A Convenient Lie – Global Warming Is a Steaming Pile of Dog Shit (3206 hits)
Category: Politics -> DemocratsRating: -0.02 on 262 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (View user info) at 2007-02-26 10:04:29 EST
Last night, I sat around and watched TV. That's something that I rarely do anymore, because The Boy usually hijacks the television, and forces the pilot to land at The Cartoon Network. In my flipping back and forth between Family Guy and Patton, the oscars caught my attention for a few minutes.
They were giving Al Gore an award for some science fiction movie about global warming.
Al Gore.
AL.
GORE.
Cardboard AL My-Wife-Wants-To-Censor-You GORE.
It's blatantly apparent that the Hollywood types are die-hard liberals (most likely due to the prevalence of homosexuality in their business), but they are losing any credibility that they might still have by dabbling in politics. Has the "OMG! GEORGE BUSH IS EVIL!!1!" mentality gotten so pervasive that the entertainment industry is digging up and parading around former Bush adversaries? What makes it all seem even more ludicrous is that Bush is done in a year and a half, no matter how many Grammys the Dixie Chicks are handed because their branch of the music industry snubs them for being snotnoses who can't sell records.
"In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero," flashed behind Melissa Etheridge while she sang her Algore song. So, we should all stop breathing?
The fact of the matter is that Hollywood is handing awards out to propaganda.
To compound the issue, a series of ads is running on children's television with big-eyed, worried looking kids blabbering on about how "the earth is ruined," "act now," "what will be left for us?" This is a low blow. Great, so now I have to explain how militant environmentalists are overemphasizing their pseudo-science to my kid.
This leads me into my statement that Global Warming is absolute bullshit.
• Gore's film claims that the world's oceans will rise 20 feet in our lifetimes. A UN sanctioned study on oceanic rising found that the oceans will rise 7 inches in the next 50 years, and they're probably exaggerating that number a little bit. So which is it?
• Most of the warming in the past century occurred before 1940, before CO2 emissions could have been a major factor.
• Temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970 even as carbon dioxide levels increased
• Although some of the glaciers in Greenland have shrunk, in the past few years, they have been growing back.
• Global Warming nutjobs always use the Arctic in their projections, when the Antarctic is actually getting colder.
• If every nation in the world would get on board with the Kyoto Treaties, the world's average temperature would decrease by 0.007 degrees Celsius by the year 2100, at a cost of $150,000,000,000 per year, in today's dollars.
• Atmospheric temperature trends are cyclical. We are presently on an upswing, but every 200 years or so the trend comes full cycle. This has been proven through geological, archaeological, historical, and biological studies.
I'm tired of these whackjob tree-huggers telling us how we need to live our lives, and it's about time that somebody calls them out for their bullshit. Environmentalism is the latest trendy religion out there, and has about as much scientific basis as any of our existing religions. Try to differentiate between a dreadlocked environmental protestor and one of those bald guys in the airport selling pencils - they both have the same spaced out look in their eyes and fervor.
How much longer will people continue to believe this nonsense?
User Reviews
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-03-19 07:55:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Global Warming? Sounds more like Global Boring.
Submitted by odin (user info) at 2007-03-16 09:28:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-03-07 16:44:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/99158#2329768
Don't get me wrong. I hate our tax system too, and plan on getting the fuck out of here when I'm old enough. But a shitty mixed economy is all Canada is, even if more shitty than other Western countries'. But we are still not socialist. Yet. I hope.
Submitted by Yes (user info) at 2007-03-03 12:45:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The Truth: http://www.ubersite.com/m/76159
Submitted by Donitsu2002 (user info) at 2007-03-02 07:13:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
my old geology professor and I had a talk about this recently. He was cracking up at some of the stuff in al gore's video which, while watching it with my professor, was pretty hillarious. If everything melted what's the max raise in sea level? 200ft? Shit, my favorite arcade might be ruined.
Submitted by Wisher (user info) at 2007-03-01 17:02:34 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-03-01 09:06:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
Proof of global warming - this is #1 most heated. Mayhaps Al Gore can cool it off.
***
Even so, if Apollo has Taco Bell for dinner we're right back at square one.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-03-01 15:51:35 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
you counter facts by evironmental scientist with facts by presumably scientist on your side, how do you know your people are right and the others aren't?
you are doing the exact thing you are complaining about. you are a hpocrite.
i hate al gore...
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-03-01 09:06:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Proof of global warming - this is #1 most heated. Mayhaps Al Gore can cool it off.
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-03-01 00:53:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Well for Al Gore there is most certainly a motive - all the money he's making. Note how everybody ignores his blatant hypocrisy.
But that isn't really the point, it's not a conspiracy anymore than American Idol is a conspiracy. They spew garbage you idiots watch and clap your hands. Where's the conspiracy?
Submitted by manic_impressive (user info) at 2007-02-28 19:42:59 (#)
Ranking: -2
Where this whole argument falls down is that there is NO possible motive for "The Left" to invent global warming without delving into ridiculous ETS/Desolatemisanthrope conspiracy theories.
