30 Second Political Solutions: Global Warming (2510 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.48 on 142 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Razor <Jeremy_21117.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2007-04-30 10:36:41 EDT
OK, despite generally overwhelming evidence that global warming is caused by human beings, let's step back and pretend that science is split right down the middle.
Let's also say there are two extremes:
1. We need to make any sacrifice to resolve Global Warming.
2. Global Warming is total bullshit, let's do nothing.
Now, let's examine the consequences of each one being wrong.
1. We as a species are economically poorer than we might have been, and we feel pretty sheepish about the panicky science of the early 21st century.
2. Earth turns into Venus.
Really stop and think about the following question: would you play one spin of Russian Roulette for $10,000?
Verdict:
We need to address Global Warming even if it turns out we were wrong.
Problem solved.
P.S.
On an unrelated note, a couple of days ago Firefly and I were talking about people on Uber we would want to hang out with but hadn't met, and I mentioned Caulaincourt, and a frog hopped onto my foot moments later. Coincidence? I think not.
User Reviews
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-05-04 00:12:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2007-05-03 11:02:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
3. Yes, C02 and the global temperature are related...
BUT, you have the order backwards.
C02 levels rise 800-1000 years after a raise in global temperature. C02 is actually released by the oceans which take nearly a millenium to raise temperature (They`re just that big). C02 comes AFTER temperature raise! Naturally.
4. Global warming is occuring...
On Mars.
It seems that the entire solar sytem is heating up. Although the data on planetary and lunary (not a word) temperatures in the solar system is sketchy at best, it does seem that many planets and moons are heating up in sync with earth.
0--------0
Both of these items have been debunked as falsehoods.
________________________________--
No they bloody haven't.....well, I don't know about the mars and other planets one but I have seen a LOT of data backing up the CO2 after temperature theory and the counter argument of differing starters with CO2 taken over doesn't work because CO2 also follows temperature at the peaks when they start to fall again......
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2007-05-03 23:58:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2007-05-03 11:02:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
3. Yes, C02 and the global temperature are related...
BUT, you have the order backwards.
C02 levels rise 800-1000 years after a raise in global temperature. C02 is actually released by the oceans which take nearly a millenium to raise temperature (They`re just that big). C02 comes AFTER temperature raise! Naturally.
4. Global warming is occuring...
On Mars.
It seems that the entire solar sytem is heating up. Although the data on planetary and lunary (not a word) temperatures in the solar system is sketchy at best, it does seem that many planets and moons are heating up in sync with earth.
0--------0
Both of these items have been debunked as falsehoods.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
I`ll admit #4 is a weak arguement (I said myself the science was sketchy), but why number 3?
Cool quote : "What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the only
thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes" Dr.
Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the National
Academy of Sciences
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2007-05-03 11:02:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
3. Yes, C02 and the global temperature are related...
BUT, you have the order backwards.
C02 levels rise 800-1000 years after a raise in global temperature. C02 is actually released by the oceans which take nearly a millenium to raise temperature (They`re just that big). C02 comes AFTER temperature raise! Naturally.
4. Global warming is occuring...
On Mars.
It seems that the entire solar sytem is heating up. Although the data on planetary and lunary (not a word) temperatures in the solar system is sketchy at best, it does seem that many planets and moons are heating up in sync with earth.
0--------0
Both of these items have been debunked as falsehoods.
Submitted by manic_impressive (user info) at 2007-05-03 00:03:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2007-05-02 23:37:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
___
Whoa!
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2007-05-02 23:37:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
1. Most scientists whose name is officially atributed to agree with global warming aren`t necessarily agreeing with global warming.
That report with `2500 of the worlds leading scientists` was actually written up by a handful, and then had all the other scientists names attributed to it based on the fact they `contributed` by simply being present at a big meet on global warming. Some have gotten their name off after threatening legal action, but the majority remain.
2.Global climate shifts are about as common as (insert something humourously common here).
300-400 years ago the Thames was frozen over... 300-400 years before that they were growing grapes in London (and farms on Greenland).
3. Yes, C02 and the global temperature are related...
BUT, you have the order backwards.
C02 levels rise 800-1000 years after a raise in global temperature. C02 is actually released by the oceans which take nearly a millenium to raise temperature (They`re just that big). C02 comes AFTER temperature raise! Naturally.
4. Global warming is occuring...
On Mars.
It seems that the entire solar sytem is heating up. Although the data on planetary and lunary (not a word) temperatures in the solar system is sketchy at best, it does seem that many planets and moons are heating up in sync with earth.
5. Using solar activity to predict the weather has turned out more predictable than using Earthal activity as an indicator (again, not a word).
It would seem that the sun (that giant ball 333,000 times the Earths mass; that seems to be able to warm and cool the earth by a good 20 or so degrees every 24 hour cycle) is contributing to Earths heating. Us little ants aren`t as important as we think and should stop making Africans use solar and wind power, an energy source they cannot afford and isn`t reliable.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-05-01 16:38:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
30 Second Answer:
Nuclear Power.
<ding ding ding>
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2007-05-01 13:39:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Was I one?
:(
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2007-05-01 09:49:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
It's easy to complain when you have no solution.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-01 09:06:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
shut up, i was having fun
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2007-05-01 06:27:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul, sometimes you take things too far. If you're trying to suggest that bob googled Pascal's wager, I can tell you reasonable evidence that he didn't. Of all the things he *may* have googled, it wasn't that. He's talked about Pascal's wager and philosophy a couple times these past few months.
1. He mentioned he's taking it early in the morning on a Perkman post.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/98229#2295681
2. He's already talked about the invalidity of the argument on a BLITZKREIG post...
http://www.ubersite.com/m/98055#2292367
3. It wouldn't be surprising for anyone with some interest in philosophy to know of Pascal's wager... (i.e. look at berry and DMD's comments)
Therefore 4. Anyone with interest in philosophy who is taking it this/last semester AND recently mentioned it directly, would be expected to still remember a few extra things. We can at the very least INDUCE that he did not google the info, recently. At the very least, he probably still remembers it from recently talking about it.
