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.

(Independent)   Global warming zealots now urging the world to go to Plan B to address their fantasy   (independent.co.uk) divider line 244
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

5281 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Jan 2009 at 9:27 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



244 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-01-01 11:59:03 PM
nicksteel: BumpInTheNight: nicksteel: "Computer models are not experiments, they are models."

Pardon me for stripping away the rest of the crazy, but this particular one is too juicy to ignore. I can't even quite put it into words on how that makes you look, but let's just say credibility has been forever damaged.

Do you believe that computer models are as good as a real experiment? Models are based upon certain assumptions, the assumptions of the person running the model. That makes the end result biased. A real experiment is not based upon assumptions.


Sometimes, as a non scientist even I can understand that sometimes you just have to work with what's possible. When it comes to things on the scale of figuring out what our impact is on a whole planet...I forgive them for sometimes using models to get extract information and test theories.

Let's reverse here: Do you at least acknowledge there are some benefits to models or is it your opinion that they are completely ineffective in any situation where one must learn about something? You know, like those crazy people who come up with methods to earthquake proof buildings and all the model usage they rely on, both real and virtual?
 
2009-01-02 12:02:15 AM
maxheck: I know governments spend billions with universities and large scientific organizations to research AGW. I know that if AGW was proven false that that money train would end. And then those universities and large scientific organizations would no longer have need of a scientist that was proven to be not too good of a scientist. So many more than 0-1 would lose their jobs.

You mean the ones who get their grants signed off on by people who were appointed by that noted AGW alarmist, George W. Bush?

This is one of the most often repeated, yet easiest refuted denier claim. That somehow people's paychecks are tied to repeating a scientific lie, and that there's a conspiracy about it.

First off, the data is public. Anyone can refute a B.S. claim, and no one has ever won the Nobel prize by repeating a party line. The ones who make a name for themselves do so by proving stuff *wrong*

Secondly, scientists make GS wages no matter what they say. They can be pretty good if you're an administrator, but is hardly in the "hookers and blow" category.

Third, there's this whole "tenure" thing in academia, which is specifically designed to keep people from being P.C. for fear of being fired.

And lastly, if you're going to argue that climatologists are saying stuff just to get grant money, then you're arguing that the powers that be WANT to promote global warming.

It's a stupid, busted talking point.


Some of the "powers that be" are pushing this because they want a world government.

Why do you suppose that the Nobel Award they received was the Peace Prize?? One government makes it difficult to have a war, civil war will be rampant.

The data IS public knowledge, you are correct. But the data shows a very tiny increase in temperature for over 100 years. It is not the data that is in question. It is how they have interpreted that data that people object to.
 
2009-01-02 12:10:57 AM
"Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg."

Timothy Ball
 
2009-01-02 12:13:14 AM
BumpInTheNight: nicksteel: BumpInTheNight: nicksteel: "Computer models are not experiments, they are models."

Pardon me for stripping away the rest of the crazy, but this particular one is too juicy to ignore. I can't even quite put it into words on how that makes you look, but let's just say credibility has been forever damaged.

Do you believe that computer models are as good as a real experiment? Models are based upon certain assumptions, the assumptions of the person running the model. That makes the end result biased. A real experiment is not based upon assumptions.

Sometimes, as a non scientist even I can understand that sometimes you just have to work with what's possible. When it comes to things on the scale of figuring out what our impact is on a whole planet...I forgive them for sometimes using models to get extract information and test theories.

Let's reverse here: Do you at least acknowledge there are some benefits to models or is it your opinion that they are completely ineffective in any situation where one must learn about something? You know, like those crazy people who come up with methods to earthquake proof buildings and all the model usage they rely on, both real and virtual?


I have no problem with models in general. I do recognize that the person's bias influences the results.

The earthquake people run actual experiments, or tests if you like that better.

That flawed economics model got the whole world into a lot of hurt. Models can be wrong.
 
2009-01-02 12:16:14 AM
Dufus: The Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen suggested in 2006 that it may be possible to inject artificial sulphate particles into the upper atmosphere - the stratosphere.

Isn't this why we have controls imposed on fuels to limit sulfur - BECAUSE IT WILL CAUSE ACID RAIN

pump water vapour into the air

I thought water vapor caused more global warming

When scientists add iron to "dead" areas of the sea, the result is a phytoplankton bloom which absorbs CO2.

And kills off nearly every other living thing in the area because of the lack of oxygen

put giant tubes into the seas to take surface water rich in dissolved CO2 to lower depths where it will not surface.

I seem to remember something about interfering with normal circulation of ocean currents causing them to change course, possibly increasing the warming at the poles.

scientists suggest it would be possible to deflect sunlight with a giant mirror or a fleet of small mirrors between the Earth and the Sun.

Are these the same guys who wanted giant Mylar mirrors to help focus sunlight onto the poles to warm and melt them back during the discussion of a coming ice age in the 70's?