Submitted by manic_impressive (user info) at 2007-02-28 19:42:59 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Where this whole argument falls down is that there is NO possible motive for "The Left" to invent global warming without delving into ridiculous ETS/Desolatemisanthrope conspiracy theories.
Submitted by goferforhire (user info) at 2007-02-28 16:06:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
TODAY IS MIY BIRTHDAY AND I AM DRINKING AKREAD WOOTP +@S ALL ROD
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2007-02-28 15:26:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Who are you quoting? Again, with the made up quotations. Usually a quote means someone other than yourself said it.
Idiot.
>Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-28 07:31:13 (#)
Ranking: 2
Somebody wrote it.
Interesting way of avoiding and ignoring all the contrary evidence presented. You are hopelessly stupid. "Al Gore said so it must be true."
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:36:12 (#)
Ranking: -2
I did a quick search of what I wrote, and nowhere did I find "there are no scientists that oppose global warming anywhere" amongst my text. I would never claim that, and believe it or not you and I should give a roundhouse to whomever said that. But before we hold hands and start singing "Kumbaya", it needs to be pointed out that the vast majority of the peer-reviewed articles in the journals Science, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences, etc. support the link between increasing global temperatures and man-made emissions. Not all, but a vast majority, and those are credible scientists. The bulk of the remaining debate is to the extent of that pertubation in global climate, not its existance or link to human production.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-28 12:43:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-28 07:29:24 (#)
Ranking: 2
Then why are you so fucking bad at it?"""
canada is the only country in the G8 that not only has no deficit but pays its debt, which amounts to your annual defficit. as for invididuals, both countries are pretty much the same http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/75-001-XIE/comm/11.pdf
Your taxes ar atrocious"""
refer to second graph in link, the difference is not that great considering the services we don't have to pay for. in your defense, when combined with some provincial taxes (like Quebec), it can become atrocious but we're comparing the federal here.
and virtually nothing of any significance ever comes out of Canada."""
what does that have to do with anything? we are only 30 million people. despite that, we still have a number of huge canadian-based companies (you just don't know them) and plenty of natural ressources, which you depend on btw.
All the Canadians I know ran from Canada as fast as they could due to taxes - said they could barely get by up there."""
your anecdotal crap, if true, doesn't mean anything. i guess if i met people from new orleans i could compare the US to the DRC. you refer to canada as if it was in opposition to america when it's pretty much the same fucking thing with slightly different mechanisms. if canada is liberal and socialist, then europe is communist, right?
you sound like an idiot who needs little labels on everything, even if they make no sense, so he can more easily categorized them in his pea-brain. just like a baby puzzle..."blue triangle...red square...yellow circle...green?...green?...*droooool*"
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-02-28 08:04:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Flying, they're called UberCons. They're a hoot.
Submitted by Flying_buttmonkey (user info) at 2007-02-28 07:44:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
blah blah blah.
I wish there was some way of just bundling you guys into a room somewhere with nerf bats. I'd pay to watch that.
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-28 07:31:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Somebody wrote it.
Interesting way of avoiding and ignoring all the contrary evidence presented. You are hopelessly stupid. "Al Gore said so it must be true."
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:36:12 (#)
Ranking: -2
I did a quick search of what I wrote, and nowhere did I find "there are no scientists that oppose global warming anywhere" amongst my text. I would never claim that, and believe it or not you and I should give a roundhouse to whomever said that. But before we hold hands and start singing "Kumbaya", it needs to be pointed out that the vast majority of the peer-reviewed articles in the journals Science, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences, etc. support the link between increasing global temperatures and man-made emissions. Not all, but a vast majority, and those are credible scientists. The bulk of the remaining debate is to the extent of that pertubation in global climate, not its existance or link to human production.
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-28 07:29:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Then why are you so fucking bad at it? Your taxes ar atrocious and virtually nothing of any significance ever comes out of Canada. All the Canadians I know ran from Canada as fast as they could due to taxes - said they could barely get by up there.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-02-28 03:51:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/99158#2329620
Canada is not a fucking socialist country. At least not yet. We have socialized medicine and slightly higher taxes. That's all. Our capitalism is only slightly more watered down than yours.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-02-28 03:51:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/99158#2329620
Canada is not a fucking socialist country. At least not yet. We have socialized medicine and slightly higher taxes. That's all. Our capitalism is only slightly more watered down than yours.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:36:12 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I did a quick search of what I wrote, and nowhere did I find "there are no scientists that oppose global warming anywhere" amongst my text. I would never claim that, and believe it or not you and I should give a roundhouse to whomever said that. But before we hold hands and start singing "Kumbaya", it needs to be pointed out that the vast majority of the peer-reviewed articles in the journals Science, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences, etc. support the link between increasing global temperatures and man-made emissions. Not all, but a vast majority, and those are credible scientists. The bulk of the remaining debate is to the extent of that pertubation in global climate, not its existance or link to human production.