---------------
Now you may ask why the hell do I remember such trivial replies... but Caul, not everyone shares your admittedly-forgetful memory. Yes, I do remember you admitted to being forgetful.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2007-05-01 02:26:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I don't disagree but the logic here kinda takes on a pascal's wager rationale, and we all know that pascal's wager is bullshit
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2007-05-01 00:09:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2007-04-01 17:42:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
18) Most Intelligent Uberer: Coyote
===
I stand by my statement.
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2007-04-30 23:28:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
INFORMATION FOUND ON PAPER IS MORE ACCURATE, BELIEVABLE AND VALUABLE THAN INFORMATION FOUND ON DA INTRAWEB!!!
I THOUGHT EVERYONE KNEW THAT.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-04-30 21:47:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i think with this issue (and i posted about this here) it is possible only to have an extreme perspective. compromise is no compromise at all.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 19:43:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
well étalage doesn't mean only that. primarily it's mostly a store display. i assume u understand the analogy.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-04-30 19:30:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
We're not turning into Venus until the Earth's core cools too much to drive further tectonic activity. Til then we're in reasonable shape ("We" meaning the Earth as a whole, not necessarily people living within a few meters of sea level).
And to the doubters, climate models do a good job of reproducing the past available temperature data over the available time frame for accurate reconstruction. Post World War II, those same models become incapable of reproducing the climate unless anthropogenic contributions are added to the models. You can argue on the details of which dials and knobs on the models have to be tuned which ways to get the optimum results, and which methods of climate reconstruction are biased, of course, but the gist of things is clear.
The gambling action these days is not on "anthropogenic climate change: important or not?", but on "how bad is it going to be?".
You can find citations to the relevant research in publications like the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences.
Us astronomy types have a history of backing the "not anthropogenic" models of climate change, because we like to think there's some practical use for astronomy and we know that stars vary both regularly and irregularly. Unfortunately none of the claims for analogs to stellar variability in the Sun as the dominant contribution to post-industrial climate forcing have stood up to any kind of scrutiny. Even the relatively secure connection between the Maunder sunspot minimum and the Little Ice Age has recently come under a bit of a cloud because of suggestions that the southern hemisphere was in fact warmer than average during that time period (unfortunately folks in the southern hemisphere weren't that good at record keeping during the 15th century).
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2007-04-30 19:29:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 18:34:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you think you're the fisrt young college kids to do what we call 'étalage'?
i don't know how to translate that but it pretty much means using every occasion to lay out something you've learned, or in your case...googled/wikied.
haxor
--------------
Not that it applies to bob, but that pretty much describes me at 19. awesome word.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 18:57:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
and nobody use someone else's argument and pass it off as their own.
berry attributed it to philosophers and since she didn't say who, you revived your search engine...*vroooooooooaaaaaaam*...quoted Pascal and peppered it with an obscure wiki note about Dawkins to sound like a scholar.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 18:48:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-30 18:36:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I know the phrase Caul. """
what a suprise, he knows the phrase. is there something you don't know?
BUT I MAJORED IN FRENCH SAYINGS, CAUL! will you with a noble accent.
nevermind the fact that that its rather local to here and that it's a noun, not an ajective "I don't try to be,..."
did Google fail to mention that?
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-04-30 18:39:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-05-01 08:34:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
you think you're the fisrt young college kids to do what we call 'étalage'?
i don't know how to translate that but it pretty much means using every occasion to lay out something you've learned, or in your case...googled/wikied.
--------------------------------
That's a useful word.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-30 18:36:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I know the phrase Caul. I dont try to be, but if you use someone else's argument, youre supposed to say who its from instead of trying to pass it out for your own.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 18:34:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you think you're the fisrt young college kids to do what we call 'étalage'?
i don't know how to translate that but it pretty much means using every occasion to lay out something you've learned, or in your case...googled/wikied.
haxor
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-30 18:30:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I use the internet, I wont argue that fact...I frequently look up shit on wiki or google if I dont know it...I will admit to that without a doubt.
But it is very annoying when people constantly say "OMFG GOOGLE" just because Im fairly well read.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-30 18:29:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
a. I knew Emmanuelle II...anyone who takes AP European history knows him.
b. I know Waltzer and other IR figures from the fact that Im majoring in it.
c. Dawkins arguing against Pascal's Wager is in his most recent book.
How the fuck do you think I got into an Ivy without being connected?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 18:24:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
if by "read everything possible" you mean "conviniently look up Wikipedia to look like he's a book nerd", yes, you are right
for instance, when i mentionned the creation of italy, you brought up some shadowy character with an obscure date within 10 seconds, not even adressing what i was saying in the 1st place
so i did a test..."i googled 'Creation Italy wiki' and an article about the unification came up (something i didn't even mention and that actually began after my initial reference) and scrolled down to the last chronological significant event and lo and there it was...king Emmanuelle II with the same date and basically the same quote you used.
i don't mind that you read the internet. i use it a lot too. but don't act like you know this stuff when you've just google it seconds before...oh look! dawkins! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Notes
you're not the 1st person i encounter like that so your reaction will be to deny, like a CS hacker who's been caught, and say "YOU ARE JUST JEALUS CUZ I'M GEWD AND U SUCK, N00B!"
Submitted by gravitas (user info) at 2007-04-30 18:17:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
not to mention the basis of this argument is about a .1-2.0 degree change in 100 years. think about how accurate a 1907 thermometer is.
Submitted by gravitas (user info) at 2007-04-30 18:16:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i fully believe that even Al Gore knows global warming is bullshit. good or bad, it's just a scare tactic to get people to think about the human effect on the environment.
so lets nuke a volcano.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-30 18:09:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
if by "google everything" you mean "reads everything possible", then yes.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 18:01:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
that's what i keep saying.
fuck, not only am i 'cool' and 'normal', but i also steal your 'alternative' thunder
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2007-04-30 17:58:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
the other consequences of 1 are also less air polution and more trees - not a bad thing regardless of 'global warming'
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 17:57:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
so that means apollo wants to punch you or Blaise Pascale in the face?
i admit you got that 'Googles everything to sound knowledgeable' thing going on.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-30 17:48:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 17:31:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:24:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Philosophers have argued similarly about God; this is the same principle.