Seriously, folks, every one of these schemes has a greater chance of making things worse than helping anything. We would probably see better results if all the "experts" stopped flying around spreading their own carbon footprints everywhere going to seminars about who can come up with the most outrageous ideas to try next and got down to trying to figure out new energy sources that are more environmentally friendly.


I agree with you. There are some people out their proposing all sorts of crazy ideas. The don't know if there are any side effects of their cure.

We do not understand the functioning of the planet well enough to just toss up ideas and run with them.
 
2009-01-02 12:19:01 AM
BumpInTheNight: nicksteel: BumpInTheNight: nicksteel: Everyone needs to understand the history and the hidden purpose behind the global warming movement. Yes, a movement. The entire scheme was...

Too long and tasted like tinfoil. If it was economically cheaper to go with green initiatives then the current ones, believe me there wouldn't be as much dis-information floating around about these concepts. Btw uncontexted and cherry picked quotes do not a convincing argument make.

One thing I'll mention though is I expect a world government inevitably, its one of many steps forward towards the human race spreading out into the stars like a sweet sweet star trek world of blue skinned womens and holodecks.

Yea, and how many centuries away until James Tobias Kirk shows up on the scene.

Do your own research and then tell me I am wrong. Those quotes (all true and accurate) provide a look into the thinking of the people heading the movement.

Yup, they want to collectively ensure the planet on a global scale is better off the it is in the hands of a bunch of individual, greedy and gluttonous first world nations who'd sooner nuke one another then make concessions to fix a problem far too large for any individual to accomplish.

I don't think it'd take a single governing body to get good things rolling on this hunk 'o rock, but I will say that leaving the decisions on how and when to implement environmentally neutral concepts vs cheaper but damaging ones in the hands of people who's whole job is to stay in power by providing as many short term solutions as possible to a bunch of near-sighted creatures as us is just not cutting it. Again, the second you find its cheaper to reverse course then to continue on the same path is the same one you see all the misinformation disappear and plans start moving foward. It all comes down to the dollar.


Yes, I am do not want to give my dollar to some guy in a third world nation.

The people in power are not the ones coming up with short term solutions. In fact, they have offered no solutions.
 
2009-01-02 12:19:16 AM
nicksteel: "Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg."

Timothy Ball


You're quoting a dude who's the leader of a group who's known to be a socket puppet lobbying voice for Canadian oil and power company interests? Uh hum, real convincing as to how neutral he is. Bonus points that the very first line of his wikipedia entry includes that he's a skeptic. That and the statement itself is a that he doesn't believe anything is wrong and based on his credentials earned long ago and before he retired you should listen to him.

He sounds like a shill, a very well paid shill.
 
2009-01-02 12:19:43 AM
nicksteel:

Some of the "powers that be" are pushing this because they want a world government.

Hmm. Please, while you're at it, tell me more about your theories about 9/11 so I can ignore you more.

Why do you suppose that the Nobel Award they received was the Peace Prize?? One government makes it difficult to have a war, civil war will be rampant.

I don't recall any scientist winning a peace prize related to climate change.

The data IS public knowledge, you are correct. But the data shows a very tiny increase in temperature for over 100 years. It is not the data that is in question. It is how they have interpreted that data that people object to.

There are a zillion grad students in China and India who could make a name for themselves by challenging ACC *if* the science was good.

There's something telling about the fact that there have not been any serious contenders.
 
2009-01-02 12:22:51 AM
maxheck: I don't recall any scientist winning a peace prize related to climate change.

Technically it was the IPCC, and it received half.
 
2009-01-02 12:23:03 AM
maxheck: nicksteel:

Some of the "powers that be" are pushing this because they want a world government.

Hmm. Please, while you're at it, tell me more about your theories about 9/11 so I can ignore you more.

Why do you suppose that the Nobel Award they received was the Peace Prize?? One government makes it difficult to have a war, civil war will be rampant.

I don't recall any scientist winning a peace prize related to climate change.

The data IS public knowledge, you are correct. But the data shows a very tiny increase in temperature for over 100 years. It is not the data that is in question. It is how they have interpreted that data that people object to.

There are a zillion grad students in China and India who could make a name for themselves by challenging ACC *if* the science was good.

There's something telling about the fact that there have not been any serious contenders.


9/11 was the result of a terrorist attack. The planes were full of real people who died in the crash, not carted off and shot in the back of the head. The government of the USA was NOT involved and it was, in fact, an airplane that hit the pentagon.

All I ask is that you go to google and look into it for yourself. Al Gore is a proponent of a world government and surprise, surprise, so are a lot of the people at the UN.
 
2009-01-02 12:24:37 AM
Jon Snow: maxheck: I don't recall any scientist winning a peace prize related to climate change.

Technically it was the IPCC, and it received half.