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:25:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Retard, what I meant was you and the rest of the alarmist liberal retards - who do you think pushes this crap - not real credible scientists. Of course I can't find any real credible scientists filling that roll - no real credible scientists buy into that kind of poorly hypothesized bullshit either on the cooling or the warming side you idiot. Liberal fuckwits fueled both movements NOT credible scientists. That's why it's referred to as "junk science" in both cases.
However, to the earlier legitimate challenge about "there are no scientists that oppose global warming anywhere" there are six quoted below.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:21:52 (#)
Ranking: -2
That's all you got, Homer?! Some shitty right wing page which talks about media hype without meeting my challenge? Name one single scientific researcher who changed their mind on clmate change, from an ice age view point to a global warming one--not a bunch of mainstream newspapers with different editors changing their viewpoint. If your bar is that low, one need only look at the build-up to the war in Iraq and the New York Times to see much more rapid turn-arounds. But that is another issue you probably have screwed up in the past then ignored. I want oppositionally conflicted peer-reviewed scientific articles sharing authors as an example, which is what has been suggested by you and your ilk. Put up or shutup.
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:21:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Have fun with this one jerkoffs:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
Amazing coming form a liberal socialist country like Canada - WOW.
Highlights:
"Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
"But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field."
"Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Now taking bets on which industry you fucktards will say is bribing Dr. Tim Patterson and Dr. Bob Carter to say this drivel... Airlines? Coal mining? I recall reading many statements from liberal alarmists here to the effect "you can't quote one credible scientist anywhere that doesn't support the "global warming" theory. Funny that article alone quotes no less than 5 including this guy:
"Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K."
Maybe he's "former" because he was fired due to his shoddy research, you know either that or he must be on the take from big oil.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:21:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
That's all you got, Homer?! Some shitty right wing page which talks about media hype without meeting my challenge? Name one single scientific researcher who changed their mind on clmate change, from an ice age view point to a global warming one--not a bunch of mainstream newspapers with different editors changing their viewpoint. If your bar is that low, one need only look at the build-up to the war in Iraq and the New York Times to see much more rapid turn-arounds. But that is another issue you probably have screwed up in the past then ignored. I want oppositionally conflicted peer-reviewed scientific articles sharing authors as an example, which is what has been suggested by you and your ilk. Put up or shutup.
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:07:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh I'm sorry because there is some link between that guy oil all logic and rationale goes out the window and we go right back to 2+2=5 or should I say that you and your pals have miraculously solved A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H=256 for G. Amazing. You should probably publish that proof in some kind of journal - it will revolutionize the way all scientific research is done.
I know another scientific phenomenon you would probably enjoy reading about: it's called cold fusion.
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/ColdFusion/
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:00:22 (#)
Ranking: -2
Hey Homer,
Do you work for Exxon/Mobil too?
http://www.whois.net/whois_new.cgi?d=junkscience&tld=com
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Milloy
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:00:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
These fucking idiots can't make up their minds:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
Here's a prediction for you - the stock market and the weather will continue to fluctuate.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2007-02-28 00:42:42 (#)
Ranking: -2
So you say these are the EXACT SAME people who were claiming in the 70's and early 80's that a new ice age was coming? Care to actually name one and cite oppositely conflicting scientific articles about 20 years apart? One? Just one?
You can believe whatever shiteating morons you choose to, and no one will be able to shut you up. Don't worry about that; you'd sing even if you were dead, no doubt. Credibility, though, will never be close to you.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2007-02-28 01:00:22 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Hey Homer,
Do you work for Exxon/Mobil too?
http://www.whois.net/whois_new.cgi?d=junkscience&tld=com
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Milloy
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2007-02-28 00:42:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
So you say these are the EXACT SAME people who were claiming in the 70's and early 80's that a new ice age was coming? Care to actually name one and cite oppositely conflicting scientific articles about 20 years apart? One? Just one?
You can believe whatever shiteating morons you choose to, and no one will be able to shut you up. Don't worry about that; you'd sing even if you were dead, no doubt. Credibility, though, will never be close to you.
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-28 00:37:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Sigh... It's undoubtedly lost on the likes of you but...
http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=11726410453080626
Let the -2ing begin.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-02-27 18:25:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
Let's break this down, shall we.
and acusations of OMFG CONSPIRACY!)!010101010101. Seriously? This is your argument? Shut the fuck up you daft fucking twit. PS climate change isn't a conservative vs. liberal thing, as it involves science not politics.
Sounds like the issue flew right over your head. I've got resources and facts, you have conjecture and insults which is usually the backup for those too dim to participate in an itteligent discussion.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-02-28 00:33:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Iam"...
I have never done or would plan to do any of those things. Fuck the Earth as it exists now. Global Warming ftw!
Submitted by iambetteratit (user info) at 2007-02-27 23:22:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Want to show your kids a coral reef?
Well get some fucking good footage now, because they'll be bleached dead from warm water events before said offspring are old enough to scuba-dive. no not really but i guess if he wanted to see one id take him to the aquarium
Want to ski Kilamnjaro? nope
Too late.