(If you believe in God and there is a God, you go to heaven; If you believe in God and there is no God, nothing happens; If you don't believe in God and there is a God, you go to hell; If you don't believe in God and there is no God, nothing happens...so it's better to just believe "in case.")
===
as someone who was raised in religion, not only does this analogy suck ass, but this is fucking retarded on a theologic point of view.
Providing he exists, God is not a fan of the 'just in case' selfish crowd. He will rape you with his thunderous cock and you have no idea what are the parameters to get to heaven or hell since you're not God. Maybe you got it backward or it's entirely something else.
Making logical theories out of fairy tales is worse than dream interpretation.
_____________________
Im not the one who brought it up...Im the one who said it wasnt valid
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 17:31:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:24:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Philosophers have argued similarly about God; this is the same principle.
(If you believe in God and there is a God, you go to heaven; If you believe in God and there is no God, nothing happens; If you don't believe in God and there is a God, you go to hell; If you don't believe in God and there is no God, nothing happens...so it's better to just believe "in case.")
===
as someone who was raised in religion, not only does this analogy suck ass, but this is fucking retarded on a theologic point of view.
Providing he exists, God is not a fan of the 'just in case' selfish crowd. He will rape you with his thunderous cock and you have no idea what are the parameters to get to heaven or hell since you're not God. Maybe you got it backward or it's entirely something else.
Making logical theories out of fairy tales is worse than dream interpretation.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-04-30 17:16:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:24:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Philosophers have argued similarly about God; this is the same principle.
(If you believe in God and there is a God, you go to heaven; If you believe in God and there is no God, nothing happens; If you don't believe in God and there is a God, you go to hell; If you don't believe in God and there is no God, nothing happens...so it's better to just believe "in case.")
_____________________
no, this isnt a valid analogy
Pascal's Wager has been logically proven invalid by Dawkins.
my god i'd like to punch this cunt in the face.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 17:09:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
it was the tree of knowledge.
Submitted by awj002 (user info) at 2007-04-30 16:41:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by guitarjunky421 (user info) at 2007-04-30 16:11:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
it's to laie any way, all or our decendents will now suffer consequences of a problem they had no hand in creating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the world since that bitch Eve stole that one apple off that one tree. of Evil.
Submitted by guitarjunky421 (user info) at 2007-04-30 16:11:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
it's to laie any way, all or our decendents will now suffer consequences of a problem they had no hand in creating
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 15:29:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
now we're arguing about whether you read evidence or not (you don't)
who the fuck cares?
whether you (not a scientist) are right or not is irrelevant. in the end, the public opinion is concerned and wants something done. politicians are reacting to please the electorate and the worse thing that will happen is new techonologies, cities that smell better and international collaboration.
what are you unhappy about?
jeebus...make em stfu
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 15:16:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
adam and caul, as I have already stated there was only 3 page of one report to read.
go and look for yourself and you will see that the majority of the documents on the page he linked are about possible means of generating energy and predictiong the UKs energy demand and supply
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 15:12:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
pdf documents alone take forever to load.
but like jonny 5, dcwoody read through a bunch of reports and all their chapters by holding PageDown in less than 5 minutes.
i wonder if jonny 5, due to his masculine name considered himself male when he became 'alive' or if he was asexual. i'm sure we will have internet arguments about the ethics of cyborg sexuality in the future...we might as well start now.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-30 15:00:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 14:13:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
there wasn't much in them caul......go look yourself......I have just found in one of those pdf files a small piece of actual evidence though.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 14:06:56 EDT (#)<----------------------
Ranking: -1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 14:03:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 13:55:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
don't be ridiculous caul, I'm just saying taht there is no evidence for man-made global warming and asking people to provide me with some...no-one has so far...
===
i believe in science, not your personal interpretention of science.
don't be ETS, that whatever we throw at you is bullshit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not being ets......no-one has thrown anything at me........the links people have given are simply websites talkinga bout global warming....no-one has shown me any evidence yet......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 14:05:00 EDT (#)<------------------
Ranking: 0
oh, hang on.....I changed computers a while ago and I've just found that this one can view pdfs....so no need to copy and paste, I'm looking right now.
===========================
A minute and 56 seconds? Even if we conclude that it took you 1 second to write the follow up, this pretty much proves that you're full of shit.
Liars make poor debaters
Submitted by FartSmeller (user info) at 2007-04-30 15:00:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 14:36:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
as the spoke person of the dick sucking community, i must say we dicksuckers are very concerned of the effects of global warming on public health. higher temperatures, an increase in humidity and flooding of coastal aeras could turn large cities into unhygienic nest of infectious diseases. as you know, dicksuckers are mostly urbanites and are gravely affected by viral or bacterial infections due to our high rate of AIDS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-04-30 14:29:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul- how does the dicksucking community feel about this hot topic?
------------
This is now my favorite uber exchange of all time. Thanks to both for providing the humor. Also, good point, Razor. But the problem is it's just so damn painful giving money to a bunch of gay hippies that made the whole issue up to begin with.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-04-30 14:46:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I knew we could count on you for an awesome "sound bite".
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 14:36:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
as the spoke person of the dick sucking community, i must say we dicksuckers are very concerned of the effects of global warming on public health. higher temperatures, an increase in humidity and flooding of coastal aeras could turn large cities into unhygienic nest of infectious diseases. as you know, dicksuckers are mostly urbanites and are gravely affected by viral or bacterial infections due to our high rate of AIDS.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-04-30 14:29:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul- how does the dicksucking community feel about this hot topic?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 14:21:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i don't have the time and your abilities to read chapters and chapters of reports within 5 minutes.
so i'll just put my faith in a scientific consencus rather than internet trolls, if u don't mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caul, there are about 3 pages of relevant information....the rest of what he linked is talking about possible energy sources.....