The other half went to Al Gore. The people in the movement do not like to discuss or mention him because he has done them more harm than good.
 
2009-01-02 12:27:37 AM
BumpInTheNight: nicksteel: "Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg."

Timothy Ball

You're quoting a dude who's the leader of a group who's known to be a socket puppet lobbying voice for Canadian oil and power company interests? Uh hum, real convincing as to how neutral he is. Bonus points that the very first line of his wikipedia entry includes that he's a skeptic. That and the statement itself is a that he doesn't believe anything is wrong and based on his credentials earned long ago and before he retired you should listen to him.

He sounds like a shill, a very well paid shill.


Of course he is. NOT! Once again, you attack the credibility of the individual and not his statements. That is classic left wing arguing at its best.

We should not listen to him because he is retired? He retired, he did not get a lobotomy. He still has all the knowledge he gathered and the ability to analyze information.
 
2009-01-02 12:27:39 AM
nicksteel:
Yes, I am do not want to give my dollar to some guy in a third world nation.


You really, really don't want to know about all the global aid that for instance the US and other first world countries throw at developing nations and have been for decades then. So that's basically your stance, you're against the federalization of the world's countries because you don't wanna be stuck with higher taxes? In addition because a few people who are passionate about getting some attention put on the world ecology also noted that they see the advantages of solving these things as a single entity you've extrapolated that this is just a sneaky bid for some shadowy league to take over the world or something?

Yup, I knew it tasted like tinfoil.
 
2009-01-02 12:28:04 AM
PoopStain: Well, that's not true, and you are criticizing me for my scientific prowess? You're a goddamn retard.

Dear moron:

Shut the fark up (new window)

Sincerely, people who can do math.

(29.4 Gt divided by .03 Gt may well only be 107 and 2/3, but we're talking a century's worth of carbon dioxide emissions in a single year. I wasn't going for a precise measurement).

nicksteel: The data IS public knowledge, you are correct. But the data shows a very tiny increase in temperature for over 100 years. It is not the data that is in question. It is how they have interpreted that data that people object to.

Over .6 degrees Celsius in a single century is not unprecedented in Earth's history, but previous such rapid warmings were accompanied by massive natural releases of gases and periods of excessively high solar insolation. The rate of increase has also been accelerating.

.6 degrees Celsius is a big deal for global climate. It means an upending of the natural order over vast areas of land.
 
2009-01-02 12:29:07 AM
BumpInTheNight: I have to remember a statement that was made about London long ago which was "It can't keep growing at the rate it is as there'd be simply no place to keep all the horses.", obviously we've found a work around for that and hopefully on a global scale the food will work out much the same way.

You seem like a smart guy, so I wonder why you'd say something like this.

Obviously we replaced horse feed and whale oil with petroleum et al. What's the next replacement for petroleum with: equivalent energy content, equivalent ease-of-storage/transport, and equivalent cost (just pump it out of the ground).

Hint: There is none, and in 100 years of great discovery we're not really close to a replacement.

And nevermind food & oil anyway, clean, drinkable water is going to be hard to get very soon.

Finally let me say that this whole discussion/argument is moot. As a life support vessel for humans, the Earth has already been well farked over: drained of useful resources and polluted to hell. Billions will die in the coming decades as populations become unsustainable and governments will be way too slow to do anything about it. Bet on it.
 
2009-01-02 12:29:33 AM
nicksteel: The people in the movement do not like to discuss or mention him because he has done them more harm than good.

The people discussing the science do not like to discuss or mention him because while he has done a lot to increase public awareness of the subject, he isn't a scientist.

People who spout absurd conspiracy theories about one world government on the other hand...
 
2009-01-02 12:31:20 AM
nicksteel:
Timothy Ball

He sounds like a shill, a very well paid shill.

Of course he is. NOT! Once again, you attack the credibility of the individual and not his statements. That is classic left wing arguing at its best.

We should not listen to him because he is retired? He retired, he did not get a lobotomy. He still has all the knowledge he gathered and the ability to analyze information.


I attack the credibility because without it, he's useless as a neutral scientist. The fact he works for people who want to stop any progress made towards more environmentally neutral strategies essentially makes him useless in that role. Besides he's one scientist among thousands, just go pick another one to quote or something then. Hard to find those that support the skepticism? Perhaps that should be heeded as a sign of some kind.
 
2009-01-02 12:32:50 AM
nicksteel: Of course he is. NOT!

Whining "Nuh uh!" doesn't make it untrue[1]. He is an industry shill and a liar.
 
2009-01-02 12:32:56 AM
BumpInTheNight: nicksteel:
Yes, I am do not want to give my dollar to some guy in a third world nation.

