Page 93 of 111 FirstFirst ... 43838889909192939495969798103 ... LastLast
Results 1,841 to 1,860 of 2209
  1. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1841  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Your point said we can never prove anything because we don't know what happened in the last 4 billion years. Any change we see can never be significant because we don't have anything to compare it to.
    No, you said that. What I said was that Bujin can't very well make the claim that temps over the last decade (a 2% sample at the most) don't mean that climate change isn't man made because we have other data, consisting of a much, much smaller data set, that says climate change is man made.
  2. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1842  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Since when did they start doing climate change research--a field awash with money?
    I don't know what that has to do with the fact that the climate change lobby has a lot of money and political backing.
  3. #1844  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    [...] Last year, Mexican coasts were affected. We've had hurricanes affect US coasts very recently. Ask anyone older who grew up in Florida. They will tell you hurricanes never used to affect its coasts [...]
    Why do you resort to anecdotal arguments if the data is on your side? Surely you can point to some actual data showing that hurricanes have only recently started pounding the Florida coast when they never did before?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. edrdoberts's Avatar
    Posts
    8 Posts
    Global Posts
    42 Global Posts
    #1845  
    My thoughts as a meteorologist:

    Is climate changing? Absolutely! ... of course it has ALWAYS changed and will change no matter what we do as humans.

    Is the globe warming? Yes, despite the fact that global temperatures have fallen over the last decade or so (not sure where the RECORD warm decade report came from in Copenhagen this week. Several studies have shown a cooling trend over the last decade. Maybe I missed something, but it was quite a shock when I heard that report).

    Is there a link between CO2 and global temperatures? YES! Unfortunately, in all the ice cores taken, a rise in global temperatures precedes a rise in CO2 by about 400 years. From a historical perspective, that means CO2 is not a cause of global warming, but an effect of it. There has been MORE CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now. Somehow life on the planet continued on.

    We don't know everything about our changing climate. But despite what the man-made supporters say, the science is FAR from settled. When those claims started being made, you started to hear complaints and debate. Until that point, most that didn't buy the man-made argument simply dealt with it because there's nothing wrong with being better stewards of our environment.

    ... And that's the most important thing. It's GREAT that we are paying more attention to the environment. You can argue about the fact that global warming is a many multi-billion dollar a year industry and the junk the governments may be doing, but the environment is hopefully going to benefit in the end. At least that's the hope.
  5. #1846  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Sadly, the "other factors...that are causing climate change" are often made up by big oil-supported "think tanks" that try to refute the mountains of evidence supporting climate change with their own "facts."

    There is a strong financial incentive to refute climate change--and they will try all they can to confuse the public with nonsense science. I've seen it in the healthcare debate, previously in the "does smoking cause cancer" and "is there acid rain" debate, and now in the climate change debate.
    And I guess there's nil financial support to promote AGW?
  6. #1847  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    It could go two ways:

    1) If climate change is truly a global hoax, taking measures to find alternate fuels would lead us to energy independence and stopping pollution. There would be whole sectors of jobs relates to alternative fuels. I assume we would be relying more on nuclear energy so there may be a few nuclear mishaps. We would also need to find places for nuclear waste.
    Wrong. Pollution will not be stopped. You even stated so (nuclear waste). Do you honestly think that there is no pollution associated with the production/use of alternate fuels? It's more a matter of which is more detrimental to our environment.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    2) If climate change is manmade by the burning of fossil fuels, doing nothing would lead to the continued melting of glaciers, rise of ocean waters, covering of island countries and parts of continents, loss of fresh water supplies for much of the world's population, changes in weather patterns causing problems in areas not used to such weather (heat waves in Europe, hurricanes decimating North American coasts, shrinking animal habitats, wine growing in England--all of which have already started, by the way...etc.), increased wars as people flight over the remaining resources.
    Huge assumption.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The only bad side I see to alternative fuels is big oil won't make so much profit and be the reason we fight wars in the middle east...and that's not so bad.
    Or we could drill for our own oil. We've got it (I used to think the reason we don't drill our own might be that we're willing to drain everybody else's first). We can do it in an a more environmentally sound manner than most anyone else. One main reason we produce more pollution (aka "oxygen" (CO2)) for plant life is, in general, we're more wasteful (check out Al Gore's carbon footprint). I've got nothing against "legitimate" profit. Either way, there's still "pollution"; there's really no way to stop it. We could all expire, of course, and let the earth clean up the last of our ***** (Kool-Aid, anyone?).
  7. #1848  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    It could go two ways:

    1) If climate change is truly a global hoax, taking measures to find alternate fuels would lead us to energy independence and stopping pollution. There would be whole sectors of jobs relates to alternative fuels. I assume we would be relying more on nuclear energy so there may be a few nuclear mishaps. We would also need to find places for nuclear waste.