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 14:20:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
besides, i don't even know why the fuck i'm arguing about this.
think what you want. environment still concerns people and industry will adapt regardless of our internet argument.
i will stfu...i suggest u follow along
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 14:18:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i don't have the time and your abilities to read chapters and chapters of reports within 5 minutes.
so i'll just put my faith in a scientific consencus rather than internet trolls, if u don't mind.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 14:13:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
there wasn't much in them caul......go look yourself......I have just found in one of those pdf files a small piece of actual evidence though.
It's the standard carbon dioxide-temperature correlation graph....unfortunately it's too small to be studied very much, but of course there are many similar graphs all over the web and a few feature in my post I am planning on making.....because they show that carbon dioxide comes AFTER temperature.....so isn't likely to be causing it.
They also show very clearly that both temperature changes and carbon dioxide has been around long before humanity too.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 14:09:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
u went through those reports rather quickly
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 14:06:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 14:03:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 13:55:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
don't be ridiculous caul, I'm just saying taht there is no evidence for man-made global warming and asking people to provide me with some...no-one has so far...
===
i believe in science, not your personal interpretention of science.
don't be ETS, that whatever we throw at you is bullshit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not being ets......no-one has thrown anything at me........the links people have given are simply websites talkinga bout global warming....no-one has shown me any evidence yet......
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 14:05:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
oh, hang on.....I changed computers a while ago and I've just found that this one can view pdfs....so no need to copy and paste, I'm looking right now.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 14:03:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 13:55:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
don't be ridiculous caul, I'm just saying taht there is no evidence for man-made global warming and asking people to provide me with some...no-one has so far...
===
i believe in science, not your personal interpretention of science.
don't be ETS, that whatever we throw at you is bullshit.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 14:03:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I CAN'T read them.....copy & paste the evidence here and I'll read it.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-30 14:02:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 13:55:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
don't be ridiculous caul, I'm just saying taht there is no evidence for man-made global warming and asking people to provide me with some...no-one has so far...
=============
They have you idiot. You've just refused to read them.
Submitted by MidnightToSix (user info) at 2007-04-30 13:57:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
1. We need to make any sacrifice to resolve Global Warming.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Your argument presupposed that you know what the worse-case scenario of Option #1 being wrong is. The one you've presented is far off. As it turns out a race of super-lizards has been evolving in the caves and caverns. The only thing keeping them from the surface is the rising levels of carbon dioxide. If we resolve Global Warming it will result in our specie's domination by the tyrannical lizard-people... rapists.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 13:55:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
don't be ridiculous caul, I'm just saying taht there is no evidence for man-made global warming and asking people to provide me with some...no-one has so far...
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 13:51:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 13:48:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Also arguing that you can't open pdf's and therfore you still have no evidence is probably the weakest argument I've seen in a while. If you can't participate, just shut the fuck up."
don't be such a tit, there is no evidence in those pdfs and you know it.
===
you could have that same attitude about the moon-landings.
stop trying to be the special kid who thinks he's too cool for class
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 13:48:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
the global warming issues has been around for quite some time.
at the beginning it was an ordinary debate, based on scientific reports with somewhat of a world-wide common ground.
but only ever since americans got interested into it, with its celebrities and people like Al Gore, did it turn into a fucking circus where everyone think they're a scientist and sling shit at each other.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 13:48:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Also arguing that you can't open pdf's and therfore you still have no evidence is probably the weakest argument I've seen in a while. If you can't participate, just shut the fuck up."
don't be such a tit, there is no evidence in those pdfs and you know it.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-30 13:27:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
There is a really good book on this subject that addresses alot of what people argue here.
It's "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart
The book moves logically from when the idea was first proposed (in the midst of the industrial revolution) that humans may have the capacity to change the planets climate. Throughout the chapters it goes on the back and fourth of how evidence has been gathered and theories have been proposed, some accepted and some rejected.
There are many known natural phenomena that can cause global warming such as
Variations in the earths orbit around the sun
Sunspots and other solar phenomena
Volcanic discharge (the SO2 in the atmosphere was a huge link to man made causes)
Positive and negative feedback loops associated with glaciation
By using evidence gathered from ice cores (Lake Vostok goes back 400,000 years) and other things like sediment cores, Loess records, and looking at fossils scientists were able to intimate the the cyclical events (like the earth traversing the sun) and major volcanic eruptions (pinutabo) and match them with major trends in cooling and warming.
Computer models and calculations have been created from these known phenomena and their effects to mans effects because of the lack of data.
Another point of the book is to point out that studying cliamte change is diffcult because of the inherent cooperation that is needed to draw conclusions. One researcher might be measuring the fecundity of Atlantic Tuna compared to water temperatures and discover that tuna populations have been dropping because the water has been getting warmer, yet he never furthers that conclusion to say global warmin gmust be causing it. It takes hundreds and thousands of unrelated research projects to come together just for the picture to come into focus.
Secondly, I think it's just retarded to say that global warming is a hoax when if you've never read the IPCC's most recent report, prepared by thousands of the worlds most prestigious and brilliant scientists.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
While I don't think that global warming will ever be the end of our species, regardless if we do anything about it, I do think that it's completely unreasonable to think that decades of dumping gigatons of carbon, and other pollutants are having a negligible effect on the planet.
It's also interesting to note that even if we did stop all emmisions today, the effects would still be present for hundreds of years.
Also arguing that you can't open pdf's and therfore you still have no evidence is probably the weakest argument I've seen in a while. If you can't participate, just shut the fuck up.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 13:16:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
no, they will foloow the pheromone trail and enter ur ass
Submitted by TuTs (user info) at 2007-04-30 13:08:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If I fart now will it extinct the ants in my kitchen?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 13:02:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i think it was a squishy comet farting on dinosaurs
Submitted by TuTs (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:59:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Didn't the dinosaurs farting make a comet come and squish them?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:57:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
speaking of farting, i just did and my cubicle padding is coated with a thick, almost tangible smell of shit.
i have a little cold and i love how fever heats up your methane to make your fart smell upgrade from 'rotten eggs' to 'pot-pourri of charred bodies in an Iraqi market on a hot day'
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:52:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:51:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I only care about Bush implimenting the will of God.