You really, really don't want to know about all the global aid that for instance the US and other first world countries throw at developing nations and have been for decades then. So that's basically your stance, you're against the federalization of the world's countries because you don't wanna be stuck with higher taxes? In addition because a few people who are passionate about getting some attention put on the world ecology also noted that they see the advantages of solving these things as a single entity you've extrapolated that this is just a sneaky bid for some shadowy league to take over the world or something?

Yup, I knew it tasted like tinfoil.


The facts speak for themselves. Their true passion is one global government. Global warming is their tool to achieve it.

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."
- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation


No tin foil, you just need to really look into the people running this movement and their real passion. The believers do not want to mention Al Gore because he doesn't understand or believe in global warming. Why else would he jet around the world to talk about it?
 
2009-01-02 12:33:55 AM
Lemon-Lime Malthus: BumpInTheNight: I have to remember a statement that was made about London long ago which was "It can't keep growing at the rate it is as there'd be simply no place to keep all the horses.", obviously we've found a work around for that and hopefully on a global scale the food will work out much the same way.

You seem like a smart guy, so I wonder why you'd say something like this.

Obviously we replaced horse feed and whale oil with petroleum et al. What's the next replacement for petroleum with: equivalent energy content, equivalent ease-of-storage/transport, and equivalent cost (just pump it out of the ground).

Hint: There is none, and in 100 years of great discovery we're not really close to a replacement.

And nevermind food & oil anyway, clean, drinkable water is going to be hard to get very soon.

Finally let me say that this whole discussion/argument is moot. As a life support vessel for humans, the Earth has already been well farked over: drained of useful resources and polluted to hell. Billions will die in the coming decades as populations become unsustainable and governments will be way too slow to do anything about it. Bet on it.


Aye, I didn't mean to make that come across as anything like holding a position of laisee-faire, just that you never know what'll come around. Its more of a "I hope this crap works out, because right now its looking pretty grim for us on a whole".
 
2009-01-02 12:34:24 AM
IStateTheObvious: Obdicut: PoopStain: Global warming is a goddamn business boon for fake environmentalists. For people who want to make money. No. Other. Reason.

Can you please name two papers published in the past ten years in peer-reviewed climatology journals that dispute AGW?

Can you please name one scientific organization that is not funded by industry or a conservative think tank that disputes AGW?

And who benefits from AGW alarmism? If AGW climatologists came out and said AGW isn't happening, how many of them do you suppose would be out of a job the next day?

Works both ways you know.

/Just sayin


No, that is ridiculous, no climatologist gets a job because of "global warming." Quit parroting talking points.

Chemical, petroleum, coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric industries have billions and billions of dollars of interest in not changing the status quo. If you can't understand that, and cling to an absurd notion that droves of climatology experts would be out of a job tomorrow if GW was disproven, then your view of reality is already farked and there isn't much hope for you being anything but a cog.
 
2009-01-02 12:36:13 AM
Jon Snow: nicksteel: Of course he is. NOT!

Whining "Nuh uh!" doesn't make it untrue[1]. He is an industry shill and a liar.


The problem you have is that people on your side also receive funding. You receive it from people who share your position. Why shouldn't the other side have the same chance??
 
2009-01-02 12:37:41 AM
iaazathot: IStateTheObvious: Obdicut: PoopStain: Global warming is a goddamn business boon for fake environmentalists. For people who want to make money. No. Other. Reason.

Can you please name two papers published in the past ten years in peer-reviewed climatology journals that dispute AGW?

Can you please name one scientific organization that is not funded by industry or a conservative think tank that disputes AGW?

And who benefits from AGW alarmism? If AGW climatologists came out and said AGW isn't happening, how many of them do you suppose would be out of a job the next day?

Works both ways you know.

/Just sayin

No, that is ridiculous, no climatologist gets a job because of "global warming." Quit parroting talking points.

Chemical, petroleum, coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric industries have billions and billions of dollars of interest in not changing the status quo. If you can't understand that, and cling to an absurd notion that droves of climatology experts would be out of a job tomorrow if GW was disproven, then your view of reality is already farked and there isn't much hope for you being anything but a cog.


How does hydro-electric and nuclear energy cause CO2 increases??
 
2009-01-02 12:37:51 AM
nicksteel:

All I ask is that you go to google and look into it for yourself. Al Gore is a proponent of a world government and surprise, surprise, so are a lot of the people at the UN.

Well, I would imagine that the UN *would* be interested in that, given their charter.

You're assuming that the two are related. UNICEF is only interested in child poverty and hunger because it fosters a NWO, WHO is only interested in malaria and polio because it fosters world domination, IPCC only cares about ACC because it's a way to send in the black helicopters.

I'll admit that I didn't know that the IPCC received half of the Nobel Peace Prize. I figured that was all Al Gore's.

The other half went to Al Gore. The people in the movement do not like to discuss or mention him because he has done them more harm than good.

Which is hilarious given how some people think he is some sort of guru or savior for the libtard ACC movement.