    2) If climate change is manmade by the burning of fossil fuels, doing nothing would lead to the continued melting of glaciers, rise of ocean waters, covering of island countries and parts of continents, loss of fresh water supplies for much of the world's population, changes in weather patterns causing problems in areas not used to such weather (heat waves in Europe, hurricanes decimating North American coasts, shrinking animal habitats, wine growing in England--all of which have already started, by the way...etc.), increased wars as people flight over the remaining resources.

    The only bad side I see to alternative fuels is big oil won't make so much profit and be the reason we fight wars in the middle east...and that's not so bad.
    Oh, and I think Woof asked for facts....
  8. #1849  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Last year, Mexican coasts were affected. We've had hurricanes affect US coasts very recently. Ask anyone older who grew up in Florida. They will tell you hurricanes never used to affect its coasts.
    You're kidding about this, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    We're not at war with countries you mention because they give us their oil without problems. When a country with oil causes problems, we intervene (The Gulf War, the Iraq War). We don't fight Alaska because it's one of our own states...duh.
    As far as I know, nobody gives us oil.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    If we had energy independence, we wouldn't care who killed whom in the Middle East.
    You wouldn't care??? Not very empathetic, are you?
  9. #1851  
    Of course you realize that guy is just an ***** and that's just an opinion. His knowledge of weather patterns and ocean climates and hurricanes is not at all relevant to the subject.

    How did I do? Did I sound like a liberal climate nut job for a second?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  10. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1852  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Of course you realize that guy is just an ***** and that's just an opinion. His knowledge of weather patterns and ocean climates and hurricanes is not at all relevant to the subject.

    How did I do? Did I sound like a liberal climate nut job for a second?
    Close, but you didn't quite cloak your disdain for all forms of dissent in enough moral indignation and condescending aphorisms.
  11. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1853  
    Quote Originally Posted by edroberts View Post
    ... And that's the most important thing. It's GREAT that we are paying more attention to the environment. You can argue about the fact that global warming is a many multi-billion dollar a year industry and the junk the governments may be doing, but the environment is hopefully going to benefit in the end. At least that's the hope.
    Two points... I agree that it would be a great thing to have a cleaner environment. Period. The problem is that their approach, driven by false "science" models and hype, i.e., "CAP AND TAX", is exactly what we cannot afford at this time. That bill is about wealth redistribution in the name of saving the environment.

    Point two. There should be an investigation into the model programs they used to base this junk science on. Out of that should come an open peer review process. No more of this "concensus science" garbage, either. That term (and any of its replacements) should be banned.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  12. #1854  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    We already know that the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels is detrimental to our environment. Alternatives may be bad, but so far, nothing matches the damage that CO2 does.






    It's not the drilling that's the big problem (although drilling does disrupt local ecosystems); it's the burning.
    CO2 is a byproduct of carbon based life forms. We exhale it all day. Without it all plant life would die. Without said plant life there would be no oxygen for us to breathe.

    CO2 is bad how. Without it we die. This is 8th grade science.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  13. #1855  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Woof's question was utterly hypothetical. How can you demand facts for conjecture?

    Now let me ask a question: What would happen if there really were man-made climate change due to burning fossil fuels and we did nothing to stop it?

    I want facts!

    (Does that sound as stupid as Woof's demand sounded?)
    Sorry your question is stupid and nothing but conjecture.

    Although you are more than willing to support the global hysteria that without fixing the 'problem' we'll all die.

    And your conjecture is better why?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  14. #1856  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    CO2 is bad how. Without it we die. This is 8th grade science.
    Well, as long as we're making decisions based upon 8th grade science....I'm much more comfortable now that we have entirely dismissed those with greater expertise. Barely missed the bullet there!



    Someone could actually try to explain why CO2 can both be something we exhale, and yet still be a danger on a global scale, but folks would then start another couple of pages about why that data isn't valid, the scientists are actually part of the Illuminati, and the US Geological Society (as well as every scientific organization - even the ones in other countries) are pawns of the U.S. Democratic Party.

    But haven't we already done that enough?
    Last edited by Bujin; 12/10/2009 at 08:22 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  15. #1857  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Well, as long as we're making decisions based upon 8th grade science....I'm much more comfortable now that we have entirely dismissed those with greater expertise. Barely missed the bullet there!



    Someone could actually try to explain why CO2 can both be something we exhale, and yet still be a danger on a global scale, but folks would then start another couple of pages about why that data isn't valid, the scientists are actually part of the Illuminati, and the US Geological Society (as well as every scientific organization - even the ones in other countries) are pawns of the U.S. Democratic Party.