I am actually for cleaner water and air standards, but I detest the stupidity of people who think they can achieve it with nonsense like "carbon credits." I hate fucking celebrities who brag about their hybrid cars when they jet set around the country and own multiple homes.
===
global warming is not the only issue on which celebrities act like idiots.
i think cleaner environment is a question of habit. do your own personal thing and stfu. all that preaching like ETS does is retarded. "WE MUST DO SOMETHING SO LET'S THROW THE PROBLEM IN SOMEONE ELSE'S HAND!"
personally, i recycle, i buy 'paniers bio' ("local agriculture baskets"???), i take the fucking bus and i make sure not own more than i can fit into a room.
if my neigbhor wants to drive a hummer and fart like a cow, i don't give a shit. we're both insignificant and do what makes us sleep better at night.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:44:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I am at home :), and I don't have a clue, but I suspect not........you want to try to find stuff for me that'sd be great...i'm gonna make my post on this in a couple of day and I'll continue this then :)
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:42:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by TuTs (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:25:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:16:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Wow. I'm one of the few with a memory going back past last week, huh? Frightening, considering the fact that I'm a big lush.
Anywho . . . As recently as a year ago, the eco-police were crying about how TEH FROGS WERE ALL GOING TO DIES!! Phrases like "mass extinction" and things like that were thrown around fairly regularly. They dying frogs were PROOF of global warming.
See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15176444/site/newsweek/ as an example but if you google "frog extinction global warming" or probably any combination of those words, you'll find all kinds of articles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look I can go out now and catch a freaking frog. Maybe its just the weakass american frogs that are dying. My frogs arnt croaking it. hehe
______________________________________________________________________
That was my point, jackass.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:42:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
oh yea, to sum of my thoughts...i think global warming is a mixture of both human and natural causes (too an unknown degree, but both are important)...and since the natural causes cannot be altered, we need to mitigate our own causes as much as possible so that the worse of the possibilities (climate transformation, species' extinction, etc) dont happen.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:39:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ipcc.ch/WG1_SPM_17Apr07.pdf
This one that tuts brought up has some of the most used evidence so you should check this when you get home.
Do you have access to a journal database system woody? Because theres no use of me giving you e-links to journal articles if you cant read them.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:35:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I did think humans caused global warming........I assumed that all those scientists couldn't be wrong......then after looking into it myself and seeing what their case is based upon I switched sides........
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:34:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-05-01 02:26:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
bob seriously, look at my earlier review.....I started out as a 'believer' and spent a fair amount of time looking into this.....I couldn't find any evidence......so I doubt you can with a two minute google search.....there is nothing on that page for me even to refute....
----------------------------
You 'started out' as a believer?!??
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:26:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
bob seriously, look at my earlier review.....I started out as a 'believer' and spent a fair amount of time looking into this.....I couldn't find any evidence......so I doubt you can with a two minute google search.....there is nothing on that page for me even to refute....
Submitted by TuTs (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:25:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:16:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Wow. I'm one of the few with a memory going back past last week, huh? Frightening, considering the fact that I'm a big lush.
Anywho . . . As recently as a year ago, the eco-police were crying about how TEH FROGS WERE ALL GOING TO DIES!! Phrases like "mass extinction" and things like that were thrown around fairly regularly. They dying frogs were PROOF of global warming.
See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15176444/site/newsweek/ as an example but if you google "frog extinction global warming" or probably any combination of those words, you'll find all kinds of articles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look I can go out now and catch a freaking frog. Maybe its just the weakass american frogs that are dying. My frogs arnt croaking it. hehe
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:24:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Philosophers have argued similarly about God; this is the same principle.
(If you believe in God and there is a God, you go to heaven; If you believe in God and there is no God, nothing happens; If you don't believe in God and there is a God, you go to hell; If you don't believe in God and there is no God, nothing happens...so it's better to just believe "in case.")
_____________________
no, this isnt a valid analogy
Pascal's Wager has been logically proven invalid by Dawkins.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:22:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
"Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions" - You can find it online.
Also look at IPCC reports...theyre more current.
Thats where to start.
Submitted by strwbryfanatic (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:18:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Philosophers have argued similarly about God; this is the same principle.
(If you believe in God and there is a God, you go to heaven; If you believe in God and there is no God, nothing happens; If you don't believe in God and there is a God, you go to hell; If you don't believe in God and there is no God, nothing happens...so it's better to just believe "in case.")
Anyway...Caul is demonstrating lots of logic in his arguments today. And I agree with him. Holy shit! :)
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:16:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Wow. I'm one of the few with a memory going back past last week, huh? Frightening, considering the fact that I'm a big lush.
Anywho . . . As recently as a year ago, the eco-police were crying about how TEH FROGS WERE ALL GOING TO DIES!! Phrases like "mass extinction" and things like that were thrown around fairly regularly. They dying frogs were PROOF of global warming.
See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15176444/site/newsweek/ as an example but if you google "frog extinction global warming" or probably any combination of those words, you'll find all kinds of articles.
Submitted by oapa (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:15:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
good point. no action is a bad action. taking action can only help.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:15:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
this conversation is going to motivate me to make that post I was planning on I think.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:15:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I actually think the concept of carbon credits has merit, but not in its current incarnation. It would have to be fully implemented, with laws in place to limit the number of total credits people have, and allowing for wealth redistribution to occur as a result of it.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:13:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
"AHAHAHHAHAHA
National Academy of Science vs. You.
Countless number of published research vs You
...
tough choice."
show me the evidence that prooves me wrong bob.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:10:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"
"can't see .pdfs on this pc.....but I'm guessing you've done the same as tutu anyway.... "
Way to argue, Woody."
you saying that those files are actual evidence? real data?
because from the titles it looks very much to me like what I said is very accurate.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:10:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:06:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
"Basically humans arn't the only cause but we are contributers."
contributing about 0.00005% maybe.....