Gore did something useful. He brought a problem into public awareness in a way that thousands of scientific papers never would have.

Beyond that... I don't listen to Bono for economic or political advice, I certainly wouldn't go to Gore for scientific advice, and I don't know anyone who would.
 
2009-01-02 12:39:47 AM
maxheck: nicksteel:

All I ask is that you go to google and look into it for yourself. Al Gore is a proponent of a world government and surprise, surprise, so are a lot of the people at the UN.

Well, I would imagine that the UN *would* be interested in that, given their charter.

You're assuming that the two are related. UNICEF is only interested in child poverty and hunger because it fosters a NWO, WHO is only interested in malaria and polio because it fosters world domination, IPCC only cares about ACC because it's a way to send in the black helicopters.

I'll admit that I didn't know that the IPCC received half of the Nobel Peace Prize. I figured that was all Al Gore's.

The other half went to Al Gore. The people in the movement do not like to discuss or mention him because he has done them more harm than good.

Which is hilarious given how some people think he is some sort of guru or savior for the libtard ACC movement.

Gore did something useful. He brought a problem into public awareness in a way that thousands of scientific papers never would have.

Beyond that... I don't listen to Bono for economic or political advice, I certainly wouldn't go to Gore for scientific advice, and I don't know anyone who would.


The message that Al Gore spread is a lie.
 
2009-01-02 12:39:52 AM
At one time a majority of scientists backed the validity of phrenology, eugenics, bloodletting and a host of other "scientifically proven methodologies" that are known to be false. Yet we are supposed to take anything said by anyone claiming to be a climate expert without any kind of question?
In the 70's we were going into an imminent ice age, in the 80's our oceans fisheries would be completely wiped out in ten years if we did not immediately stop all harvesting and in the 90's we had already passed the tipping point on the ozone layer and acid rain.
We are a flawed species at best and we are not always good stewards to what we have. But anyone who does not see that not all the people who are screaming the loudest about the issue may have other motives are just as blind as people in complete denial to any problem.
All any of us can truly do is what you think is right. But don't assume that some intergovernmental agency is going to come to the rescue and that they only have the most noble of intentions to protect their fellow man.
 
2009-01-02 12:42:30 AM
nicksteel: No tin foil, you just need to really look into the people running this movement and their real passion.

The physics relating to the warming properties of greenhouse gases were described well over 100 years ago[1][2][3][4]. Would you care to explain via what mechanism Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, et al. foresaw the future in order to fabricate the evidence underlying this conspiracy?
 
2009-01-02 12:44:18 AM
Jon Snow: nicksteel: The people in the movement do not like to discuss or mention him because he has done them more harm than good.

The people discussing the science do not like to discuss or mention him because while he has done a lot to increase public awareness of the subject, he isn't a scientist.

People who spout absurd conspiracy theories about one world government on the other hand...


There is nothing absurd about it. I dare you to do some REAL research. Make a list of the big organizations that support your movement and see how many of them also want to destroy democracy. How many want to set up a global government. I did half the research for you by providing statements that they made.

What have you got to lose? Why do you insist that the other side is dead wrong and their ideas are not open for discussion. That is not a sound scientific approach. It is, however, a damned good political one.
 
2009-01-02 12:46:18 AM
Jon Snow: nicksteel: No tin foil, you just need to really look into the people running this movement and their real passion.

The physics relating to the warming properties of greenhouse gases were described well over 100 years ago[1][2][3][4]. Would you care to explain via what mechanism Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, et al. foresaw the future in order to fabricate the evidence underlying this conspiracy?


WHY?? The debate is not about the validity of greenhouse gases, everybody knows that they exist and that we would all be dead without them. The debate is whether or not man is influencing the environment and what the ultimate impact will be.
 
2009-01-02 12:47:05 AM
Bundyman: In the 70's we were going into an imminent ice age

That was only played up in the media, NOT in the scientific papers.

Bundyman: in the 80's our oceans fisheries would be completely wiped out in ten years if we did not immediately stop all harvesting

Erm, many of our fisheries did collapse. Look at what happened to the Grand Banks. You're exaggerating far beyond what the consensus of people in the field said, and their actual predictions came true.

Bundyman: in the 90's we had already passed the tipping point on the ozone layer and acid rain.

With respect to the ozone layer, it is still weakening, albeit at a slower rate as the CFCs finally start to break down. But acid rain is still a substantial problem, alleviated only because we invested tens of billions of dollars in reducing sulfur emissions.

nicksteel: The message that Al Gore spread is a lie.

Sure, kid. The massive change in the isotopic distribution of carbon in the atmosphere, the massive increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and a full .6 degree Celsius degree warming across the entire damn world, coupled with sea level rise, is all a lie. It's all a big conspiracy.
 
2009-01-02 12:48:00 AM
nicksteel: The problem you have is that people on your side also receive funding. You receive it from people who share your position.