    But haven't we already done that enough?
    Oh I'm sorry, I didnt consult one of your experts. Where was that list...

    Regardless of the level of scientific expertise, CO2 is still CO2. The gas needed by all plant life to produce oxygen. It doesnt have to be complicated to be true. Without CO2 the plants die. No plants no oxygen, we die.

    I am sorry you are too smart or over educated to get the basics.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  16. #1858  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Well, as long as we're making decisions based upon 8th grade science....I'm much more comfortable now that we have entirely dismissed those with greater expertise. Barely missed the bullet there!



    Someone could actually try to explain why CO2 can both be something we exhale, and yet still be a danger on a global scale, but folks would then start another couple of pages about why that data isn't valid, the scientists are actually part of the Illuminati, and the US Geological Society (as well as every scientific organization - even the ones in other countries) are pawns of the U.S. Democratic Party.

    But haven't we already done that enough?
    From your link, emphasis mine:
    Specifically, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years, and probably higher than at any time in the past 30 million years.
    Definitive science that "probably". I feel so much better having read that.

    If I tell you as a certified marriage counselor that your wife is probably cheating on you are you going to dump her, even though I have never met her or likely ever will?

    Same as those scientists will never have any more than a guess about 30 million years ago. But you buy right into that.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  17. #1859  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    And I said--yes, we can! We have related temperatures directly to amount of co2 in the air. The amount of co2 has risen more and more--far more than it ever has in the last thousands of years. The last decade has been the hottest because of the high amount of co2 in the air.

    We also know that burning fossil fuels releases CO2 and the atmosphere traps it. We have also seen the significant rise occur directly when the industrial revolution started.
    How do you know that CO2 levels haven`t reached these levels hundreds of thousands of years ago? How can these "scientists" prove that this is not part of a cyclical process which has already taken place hundreds of times in the past and like a pendulum rebalanced itself? There is absolutely no way to correlate how much our production is contributing to "climate change"

    These are incredibly dishonest reports by armchair liberal hacks and the leftist media in general. They will try to scare you with doomsday claims that the world will end and that the glaciers are disappearing. They will SELECTIVELY present CERTAIN pieces of data from scientific reports that fit their agenda showing that ice caps have gone through a receding phase. What they curiously FAIL to report from those same reports is the data showing that they have RECOVERED.


    Lets let that part sink in a while...



    You won`t hear Al Gore talking about this as he drives any one of his 3 or 4 suvs to his chem trail belching private jets en route to his nobel prize winning speech focused on a dishonest science documentary with 9 glaring factual errors presented. Truly an inconvenient truth for Gore.


    History shows that glaciers present in the European alps thousands of years ago didnt just recede during the medieval times, they DISAPPEARED! They returned en masse over time. What, are you going to say the medieval humans had something to do with that disappearance? Were they rubbing too many sticks together back then?

    Warming has been occurring for the past 150 years. I don`t think horse and buggies triggered this pattern. Storms and catastrophes have been occurring for millions of years but suddenly, according to Al Gore and the liberals, a natural event is a sign of doomsday and the next ice age. REAL science states that a tenth of a degree rise in temp will increase plants` production, which will increase growth and yield, leading to and increase in oxygen output. Increased plant life leads to more absorption of CO2 by plant life, the very essential molecule that these doomsday chicken hawk liberals are trying to say is "dangerous".

    These scientists present these data pools to the alarmist politicians but do these scientists take into account volcanic activity as a contributing factor? Do they take into account cycles of volcanic and glacial activity that have taken place for thousands of years rather than simply what has happened in the past 50 or less?!

    Do these scientists account for sun cycles? How about the eccentric orbit of the earth around the sun which does not stay constant? Axial tilt has an effect. Sometimes the orbit goes inward toward the sun while at other stages of earth`s history its outward. These alarmists claim that increased CO2 will trap heat within our atmosphere causing temperature to rise, when in fact the pace of heat radiated into space has actually been increasing for the past 20 years.

    Its unfortunate when politicians spin scientific fact for political gain and posturing. Its the height of dishonesty.
    Last edited by treobk214; 12/11/2009 at 02:02 AM.
  18. #1860  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    From your link, emphasis mine:


    Definitive science that "probably". I feel so much better having read that.

    If I tell you as a certified marriage counselor that your wife is probably cheating on you are you going to dump her, even though I have never met her or likely ever will?

    Same as those scientists will never have any more than a guess about 30 million years ago. But you buy right into that.
    Well said. I don`t think the word "probably" is very conclusive in the scientific method. Love the avatar, by the way.

Posting Permissions