________________
AHAHAHHAHAHA
National Academy of Science vs. You.
Countless number of published research vs You
...
tough choice.
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:07:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
"can't see .pdfs on this pc.....but I'm guessing you've done the same as tutu anyway.... "
Way to argue, Woody.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:06:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
"Basically humans arn't the only cause but we are contributers."
contributing about 0.00005% maybe.....
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:02:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:13:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
when i was tree-planting, there were so many frogs. sometimes one would jump in front of the trajectory of my pique and i'd crush it by accident.
then we held vigils for our fallen comrades :-(
--------
hahahahaha
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:59:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks for that....that is still not exactly what I was asking for but there is one point I can make.....
"Records of surface temperature show that a global mean warming of about 0.7[degrees]C has occurred over the past 100 years."
100 years ago was what is reffered to as the mini ice age........it isn't that we're getting freakily warm now.....it's that we were freakily cold back then.....
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:56:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I am actually for cleaner water and air standards, but I detest the stupidity of people who think they can achieve it with nonsense like "carbon credits." I hate fucking celebrities who brag about their hybrid cars when they jet set around the country and own multiple homes.
----------
There's something we can agree on. Fucking poseurs.
Submitted by silent_brook (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:52:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Here's the Lewis Black thing: http://newsbusters.org/node/12380
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:51:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:41:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:35:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No the worse thing that could happen is further burdening developing economies where people are starving, have no access to clean water, and die from easy to treat diseases.
But I guess they aren't americans so who cares.
===
weren't u the one complaining that the kyoto protocol profitted the third world and only penalized the rich nations?
that was the major complains in the US media for a while.
what changed?
p.s. do u really care about non-americans...hmmm?
-------------------
I only care about Bush implimenting the will of God.
I am actually for cleaner water and air standards, but I detest the stupidity of people who think they can achieve it with nonsense like "carbon credits." I hate fucking celebrities who brag about their hybrid cars when they jet set around the country and own multiple homes.
Submitted by TuTs (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:48:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Basically humans arn't the only cause but we are contributers.
Submitted by TuTs (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:47:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ok I can't link you it is an acedemic journal so I will just copy paste a bit.
Land use (e.g., farming and building cities), storage and use of water (e.g., dams, reservoirs, and irrigation), generation of heat (e.g., furnaces), and the use of fossil fuels are the human-induced environmental changes that most influence the climate. The use of fossil fuels introduces visible particulate pollution (called aerosols) and gases such as carbon dioxide ([CO.sub.2]) into the atmosphere, both of which alter the balance of radiation on Earth. These gases are relatively transparent to incoming solar radiation, yet they absorb and reemit outgoing infrared radiation. The resulting blanketing effect is known as the greenhouse effect, and the gases involved are called greenhouse gases. Not all greenhouse gases are the result of human activities. There is a large natural greenhouse effect that makes the Earth habitable. The increase in [CO.sub.2] levels over the last century or two from human activities, as well as the introduction of other greenhouse gases more recently, mean that more energy stays i n the system. Global warming and the associated climate change are the expected results.
Observed Climate Change
Records of surface temperature show that a global mean warming of about 0.7[degrees]C has occurred over the past 100 years. IPCC reports this change as 0.6 [+ or -] 0.2[degrees]C, but this is a linear fit to what is obviously not a linear trend (see Figure 1 below for the instrumental record of global mean temperatures). Temperatures increased most noticeably from the 1920s to the l940s; they then leveled off from the 1950s to the 1970s and took off again in the late 1970s. The 1990s mark the warmest decade on record, and 1998 is by far the warmest year on record, exceeding the previous record held by 1997. Preliminary annual global mean temperatures in the year 2000 were about the same as for 1999. Synthesis of information from tree rings, corals, ice cores, and historical data further indicates that the 1990s are the warmest decade in at least the past 1,000 years for the Northern Hemisphere, which is as far back as annual-resolution hemispheric estimates of temperatures can be made. [4] The melting of gla ciers over most of the world and rising sea levels confirm the reality of the global temperature increases.
There is good evidence from measurements of sea level pressure, wind, and temperature over the twentieth century for decadal changes in the atmospheric circulation and some evidence for similar ocean changes. For instance, these include changes in winds over the North Atlantic and Europe related to the phenomenon known as the North Atlantic Oscillation and changes in El Nino. [5] Such observations signal that increases in temperature are not uniform or monotonic. For example, some places warm more than the average, while other places cool. Changes in precipitation and other components of the hydrological cycle also vary considerably geographically. For instance, it is likely that precipitation has increased by perhaps 1 percent per decade during the twentieth century over most mid- and high-latitude continents of the Northern Hemisphere. Changes in climate variability are also being seen and changes in extremes are beginning to emerge. Perhaps of greatest note are the observed increases in the heat index (wh ich measures humidity and temperature effects on comfort) and the observed trend toward more intense precipitation events.
One persistent controversy in climate change science has been the discrepancy between the trend seen in the so-called satellite temperature record and that seen in the temperature record from the Earth's surface. The controversy stems in part from the fact that the two data sets do not measure the same phenomenon. The satellite record, which begins in 1979, measures microwave radiation from the lowest 8 kilometers of the Earth's atmosphere and thus depicts temperatures in that part of the atmosphere, which are quite different from those at the surface. Climate models that assess the scenario of increasing greenhouse gases suggest that warming in the lower atmosphere should be greater than that at the surface. But here is the point of contention for skeptics: The observed satellite record shows less warming from 1979--1999. Consequently, doubt has been cast on the veracity of both the surface temperature record and the models. However, when the observed stratospheric ozone depletion is included in the models, the models predict that the surface and tropospheric temperatures increase at about the same rate. In fact, this is what has happened from about 1960 to the present based on balloon observations, which replicate the satellite record after 1979. Because the satellite record includes only two decades, the influence of El Nino and the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 leads to a disproportionate relative downward trend in temperatures observed in the lower atmosphere. Other effects, such as changes in cloud cover, have not been accounted for by the models and may also affect the two records differently. Accordingly, the different short-term trend in the satellite record is not at odds with the warming in the surface record.