Want to own some nice waterfront property? yeah leves and all
move to New Orleans, they're giving it away.
Want to have a nice South Pacific Island holiday?
Hurry the fuck up, most of the flat bits of the islands are less than five meters above sea-level. humans can build islands if we so chose
More to the fucking point : read the book "Collapse" and try and figure out the implication for your own fucking society. if you want to change the world lead by example give your car away move into a test and hunt for your food
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2007-02-27 22:35:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The fact is, the majority of these folks here did not live through a bunch of THESE SAME SO-CALLED EXPERTS saying the exact opposite thing.
There is a lot of money to be made in global warming. The fact that self-professed liberals and progressives want to deny the voice of an opposition to such views is all telling. They are obviously for freedom of speech only when you say what they want to hear.
Is the earth warming? Sure. I don't doubt that at all. But exactly why and how much I have a dispute over... and I'm not alone. Also, dealing with it is another issue.
Should we put curbs on massive CO2 being spewed into the air from coal powered powerplants? Sure. Should we ban fucking incandescent light bulbs? Come on, now. These guys who do this stuff are shit eating morons.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-02-27 22:03:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Seven more reviews and I've beat my record.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-02-27 22:01:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Go back to Hilldale, Jughead. The grownups are talking.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2007-02-27 21:43:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Who keeps handing out +2's to this tard?! I am sick of the flat earth loving, wing-nut, laughably misguided, Faux news, Limbaugh (drug-addled dumb-ass), O-Reilly, Drudge-filled loving crap around here. You cannot hold Al Gore's jock strap, even as much as you repeatedly type his name in some sort of apparent disbelief that he has gotten the legitimate recognition you'll never earn or deserve. No matter how much you claim false bullet points (Greenland glaciers growing back. Please, cite a source for once), no matter how many ignorant non-scientists claim expertise in science because of their "extensive" internet research, no matter how many silly followers ape your ignorant commentary will this garbage earn legitimacy.
Damn straight former Bush adversaries should be paraded around with the praise they righteously deserve. Such early opposition to the "Worst President Evah" shows prescience especially given his actually winning the election in the first place. Claiming those in Hollywood are all die-hard liberals means that the majority of the country is so inclined given the reasonable distaste of so many for this disastrous administration. Welcome to the rapidly diminishing minority; your star has faded for a good long time. And good riddance.
Submitted by Bananana (user info) at 2007-02-27 20:38:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You're an American hero.
Submitted by Norman (user info) at 2007-02-27 19:30:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Written like a true engineer, no ability to see the big picture. It's all in the details you say? Try framing those "statistics" you lobbed out in some sort of global perspective. We big boys know more about fluid dynamics than your little engineering brain could ever comprehend. Keep living in that little world of yours, and say hello to Bill Gray for me. The real science will continue to be done by folks like us in spite of the redneck Republican agenda. Welcome to the Dark Ages in America.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-02-27 18:49:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
really Adam? Thats awsome, what are you focusing in?
PS: I thought it was your wife that was going to Harvard, weird.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-02-27 18:25:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Let's break this down, shall we.
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-27 17:25:11 (#)
Ranking: 2
Shut up and go back to fucking your sister.
====================
Start off with an insult, based on a post that is over a year old, because you obviosly haven't seen a pussy that wasn't on the internet, ever.
The idea that "the majority of scientists" agree is a blatant fallacy.
===================
How about these scientists:
National Academy of Sciences and Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK) ect.... for starters. I have yet to see your resources.
There is a liberal movement going on to supress any "global warming denies" - you faggot liberals equate them to "holocost deniers" - it's no wonder it's so damn hard to get the word out.
=========
More name calling, and acusations of OMFG CONSPIRACY!)!010101010101. Seriously? This is your argument? Shut the fuck up you daft fucking twit. PS climate change isn't a conservative vs. liberal thing, as it involves science not politics.
Unbelievable that pea brain like you even knows to quote things like "the theory of gravity" and so on. Too bad the entire issue flew right over your head you stupid fuck.
=========
Yea, me and my pea brain no nothing about the environment. If only I could go to a good school to learn more about it. Oh wait, that's right, I AM getting my masters at Harvard with only my thesis left to complete. What is your accredidation?
Sounds like the issue flew right over your head. I've got resources and facts, you have conjecture and insults which is usually the backup for those too dim to participate in an itteligent discussion.
Pretty much you've got nothing besides some petty insults and a shitty conspiracy theory not even ETS would touch. Congratulations fucktard, you lose at life yet again
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-02-27 18:03:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-27 17:25:11 (#)
Ranking: 2
Shut up and go back to fucking your sister. The idea that "the majority of scientists" agree is a blatant fallacy. There is a liberal movement going on to supress any "global warming denies" - you faggot liberals equate them to "holocost deniers" - it's no wonder it's so damn hard to get the word out. Unbelievable that pea brain like you even knows to quote things like "the theory of gravity" and so on. Too bad the entire issue flew right over your head you stupid fuck.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-02-27 11:16:07 (#)
Ranking: -2
Bob,
It's not pseudo science when a vast majority of scientists (regardless of thier field of study) believe that climate change as a result of anthropogenic pollution caused by man is a solid theory. I know that the word "theory" can confuse some of you (especially the creationists), but keep in mind that electricity, and gravity are theories as well.
