head person there is al gore's buddy. Four organizations keep earth's temp data records, three show global cooling, one announced some gw-bullshiat and retracted when the other three said, "WTF is wrong with you and your data?". And we're to take you seriously? You haven't admitted this blatant joke...we're all waiting...

In case you, Zafler, didn't connect the dots, it was NASA that has been retracting it's bullshiat temp facts; the latest, they used Sept 08 temps for October 08, then declared "the warmest month ever" or some bullshiat. That's bullshiat incompetency at best don't you agree? If we went by your rules, al gore's buddy should be fired for such negligent oversight, right? But those just happen to be the facts you have been relying on for your religion, and our pleasure.


Dude, you are so my hero!!
 
2008-12-31 04:24:41 PM  

Watching_Epoxy_Cure: Obviously it is affecting the climate, just not in a statistically meaningful or consistently measurable way.


Got a citation for that? Since the effect of greenhouse gases has been calculated and projected with a fair degree of accuracy.

forfarkonly


Already posted a link from actual climatologists debunking that whole spiel of yours. Did you realize that they caught the error in less than 24hrs and had it corrected within 2 days? That, basically, your just wasted 10min of your life trying to appear knowledgeable on something you know even less about than I do?

nicksteel
A place that was formed specifically to deny climate change, and has personnel who have taken money in the past to actively deny science is not credible. (new window)
 
2008-12-31 04:25:58 PM  
Link (new window)

Just in case you bother asking for a citation about taking money part.

nicksteel: Dude, you are so my hero!!


Yes, anyone that can continue in the same vein after having their idiocy debunked would be your hero.
 
2008-12-31 04:37:20 PM  

Zafler: Watching_Epoxy_Cure: Obviously it is affecting the climate, just not in a statistically meaningful or consistently measurable way.

Got a citation for that? Since the effect of greenhouse gases has been calculated and projected with a fair degree of accuracy.

forfarkonly

Already posted a link from actual climatologists debunking that whole spiel of yours. Did you realize that they caught the error in less than 24hrs and had it corrected within 2 days? That, basically, your just wasted 10min of your life trying to appear knowledgeable on something you know even less about than I do?

nicksteel
A place that was formed specifically to deny climate change, and has personnel who have taken money in the past to actively deny science is not credible. (new window)


It doesn't matter if it was a 1 minute correction, does it? How do you farking use September's temp numbers for October's, then declare "the hottest month ever!" before getting your facts straight? Don't you think one might want to double check the stats first, before making a big deal out of it? You're an idiot for overlooking their declaration of hype before checking their facts. That's like Midas charging for parts and labor and forgetting to attach a muffler. But if having no muffler means less emmissions, you'd pay and put up with the noise wouldn't you? For NASA's temp record dept, there's been all sorts of discrepencies with their data - do some research. Now why is that? And how did al gore's buddies (James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt) get their positions? Look that up too, you obviously don't know. Don't be surprised if political power had something to do with it. Your ignorance is getting old.
 
2008-12-31 04:38:16 PM  
Eight Reasons to End the Scam

Concern over "global warming" is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.

1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate.
More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers' expectations, modelers resort to "flux adjustments" that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says "climate modelers have been 'cheating' for so long it's almost become respectable."

4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC's latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: "The Earth's atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes."

5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the "climatic optimum," was even warmer and marked "a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations," observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. "There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today."

6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth's climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990's levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.

8. The best strategy to pursue is "no regrets." The alternative to demands for immediate action to "stop global warming" is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.

This strategy is called "no regrets," and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.


Time for Common Sense

The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (from Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations. And it has given bureaucrats at all levels of government, from the United Nations to city councils, powers that threaten our jobs and individual liberty.

It is time for common sense to return to the debate over protecting the environment. An excellent first step would be to end the "global warming" scam.
 
2008-12-31 04:39:46 PM  

forfarkonly: Zafler: Watching_Epoxy_Cure: Obviously it is affecting the climate, just not in a statistically meaningful or consistently measurable way.