Once again, you have literally no idea how science funding works.
 
2009-01-02 12:49:06 AM
nicksteel: maxheck: nicksteel:

All I ask is that you go to google and look into it for yourself. Al Gore is a proponent of a world government and surprise, surprise, so are a lot of the people at the UN.

Well, I would imagine that the UN *would* be interested in that, given their charter.

You're assuming that the two are related. UNICEF is only interested in child poverty and hunger because it fosters a NWO, WHO is only interested in malaria and polio because it fosters world domination, IPCC only cares about ACC because it's a way to send in the black helicopters.

I'll admit that I didn't know that the IPCC received half of the Nobel Peace Prize. I figured that was all Al Gore's.

The other half went to Al Gore. The people in the movement do not like to discuss or mention him because he has done them more harm than good.

Which is hilarious given how some people think he is some sort of guru or savior for the libtard ACC movement.

Gore did something useful. He brought a problem into public awareness in a way that thousands of scientific papers never would have.

Beyond that... I don't listen to Bono for economic or political advice, I certainly wouldn't go to Gore for scientific advice, and I don't know anyone who would.

The message that Al Gore spread is a lie.


Well then at least its a very convincing lie, as I continue to believe it. He's an excellent speaker and a great spokesman for all the hard work scientists have done over the past decades, that presentation Inconvenient truth? Great stuff.

So lets come out with it, what makes more sense to you?

A) Thousands of new coal plants opening in China is not a good thing for the environment.
B) The Illuminati are alive and still 'trying' to secure world domination with unknown goals beyond that like a bad bond villain?

Oh yah and even if B were true, your best argument against that sort of theoretical situation is that we in the first world would get taxed heavier.
 
2009-01-02 12:49:16 AM
captainktainer: Bundyman: In the 70's we were going into an imminent ice age

That was only played up in the media, NOT in the scientific papers.

Bundyman: in the 80's our oceans fisheries would be completely wiped out in ten years if we did not immediately stop all harvesting

Erm, many of our fisheries did collapse. Look at what happened to the Grand Banks. You're exaggerating far beyond what the consensus of people in the field said, and their actual predictions came true.

Bundyman: in the 90's we had already passed the tipping point on the ozone layer and acid rain.

With respect to the ozone layer, it is still weakening, albeit at a slower rate as the CFCs finally start to break down. But acid rain is still a substantial problem, alleviated only because we invested tens of billions of dollars in reducing sulfur emissions.

nicksteel: The message that Al Gore spread is a lie.

Sure, kid. The massive change in the isotopic distribution of carbon in the atmosphere, the massive increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and a full .6 degree Celsius degree warming across the entire damn world, coupled with sea level rise, is all a lie. It's all a big conspiracy.


You are avoiding the real issue. Is man responsible and what is the ultimate impact going to be.

A .6 degree increase in a time span of 100 years doesn't alarm me, why does it scare the crap out of you??
 
2009-01-02 12:50:03 AM
Sigh why do you bother nicksteel? You say the same crap over and over again and you always get smacked down hard in every thread. Are you being paid to do this or?
 
2009-01-02 12:50:16 AM
nicksteel: How does hydro-electric and nuclear energy cause CO2 increases??


I just wanted to point out that power plants and dams don't pop out of nowhere. They have significant construction cost, including concrete production.

TINSTAAFL: Cement industry plants release over 5% of carbon dioxide emissions

In general, construction requires lots of fossil fuels (equipment, trucks, etc)
 
2009-01-02 12:50:18 AM
nicksteel: Jon Snow: nicksteel: No tin foil, you just need to really look into the people running this movement and their real passion.

The physics relating to the warming properties of greenhouse gases were described well over 100 years ago[1][2][3][4]. Would you care to explain via what mechanism Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, et al. foresaw the future in order to fabricate the evidence underlying this conspiracy?

WHY?? The debate is not about the validity of greenhouse gases, everybody knows that they exist and that we would all be dead without them. The debate is whether or not man is influencing the environment and what the ultimate impact will be.


Well, given that you accept Fourier and Tyndall's science, and given that you must accept that humanity has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, then you can't possibly debate whether or not we've influenced the environment. Why are you going on about conspiracies when the evidence is clear as day before you?
 
2009-01-02 12:50:52 AM
DID ANYONE RTFA? THIS GUY IS THE ONE WHO CAME UP WITH THE IDEA THAT THE EARTH IS A LIVING ORGANISM. IGNORE THIS IDIOT!
 
2009-01-02 12:52:05 AM
BumpInTheNight: nicksteel: maxheck: nicksteel:

All I ask is that you go to google and look into it for yourself. Al Gore is a proponent of a world government and surprise, surprise, so are a lot of the people at the UN.

Well, I would imagine that the UN *would* be interested in that, given their charter.