The Climate System and Its Driving Forces
Because we humans live in and breathe the atmosphere, it is natural for us to focus on the atmospheric changes. But the atmosphere is only one element of a greater climate system that involves interactions among various internal components and external forcings. The internal, interactive components include the atmosphere, the oceans, sea ice, the land and its features (including the vegetation, albedo, biomass, and ecosystems), snow cover, land ice, and the hydrology of the land (including rivers, lakes, and surface and subsurface water). The factors that are normally regarded as external to the system include the sun and its output, the Earth's rotation, sunEarth geometry and the slowly changing orbit, the physical components of the Earth system such as the distribution of land and ocean, the topographic features on the land, the ocean-bottom topography and basin configurations, and the mass and basic composition of the atmosphere and the oceans. These factors determine the mean climate, which may vary from natural causes. Climate variations arise naturally when the atmosphere is influenced by and interacts with other internal components of the system and "external" forcings.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:41:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:35:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No the worse thing that could happen is further burdening developing economies where people are starving, have no access to clean water, and die from easy to treat diseases.
But I guess they aren't americans so who cares.
===
weren't u the one complaining that the kyoto protocol profitted the third world and only penalized the rich nations?
that was the major complains in the US media for a while.
what changed?
p.s. do u really care about non-americans...hmmm?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:39:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:31:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Having a few years of real-life politics under my belt
===
lol, oh yeah?
doing what, mr. president...blogging?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:38:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
bloody hellfire, an issue upon which me and Indoninja agree.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:35:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:25:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
there seems to be somewhat of a concensus in the scientific community on that matter.
personally, i am more inclined to believe those than people who are in love with status quo like indoninja. "omg! let's not talk or change anything!"
whether global warming is caused by us or not is irrelevant considering that the public opinion is concerned and that green is the new black.
so please stop arguing. nobody will touch your piggy bank and the worse thing that could happen is that the air smells a little better.
----------------------
No the worse thing that could happen is further burdening developing economies where people are starving, have no access to clean water, and die from easy to treat diseases.
But I guess they aren't americans so who cares.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:34:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I also feel that man is not greater than nature, so screw the caribou.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:34:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
"Submitted by TuTs (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:32:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Like I said try the plant."
yeah.......I'll get right on that.......
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:33:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
"Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:29:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:02:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"OK, despite generally overwhelming evidence that global warming is caused by human beings!"
What evidence?
____________________
This one's a bit on the long side.
http://www.rcep.org.uk/newenergy.htm
A more concise summary
http://www.ipcc.ch/WG1_SPM_17Apr07.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf"
can't see .pdfs on this pc.....but I'm guessing you've done the same as tutu anyway....
Submitted by TuTs (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:32:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Like I said try the plant.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:31:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Having a few years of real-life politics under my belt I can tell when a stone is being thrown at me.
The science behind global warming is guesswork. The planet warms and cools in cycles. Presently, we are in a warming phase of the cycle. That's it. Case closed. Game over. Thank you, drive through.
What's is irksome about the whole issue is how it is being politicized, and crammed down our throats.
I do my part. I recycle. I pick up litter. I drive a little shitbox car. All voluntarily. The whole business of making it a political issue just makes me want to go out and buy a Suburban with the largest available diesel engine, fill it with mercury, and drive it into a river.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:30:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-05-01 01:29:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"there seems to be somewhat of a concensus in the scientific community on that matter."
No, that's just what the newsreader says.....
-----------------------
This is what my post is about.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:30:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:19:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by TuTs (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:14:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:02:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"OK, despite generally overwhelming evidence that global warming is caused by human beings!"
What evidence?
------------------
Your mom.
Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:29:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:02:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"OK, despite generally overwhelming evidence that global warming is caused by human beings!"
What evidence?
____________________
This one's a bit on the long side.
http://www.rcep.org.uk/newenergy.htm
A more concise summary
http://www.ipcc.ch/WG1_SPM_17Apr07.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:29:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"there seems to be somewhat of a concensus in the scientific community on that matter."
No, that's just what the newsreader says.....
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:28:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I will basically insult everybody.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:27:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm going to write a post tomorrow that is semi-related to this issue. Someone remind me if I haven't followed through. It will be my first serious post in a while.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:25:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
there seems to be somewhat of a concensus in the scientific community on that matter.
personally, i am more inclined to believe those than people who are in love with status quo like indoninja. "omg! let's not talk or change anything!"
whether global warming is caused by us or not is irrelevant considering that the public opinion is concerned and that green is the new black.
so please stop arguing. nobody will touch your piggy bank and the worse thing that could happen is that the air smells a little better.
get a nap.
Submitted by BeaverDamn (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:23:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Nobody has proved to me yet that global warming is completely caused by humans.
Personally, I think it's the natural cycle of Earth. It gets hot, then it gets cool. Pollution and gases almost certainly play some role, but does anybody really know to what point?
If somebody can conclusively show me global warming's main cause is humans, then I might change my opinion.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:19:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by TuTs (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:14:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:02:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"OK, despite generally overwhelming evidence that global warming is caused by human beings!"
What evidence?
-----------------------------
http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_cse.htm http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
I can link more. Or would you like academic journals? Because I can get them too. Or even easier go and get a pot plant, put a plastic bag over the top. When you wake up in the morning have a look."""
There is no evidence anywhere on those pages.....and some of the statistics are jut plain lies (or at least misrepresentations) i.e where it says 40% of carbon emissions in the usa came from burning fossil fuels.......that's complete bollocks......what it should say is 40% of the HUMAN carbon emmisions (excluding breathing) came from burning fossil fuels......
try the courtroom analogy.......I asked for evidence.....you linked me to the prosecutors summing up speech.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:16:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How did my 'L' get there?