Got a citation for that? Since the effect of greenhouse gases has been calculated and projected with a fair degree of accuracy.

forfarkonly

Already posted a link from actual climatologists debunking that whole spiel of yours. Did you realize that they caught the error in less than 24hrs and had it corrected within 2 days? That, basically, your just wasted 10min of your life trying to appear knowledgeable on something you know even less about than I do?

nicksteel
A place that was formed specifically to deny climate change, and has personnel who have taken money in the past to actively deny science is not credible. (new window)

It doesn't matter if it was a 1 minute correction, does it? How do you farking use September's temp numbers for October's, then declare "the hottest month ever!" before getting your facts straight? Don't you think one might want to double check the stats first, before making a big deal out of it? You're an idiot for overlooking their declaration of hype before checking their facts. That's like Midas charging for parts and labor and forgetting to attach a muffler. But if having no muffler means less emmissions, you'd pay and put up with the noise wouldn't you? For NASA's temp record dept, there's been all sorts of discrepencies with their data - do some research. Now why is that? And how did al gore's buddies (James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt) get their positions? Look that up too, you obviously don't know. Don't be surprised if political power had something to do with it. Your ignorance is getting old.


Zafler never lets a little thing like facts get in the way of his beliefs.
 
2008-12-31 04:47:08 PM  
So what is real science? What is the Scientific Method?

For something to be considered a scientific fact, it must be testable with the scientific method.

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative explanation, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Real science is humble. Many things are unknowable. It is a human tendency to not to accept the idea that some things are beyond our reach of knowing, but there are things we can't know, no matter how much money is poured into research.

Step 4 of the scientific method requires an experiment. An experiment requires a control. What are the controls in climate science?

Real science publications archive and make available to the public all the input data of papers along with all computer code used to generate any output. Reputable publication have peer reviewers that are given complete access to the complete data so they can review, audit, and look for problems. Reputable publications have reviewers that are not coworkers of the authors. This is not the norm for what is being passed off as 'climate science'. It is common sense to disregard any papers that have closed data, methods that can not be independently verified.
 
2008-12-31 04:48:55 PM  
Freeman Dyson, professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton has this to say about the computer models:
"... I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."
 
2008-12-31 04:50:09 PM  

nicksteel: forfarkonly: Zafler: Watching_Epoxy_Cure: Obviously it is affecting the climate, just not in a statistically meaningful or consistently measurable way.

Got a citation for that? Since the effect of greenhouse gases has been calculated and projected with a fair degree of accuracy.

forfarkonly

Already posted a link from actual climatologists debunking that whole spiel of yours. Did you realize that they caught the error in less than 24hrs and had it corrected within 2 days? That, basically, your just wasted 10min of your life trying to appear knowledgeable on something you know even less about than I do?

nicksteel
A place that was formed specifically to deny climate change, and has personnel who have taken money in the past to actively deny science is not credible. (new window)

It doesn't matter if it was a 1 minute correction, does it? How do you farking use September's temp numbers for October's, then declare "the hottest month ever!" before getting your facts straight? Don't you think one might want to double check the stats first, before making a big deal out of it? You're an idiot for overlooking their declaration of hype before checking their facts. That's like Midas charging for parts and labor and forgetting to attach a muffler. But if having no muffler means less emmissions, you'd pay and put up with the noise wouldn't you? For NASA's temp record dept, there's been all sorts of discrepencies with their data - do some research. Now why is that? And how did al gore's buddies (James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt) get their positions? Look that up too, you obviously don't know. Don't be surprised if political power had something to do with it. Your ignorance is getting old.

Zafler never lets a little thing like facts get in the way of his beliefs.


Zafler, a funde in your own special way, it comes down to faith, faith in your shepherd, al gore, leading you to greener pastures. Tell us Z-funde, why do thousands and thousands of scientists disagree with your religion? I'll admit I don't know squat if you'll admit these scientists, thousands of PhD's+, who disagree with you and agree with me, know far more than you do.
 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report