You're assuming that the two are related. UNICEF is only interested in child poverty and hunger because it fosters a NWO, WHO is only interested in malaria and polio because it fosters world domination, IPCC only cares about ACC because it's a way to send in the black helicopters.

I'll admit that I didn't know that the IPCC received half of the Nobel Peace Prize. I figured that was all Al Gore's.

The other half went to Al Gore. The people in the movement do not like to discuss or mention him because he has done them more harm than good.

Which is hilarious given how some people think he is some sort of guru or savior for the libtard ACC movement.

Gore did something useful. He brought a problem into public awareness in a way that thousands of scientific papers never would have.

Beyond that... I don't listen to Bono for economic or political advice, I certainly wouldn't go to Gore for scientific advice, and I don't know anyone who would.

The message that Al Gore spread is a lie.

Well then at least its a very convincing lie, as I continue to believe it. He's an excellent speaker and a great spokesman for all the hard work scientists have done over the past decades, that presentation Inconvenient truth? Great stuff.

So lets come out with it, what makes more sense to you?

A) Thousands of new coal plants opening in China is not a good thing for the environment.
B) The Illuminati are alive and still 'trying' to secure world domination with unknown goals beyond that like a bad bond villain?

Oh yah and even if B were true, your best argument against that sort of theoretical situation is that we in the first world would get taxed heavier.


The UN already stated that the "rich" countries were going to have to give money to the "poor" countries so those countries can implement the Kyoto Protacols.
 
2009-01-02 12:53:32 AM
nicksteel:

The message that Al Gore spread is a lie.

Yes, your opinion is noted. Care to back it up?
 
2009-01-02 12:54:04 AM
nicksteel: You are avoiding the real issue. Is man responsible and what is the ultimate impact going to be.

A .6 degree increase in a time span of 100 years doesn't alarm me, why does it scare the crap out of you??


Because the average temperature of the Earth is only between 13.8 and 14.6 degrees Celsius, and a .6 degree change in paleoclimatology almost always takes thousands or tens of thousands of years to accomplish. And because the real-world effects that we can measure - melting glaciers, melting ice caps, massive changes in vegetation, mass dieoffs and bleaching of coral - are happening at a rate far faster than most of the biosphere can adapt.
 
2009-01-02 12:55:44 AM
captainktainer: nicksteel: Jon Snow: nicksteel: No tin foil, you just need to really look into the people running this movement and their real passion.

The physics relating to the warming properties of greenhouse gases were described well over 100 years ago[1][2][3][4]. Would you care to explain via what mechanism Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, et al. foresaw the future in order to fabricate the evidence underlying this conspiracy?

WHY?? The debate is not about the validity of greenhouse gases, everybody knows that they exist and that we would all be dead without them. The debate is whether or not man is influencing the environment and what the ultimate impact will be.

Well, given that you accept Fourier and Tyndall's science, and given that you must accept that humanity has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, then you can't possibly debate whether or not we've influenced the environment. Why are you going on about conspiracies when the evidence is clear as day before you?


It might be clear to you, but not to me. Point me in the direction of the impact that the man made increase has had on the environment. All you have in a .6 degree increase over 100 years. To me, that shows stability.

There is no evidence that proves that the climate is going to behave in the manner predicted. Why should I blindly accept their theory and ignore people who disagree with them?
 
2009-01-02 12:56:02 AM
nicksteel: Make a list of the big organizations that support your movement

I don't have or belong to a "movement".

nicksteel: The debate is whether or not man is influencing the environment and what the ultimate impact will be.

There is no "debate" in the primary literature about whether or not we are increasing the concentrations of known greenhouse gases. The "ultimate impact" doesn't have to be known definitively in order to invoke the precautionary principle.
 
2009-01-02 12:56:39 AM
nicksteel: The UN already stated that the "rich" countries were going to have to give money to the "poor" countries so those countries can implement the Kyoto Protacols.

And?

Rich countries give huge cash to poor countries constantly already, how would this be any different? Oh right, at least by investing in that particular aspect the rich country's coastlines won't be 20 feet under water at the end of the day. Seriously you're big hang-up is foreign aid? Are you serious? As you keep saying, go do your own research...and as long as your head doesn't explode by what you encounter I hope perhaps you'll see this is pretty much just par for the course.
 
2009-01-02 12:57:33 AM
Bundyman: "At one time a majority of scientists backed the validity of phrenology, eugenics, bloodletting and a host of other "scientifically proven methodologies" that are known to be false."

I don't understand how you can believe eugenics is false when you've no doubt seen the wide variety of pet dogs in the world. How do you think they came to be? Do you even know what eugenics is? It's animal husbandry as applied to human beings. We actually retain many services based on eugenic principles, like sperm banks (which offer up information about the donors to aid in the selection process) in vitro fertilization, prenatal screening and so on.