_____________
Ever hear of a little group called the National Academy of Sciences?
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-02-27 17:50:54 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Alrigth Homer42, what's you explanation for the rapid diminishment of species variantals within the biosphere?
Nature's just having a bad hair day?
Global warming models predict amssive extinctions. The models say this will start in the most hihgly sensitive species - amphibians. That's frogs, to you.
Guess what?
About three years ago we noticed frogs going extinct faster than a hairdresser running away from Brintey Spears.
So - why are all the frogs dying?
If you have a scientific theory that predicts a certain phenomenon, and then that phenomonon occurs, then you have additional support for that theory. Especially in the face of a complete lack of rival theories that could provide an alternate explanantion.
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-27 17:34:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You guys aren't REALLY this mentally deficient are you?
Are you fucking serious?
Your argument is this:
Unsubstantiated factoid A.) 250 million years ago 6 degrees of global warming was enough to wipe out 95 of species.
Well give you the benefit of the doubt thought hat this is true and proven.
Unsubstantiated factoid B.) Many scientists believe we are in the middle of a "fast" "mass-extinction event"
We'll give you that one too.
Ridiculous conclusion:
Global temperatures will rise in the short term by six degrees or more.
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-02-26 20:14:53 (#)
Ranking: -2
Present day — the Holocene extinction event. A 1998 survey by the American Museum of Natural History found that 70% of biologists view the present era as part of a mass extinction event, possibly one of the fastest ever. Some, such as E. O. Wilson of Harvard University, predict that man's destruction of the biosphere could cause the extinction of one-half of all species in the next 100 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
Global warming over the next century could trigger a catastrophe to rival the worst mass extinction in the history of the planet, scientists have warned.
Researchers at Bristol University have discovered that a mere 6 degrees of global warming was enough to wipe out up to 95 per cent of the species which were alive on earth at the end of the Permian period, 250 million years ago.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/19/1055828440526.html
So if 6 degrees of warming caused an extinction event 250 million years ago, and we are in the middle fo the fastest extiction event on record, what can we infer about curretn global temperature changes?
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-02-26 20:14:53 (#)
Ranking: -2
Present day — the Holocene extinction event. A 1998 survey by the American Museum of Natural History found that 70% of biologists view the present era as part of a mass extinction event, possibly one of the fastest ever. Some, such as E. O. Wilson of Harvard University, predict that man's destruction of the biosphere could cause the extinction of one-half of all species in the next 100 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
Global warming over the next century could trigger a catastrophe to rival the worst mass extinction in the history of the planet, scientists have warned.
Researchers at Bristol University have discovered that a mere 6 degrees of global warming was enough to wipe out up to 95 per cent of the species which were alive on earth at the end of the Permian period, 250 million years ago.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/19/1055828440526.html
So if 6 degrees of warming caused an extinction event 250 million years ago, and we are in the middle fo the fastest extiction event on record, what can we infer about curretn global temperature changes?
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-02-27 17:25:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Shut up and go back to fucking your sister. The idea that "the majority of scientists" agree is a blatant fallacy. There is a liberal movement going on to supress any "global warming denies" - you faggot liberals equate them to "holocost deniers" - it's no wonder it's so damn hard to get the word out. Unbelievable that pea brain like you even knows to quote things like "the theory of gravity" and so on. Too bad the entire issue flew right over your head you stupid fuck.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-02-27 11:16:07 (#)
Ranking: -2
Bob,
It's not pseudo science when a vast majority of scientists (regardless of thier field of study) believe that climate change as a result of anthropogenic pollution caused by man is a solid theory. I know that the word "theory" can confuse some of you (especially the creationists), but keep in mind that electricity, and gravity are theories as well.
Submitted by gascs (user info) at 2007-02-27 16:38:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
London Telegraph | July 20 2004
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.
A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.
Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.
"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."
GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR HYBRIDS AND CFLs, YOU STUPID BASTARDS.
============================================================================
That same article goes on to say (several times in fact) that this could not possibly be the cause of most of the global warming phenomenon, and that it is more likely mostly caused by greenhouse gases.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html
It's called web search, we all have it dumbass.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2007-02-27 16:38:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Cakes (user info) at 2007-02-26 21:54:40 (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.progressiveu.org/170259-argument-for-global-warming
Stabkill, see last paragraph.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is typical progressive moron bullshit.
"I'll link a biased opinion article from an extreme left wing website and act like it is fact!"
No, no, no. If I put a link to billoreilly.com, I don't think you'd like it. So now you can go take a gun, put it against your brainless head, and blow a hole in it.
Submitted by alragusa (user info) at 2007-02-27 16:09:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
London Telegraph | July 20 2004
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.