Oh and what Skrapmetal said.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:15:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
"Since there is no known life on Mars"
that's a good line.......as if if it does turn out there's some life on Mars we don't know about that would explain it.....
Submitted by ajanssen (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:15:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I wish i had a 50 foot blowtorch
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:15:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm sure that this planet has experienced lhuge engths of increased and decreased environmental conditions. It is after all 'fairly complex'
Submitted by TuTs (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:14:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:02:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"OK, despite generally overwhelming evidence that global warming is caused by human beings!"
What evidence?
-----------------------------
http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_cse.htm http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
I can link more. Or would you like academic journals? Because I can get them too. Or even easier go and get a pot plant, put a plastic bag over the top. When you wake up in the morning have a look.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:13:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
We as humans cannot 'address global warming' in any way. Despite your ignorant, biased, and reactionary outlook, you have not one shred of evidence that proves that the measured fluctuation in the Earth's average surface temperature over the past (all of) 150 years has anything at all to do with mankind. Not the least proof at all. And likewise, I have no proof that it doesn't. No undeniable proof, that is. However, the majority of the historical circumstantial evidence such as fossil remains, CO2 levels in ice, etc. support the idea that the Earth's average surface temperature varies widely due to natural reasons and has done so since long before man was burning oil or coal, long before man was burning trees, long before man was even man.
If you're so concerned with the preservation of nature, why do you blind yourself to the fact that it is natural for the ice to advance and retreat, for species to die off and new ones to emerge, for the Earth's magnetic field to reverse and allow solar radiation levels at the surface of up to 1000 times the current level? It's only natural - let it be.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:13:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
when i was tree-planting, there were so many frogs. sometimes one would jump in front of the trajectory of my pique and i'd crush it by accident.
then we held vigils for our fallen comrades :-(
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:13:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Woody,
You might like this article.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
"Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.
Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.
Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena."
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:10:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
whether it's true or not...a greener envirionment is still good.
markets will adjust, industry will transform itself...those things are already happening. this discussion is pointless.
GO EVOLUTION
*rapes a monkey*
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:09:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
frogs are not extinct.....where the hell did you get that idea?
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:08:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Agreed.
Submitted by TuTs (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:07:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's winter here and the rain has stopped and the frogs are croaking. So I'm pretty sure they arn't extinct yet.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:05:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:02:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
1. We as a species are economically poorer than we might have been, and we feel pretty sheepish about the panicky science of the early 21st century.
--------------
That is a lot easier to swallow when you are in one of the richest countries in the world."
That's a good point, a lot of people are dying in thrid world countries because they can't generate electricity properly.......bigger countries pressure them not to because of global warming.....
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:02:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"OK, despite generally overwhelming evidence that global warming is caused by human beings!"
What evidence?
Having made a fair few global warming posts (essentially saying that it was undisputed that humans were causing global warming, but the world isn't about to end (or turn into venus you numbnuts))I decided to do one putting all the actual evidence tgether......after looking at the evidence I changed my mind.
I started off from a position of 'it's undisputed that humans are causing global warming' and I now don't beleive a word of it....every time I see it on tv I feel a litte disgusted.
Why? because I could find ANY evidence for man made global warming.......I could find nothing to suggest that humanity is contributing enough to the global output of 'greenhouse gasses' to do anything.....and I found quite a bit that strongly suggests that greenhouse gasses have very little effect on temperature on this planet compared to other forces....
I haven't made the post.....haven't had time......so if anyone can link me to any evidence whatsoever on the 'for' side of my post on human caused global warming that would be good.
I have fucking shitloads of evidence contradicting the stuff we see talked about on tv day in and day out, but not a shred backing it up.....none whatsoever
What the fuck is this theory based on? (the manmade part, the greenhouse effect is fairly well documented on venus (but not on this planet))
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-30 11:02:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
1. We as a species are economically poorer than we might have been, and we feel pretty sheepish about the panicky science of the early 21st century.
--------------
That is a lot easier to swallow when you are in one of the richest countries in the world.
Submitted by Orgasmatron (user info) at 2007-04-30 10:56:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
On an unrelated note, a couple of days ago Firefly and I were talking about people on Uber we would want to hang out with but hadn't met, and I mentioned Caulaincourt, and a frog hopped onto my foot moments later. Coincidence? I think not.
---
The Enemy has many spies, and can assume many forms.
Beware the Ribbit King Alain and his Hop-Toad Bumpy-Butt hordes.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-30 10:49:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
RACIST JEW!
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-04-30 10:48:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2007-04-30 15:46:16 BST (#)
Ranking: 1
I thought global warming had already caused frogs to go extinct? They were a "barometer species" or something.
----------
It aint easy being green
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2007-04-30 10:46:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I thought global warming had already caused frogs to go extinct? They were a "barometer species" or something.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-04-30 10:45:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
for the frog
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2007-04-30 10:45:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Did anyone see Louis Black's rant on the daily show about how ridiculous it is for these celebrities to even open their mouth momentarily for environmental responsibility?
My favorite was the clip of Oprah talking about using canvas shopping bags, followed by a clip of Oprah going "NEW CARS FOR EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE!"
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-04-30 10:45:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I would hang out with lungfish in real life. He seems like a cool guy.
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2007-04-30 10:43:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by FALLEN (user info) at 2007-04-30 10:42:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I am not wiping my ass with one sheet of TP, no mater how cute Cheryl Crow is.
Submitted by DirtyHarry (user info) at 2007-04-30 10:42:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2007-04-30 10:40:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
why don't we address the problem of the jews, even if we are all wrong about how evil they are it couldn't hurt
-----------
agreed
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2007-04-30 10:42:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by TuTs (user info) at 2007-04-30 10:40:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I read a really good essay about wealth (monetary) and wealth, real wealth, fresh air, fresh food and renewable resources. To tired to go and find it now. But it was good.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-04-30 10:40:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Agreed
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2007-04-30 10:40:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
why don't we address the problem of the jews, even if we are all wrong about how evil they are it couldn't hurt