So yes of course it works, it's just impossible to implement without violating human rights on a nationwide scale. Many things in science are like this; true and workable, but so unethical/out of line with social moores that they are buried, and we're led to believe that it was junk science all along.
 
2009-01-02 12:58:03 AM
captainktainer: nicksteel: You are avoiding the real issue. Is man responsible and what is the ultimate impact going to be.

A .6 degree increase in a time span of 100 years doesn't alarm me, why does it scare the crap out of you??

Because the average temperature of the Earth is only between 13.8 and 14.6 degrees Celsius, and a .6 degree change in paleoclimatology almost always takes thousands or tens of thousands of years to accomplish. And because the real-world effects that we can measure - melting glaciers, melting ice caps, massive changes in vegetation, mass dieoffs and bleaching of coral - are happening at a rate far faster than most of the biosphere can adapt.


That is pure bullshiat. Go to your refrigerator and increase the temperature of the freezer by 1 degree and see if the ice melts.

You've either bought into their line of crap or you actually do share theie agenda.
 
2009-01-02 01:01:40 AM
BumpInTheNight: nicksteel: The UN already stated that the "rich" countries were going to have to give money to the "poor" countries so those countries can implement the Kyoto Protacols.

And?

Rich countries give huge cash to poor countries constantly already, how would this be any different? Oh right, at least by investing in that particular aspect the rich country's coastlines won't be 20 feet under water at the end of the day. Seriously you're big hang-up is foreign aid? Are you serious? As you keep saying, go do your own research...and as long as your head doesn't explode by what you encounter I hope perhaps you'll see this is pretty much just par for the course.


Rich countries do GIVE huge amounts of cash. The UN insists upon it.

This is not foreign aid. This is a worldwide redistribution of wealth. This is lowering YOUR standard of living so the people in the third world can improve theirs. Noble idea, no doubt. But I did not work my ass off for 40 years just to give it all away.
 
2009-01-02 01:02:01 AM
nicksteel: All you have in a .6 degree increase over 100 years. To me, that shows stability.

We also have a paleoclimatic record which shows anything but should we continue down this path. Can you please explain what large negative feedbacks exist in the climate system that will prevent the Earth from reaching temperatures around +3C should we double preindustrial carbon?

This is also completely ignoring the effects of ocean acidification that will occur regardless of whether we try to offset the warming via aerosol dimming.
 
2009-01-02 01:04:02 AM
As a point of passing interest, I was bored on a recent trip and worked out just how long it would take the entire output of the Hoover Dam to heat the lake behind it by 1 degree C.

A bit of Wiki'ing later and some Excel work, and it turns out to be 13 months plus change.

Lake Mead is sort of tiny as lakes go. One can hardly see it on a map of the world.

Which leads one to wonder just how many horsepower is involved in warming the entire planet's atmosphere 0.6 degrees.
 
2009-01-02 01:04:33 AM
nicksteel: It might be clear to you, but not to me. Point me in the direction of the impact that the man made increase has had on the environment. All you have in a .6 degree increase over 100 years. To me, that shows stability.

Have fun reading (new window). I mean, a simple Google search is all you need.

nicksteel: There is no evidence that proves that the climate is going to behave in the manner predicted. Why should I blindly accept their theory and ignore people who disagree with them?

They do publish their research in peer reviewed journals, you know. It's not like actually reading the actual data will hurt you. You could always try to disprove anthropogenic global warming, just as you could try to disprove Einstein's theory of special relativity. People still do experiments and gather observational data to verify or attempt to disprove Einsteinian physics, and people still do experiments and gather observational data to verify or attempt to disprove anthropogenic global warming. You could try getting an education and be part of the solution, or you could continue nattering on about how global warming is all just a massive conspiracy. Your choice, really.

nicksteel: That is pure bullshiat. Go to your refrigerator and increase the temperature of the freezer by 1 degree and see if the ice melts.

Erm... if my freezer is set to 31 degrees, then some of the ice will, indeed, melt. Hell, with a refrigerator (not freezer) set to 34 degrees, changes in the distribution of items within the body of the fridge is sometimes all that's needed to cause some items to freeze and some to melt. If I put the milk in front of the major cooling vents in the fridge, it will begin to freeze. If I move it away from those cooling vents, it will melt again. We've moved the milk away from the vents on a global scale; hence why portions of the Arctic permafrost that haven't melted in hundreds of thousands of years are thawing out.
 
2009-01-02 01:05:01 AM
nicksteel: That is pure bullshiat. Go to your refrigerator and increase the temperature of the freezer by 1 degree and see if the ice melts.

You've either bought into their line of crap or you actually do share theie agenda.


Does this sound familiar to anyone?

"There's no way those steel supports could have melted and brought down the twin towers. I tried it with a cinderblock and chickenwire in my backyard"

img117.imageshack.us
 
Displayed 50 of 244 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report