A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.
Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.
"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."
GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR HYBRIDS AND CFLs, YOU STUPID BASTARDS.
Submitted by Quint (user info) at 2007-02-27 13:42:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Dude, global warming isn't the lie - the globe is. The world is flat! Not fucking round! And I will kill every last motherfucking one of you to prove it.
Submitted by gascs (user info) at 2007-02-27 13:39:06 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
ME BOB. SINETISSED HAVE SHINEY THINGS. ME NO TRUST SINETISSED. SINETISSED BAD. PALOOSHUN GOOD.
Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2007-02-27 13:01:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Stick to The Cartoon Network with the kid and all will be fine.....
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-02-27 11:16:07 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Bob,
It's not pseudo science when a vast majority of scientists (regardless of thier field of study) believe that climate change as a result of anthropogenic pollution caused by man is a solid theory. I know that the word "theory" can confuse some of you (especially the creationists), but keep in mind that electricity, and gravity are theories as well.
It's odd how people like yourself refuse to believe that the pollution produced by man has negative effects on the atmosphere outside the plainly observable, such as smog and fine particle deposition (soot).
Just look at our rivers, lakes and other local bodies of water. Look at the Chesapeke Bay or the Boston Harbor. Just standing on the bank looking out across the water, everything seems ok. Fish are swimming, plants are growing in the shallows and along the banks. The water doesn't smell, or burn you when you touch it. Everything seems fine. The truth is that the water is fucking polluted. It meets minimum swimming standards less than 40% of the time. It's loaded with fecal coliforms, pesticides, herbicides, lead, zinc, mercury, and dissolved netrients. The bottom sediment is rife with heavy metals that keeps the benthic (mollusks etc.) orgainsms at only a fraction of their natural numbers. Fish species diversity, and quantity are severely diminished.
WE KNOW THIS FOR A FACT.
But it doesn't affect you right?
WRONG
These pollutants infiltrate groundwater and are cycled through the food chain, affecting you, and your children.
Point being, just because you can't walk out your front door and directly observe the effects, or understand REAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-27 09:55:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-02-27 08:46:36 (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul. The problem is made up.
===
where are your arguments to assert that?
you have none except "it's too complicated...when in doubt, believe in jesus!"
Submitted by Enormous (user info) at 2007-02-27 09:20:44 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
i disagree with you on many levels.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-02-27 09:18:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
could be the 1,500 hits and 220 reviews......and my much more sensible and accurate post got 7 :(
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-02-27 09:17:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No it's not....as far as humans are concerned it's mainly all the cows as sico said.....and the internal combustion engine......big poluting industry has an effect also of course.....butnot as much as air planes or cars or mcdonalds herds of cattle.......deforestation doesn't actually affect crap all in terms of CO2 release plantlife photosynthesises in sunlight but at night it does what animals do and swaps much of it back....add this to the amount of animals found living in forests and they're pretty much carbon neutral.....
But that argument doesn't go very far really....it's not politicians fault people commit crimes(on a very basic level)....but they're held responsible for the crime rates.....
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-02-27 09:17:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Why do I get the feeling bob is just screwing with us all?
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-02-27 09:04:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
But what causes the change? It isn't politicians.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-02-27 08:49:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-02-27 08:46:36 (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul. The problem is made up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, climate change will happen, and will cause problems.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-02-27 08:46:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul. The problem is made up.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-02-27 08:43:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Now would there be such a high level of emissions if these animals weren't being bred for slaughter in the first place?
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2007-02-27 08:41:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I've been gathering my own data for 9 years and 4 months regarding the surrounding area farming population versus the tri-state coalition of factories. I've reason to believe that the emissions coming from over-population in animals, in the form of manure and run-off, is far more damaging to the rising temperature than federally regulated plant emissions.
That, mixed with the corellary of deforestation would lead any functional human being to believe that the amount of our CO2 recycling into oxygen is at an all time low. I can tell by the stool samples from the cow, pig, horse, and sheep that populate our area, the vegetation shortage is not a myth. Pooping needs to stop.
If every human were put on a scheduled pooping standard, and were only permitted 1 a day, we could decrease our temperatures by up to .002K in the next thirty years alone. If we were to train animals and only permit them 2 poops a day, that could increase up to .005K in the next thirty years.
Let's stop pooping.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-02-27 08:35:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-02-27 08:29:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
I said that below. There are too many variables to determine what is what.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the title of your post is 'global warming is a steaming pile of dogshit'.
Which is dead wrong.
My rating of your post works out as:
+2 'So we should stop breathing?'
-2 rest of post.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-27 08:34:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-02-27 08:29:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
I said that below. There are too many variables to determine what is what.
===
there are too many variables so you can determine that there is no problem?
i bet you're a creationist
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-02-27 08:30:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
consensus that the earth is getting warmer and humanities activities are affecting it.....but that's as far as the consensus goes......how much of it is down to humanity, and how much hotter it's going to get.....and what the effects will be......there's no consensus there....
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-02-27 08:29:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I said that below. There are too many variables to determine what is what.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-02-27 08:27:31 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-02-27 08:19:24 (#)
Ranking: 0
We are producing a lot of C02....exactly how much we're making......how much it will raise the temperature....whether the temperature would be going up anyway....whether we're doing it consistently enough to affect the temperature much.....and how much effect it will have taking into account the cool setup of landmasses we have right now (we are currently in an ice age)......are up for debate.
-------------------------------------
This is actually true, but you say "up for debate" as if there isn't a massive majority consensus as to the nature of the outcome.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-02-27 08:19:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Not really Bob......big things....like slight variations in the earths orbit....or even in the suns activity affect the climate the most.......even where the solar system is in its orbit of the galaxy.
After that the set up of the continents affect it......lack of land at the poles and around the equator helps to heat up the earth.....
After that, several things affect the temperature.....and CO2 is one of the biggest......the more there is....the hotter it is (taking in to account all the other factors).
We are producing a lot of C02....exactly how much we're making......how much it will raise the temperature....whether the temperature would be going up anyway....whether we're doing it consistently enough to affect the temperature much.....and how much effect it will have taking into account the cool setup of landmasses we have right now (we are currently in an ice age)......are up for debate.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-02-27 08:03:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
DC, exactly. It's all arbitrary, based on natural forces and trends.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-02-27 07:59:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
we're were dammit
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2007-02-27 07:54:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Facts about Gore's home energy consumption? The website claims to be non-partisan.
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-02-27 07:48:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-02-27 07:46:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
You all don't know what you're talking about. You look at a 100 year trend, during a 10,000 year cycle and want to start running around yelling "The sky is falling!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob.....we're actually currently running on a 100,000 year cycle.....although this may change.....previous to the 100,ooo year cycle we we're on a 41,000 year cycle.....
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-02-27 07:46:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You all don't know what you're talking about. You look at a 100 year trend, during a 10,000 year cycle and want to start running around yelling "The sky is falling!"
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2007-02-27 07:41:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Shits, no giggles.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-02-27 07:41:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-02-27 04:54:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
Didn't you sell the emperor some new clothes?
--------------
Use your head you fucking simpelton.
"We do not have records going back millions of years." - true
"The earth is not warmer today than at any time in the past few million years." - We don't need records millions of years old to make this a true statement. If the earth was warmer somewhere in the past couple thousand years (Medieval warm period) then we know that now isn't the warmest in the past few million.
Of course that is just distractive conjective negative BS.
I should jump aboard the Rob berg wagon and complain about nobody caring and then do nothing about the problem.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-02-27 06:55:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-02-27 04:54:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-02-26 23:21:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-02-26 19:57:33 (#)
Ranking: 0
"We do not have records going back millions of years."
"The earth is not warmer today than at any time in the past few million years."
---
Nothing contradictory about those two statements huh?
---
*sigh
No rob, not contradictory at all.......think of it as an absurdly simple brain teaser.....
---
Didn't you sell the emperor some new clothes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
haha
It's worth mentioning at this point that when I said we don't have records going back millionsof years I was referring to the ice cores snare was talking shit about.....although the methods that are used for trying to work out past temperatures probably couldn't be called records as such.....
and that the answer to this minor puzzle is not in fact what has happened.
However, as I said.....there is nothing contradictory about those two statements.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2007-02-27 06:33:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
a convienent truth - nobody gives a fuck.
now if you'll excuse me, i'm going to go burn some styrofoam.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-02-27 04:54:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-02-26 23:21:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-02-26 19:57:33 (#)
Ranking: 0
"We do not have records going back millions of years."
"The earth is not warmer today than at any time in the past few million years."
---
Nothing contradictory about those two statements huh?
---
*sigh
No rob, not contradictory at all.......think of it as an absurdly simple brain teaser.....
---
Didn't you sell the emperor some new clothes?
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-02-27 04:48:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-02-26 22:08:25 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Realpolitik (user info) at 2007-02-26 21:47:45 (#)
Ranking: 2
The best part is that the Kyoto treaty actually hurts the environment because it allows third world nations which are in the process of "industrializing" unlimited carbon credits, while limiting the ozone emissions of first world countries. Traditionally, third world countries have pumped the majority of C02 into the atmosphere while first world countries have stringent standards.
++++++++++++++++++++
So Kyoto is flawed.
Of course it is. It was hammered out by partisan political negotiators with nationalist agendas.
It was only ever intended as an easily acheivable starting point. Something not too onerous that we could all do to get ourselves lined up and pointed in the right direction. And we can't even do that.
Stabkill, BB, Realpolitik and all you other Fox-fed fucks.
Go get yourself a little bed-time reading;
"The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery
"Crimes Against Nature" by Bobby Kennedy Jnr.
Come back and discuss this with at least a basic grasp of the scientific community CONSENSUS, and of the political issues involved.
Right now you're all arguing from a position of wilfull ignorance.
---
I love this kid.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2007-02-27 04:20:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-02-27 04:05:19 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by iambetteratit (user info) at 2007-02-27 03:13:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
who gives a rats ass about global warming well all be long dead before it affects the species as a whole anyway i mean i kinda like warm weather
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Want to show your kids a coral reef?
========
no
:P
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-02-27 04:05:19 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by iambetteratit (user info) at 2007-02-27 03:13:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
who gives a rats ass about global warming well all be long dead before it affects the species as a whole anyway i mean i kinda like warm weather
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Want to show your kids a coral reef?
Well get some fucking good footage now, because they'll be bleached dead from warm water events before said offspring are old enough to scuba-dive.
Want to ski Kilamnjaro?
Too late.
Want to own some nice waterfront property?
move to New Orleans, they're giving it away.
Want to have a nice South Pacific Island holiday?
Hurry the fuck up, most of the flat bits of the islands are less than five meters above sea-level.
More to the fucking point : read the book "Collapse" and try and figure out the implication for your own fucking society.
Submitted by iambetteratit (user info) at 2007-02-27 03:13:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
who gives a rats ass about global warming well all be long dead before it affects the species as a whole anyway i mean i kinda like warm weather
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2007-02-27 02:50:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
lol
Submitted by lechuza (user info) at 2007-02-27 00:12:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
for making many people get angry on purpose
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-26 23:43:26 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
bob, you were provided with a bunch of facts and articles to counter your poorly crafted argument.
the only counter you've offered so far is name-calling.
good job, mr. intellectual
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-02-26 23:41:04 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-02-26 20:47:14 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-02-26 18:40:22 (#)
Ranking: -2
Doesn't it bother you that the factoids you have posted here are so absurdly simple and straightforward as to be unmissable for any climate scientist?
--------------
It does bother me, because it isn't an actual science, yet it gets passed on to the unsuspecting as if it were. It's kind of like solve a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h+i+J=256 for a. There are too many variables to pinpoint the cause, let alone isolate the causes from the symptoms.
--------------
No, you fucking dolt, you've just demonstrated exactly what I meant. If that were true, and the same goes for every other assertion you've made in this post and presented as proven and established fact, then it would be such an overwhelming barrier to the kind of results we're seeing in that field that it would require a worldwide conspiracy of tens of thousands of scientists for the kind of debate that's happening now. God.
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-02-26 23:32:23 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-02-26 22:31:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
Snare, it's YOU who have not substantiated a case. What scientific credentials does Bobby Kennedy have? The extent of your arguing has been "NUH-UH!"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Really? I thought I'd provided links and supporting articles to any contentious point made. Please tell me where you'd like to see more support. I will gladly provide it.
Bobby Kennedy is a lawyer specialising in environmental law. Therefore he has a pretty good grasp of the science. His book, however, focuses on how the Bush administration has undermined the ediface of environmental law in the U.S., and on how that same administration has managed the perception (that's beliefs) of the public (that's you) to the point that many U.S. citizens believe Bush has been good for the environment, and that global warming isn't happening.
In other words, it explains where your current opinion was crafted and how it was fostered upon you.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-02-26 23:21:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-02-26 19:57:33 (#)
Ranking: 0
"We do not have records going back millions of years."
"The earth is not warmer today than at any time in the past few million years."
---
Nothing contradictory about those two statements huh?
__________________
*sigh
No rob, not contradictory at all.......think of it as an absurdly simple brain teaser.....
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-02-26 22:31:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Snare, it's YOU who have not substantiated a case. What scientific credentials does Bobby Kennedy have? The extent of your arguing has been "NUH-UH!"
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-02-26 22:15:19 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-02-26 22:08:25 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Realpolitik (user info) at 2007-02-26 21:47:45 (#)
Ranking: 2
The best part is that the Kyoto treaty actually hurts the environment because it allows third world nations which are in the process of "industrializing" unlimited carbon credits, while limiting the ozone emissions of first world countries. Traditionally, third world countries have pumped the majority of C02 into the atmosphere while first world countries have stringent standards.
++++++++++++++++++++
So Kyoto is flawed.
Of course it is. It was hammered out by partisan political negotiators with nationalist agendas.
It was only ever intended as an easily acheivable starting point. Something not too onerous that we could all do to get ourselves lined up and pointed in the right direction. And we can't even do that.
Stabkill, BB, Realpolitik and all you other Fox-fed fucks.
Go get yourself a little bed-time reading;
"The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery
"Crimes Against Nature" by Bobby Kennedy Jnr.
Come back and discuss this with at least a basic grasp of the scientific community CONSENSUS, and of the political issues involved.
Right now you're all arguing from a position of wilfull ignorance.
Submitted by GMCrayon (user info) at 2007-02-26 22:08:00 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Hearing a Christian rant on about pseudo science is hilarious. You should know pseudo science, you guys are the fucking masters.
Submitted by Cakes (user info) at 2007-02-26 21:54:40 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.progressiveu.org/170259-argument-for-global-warming
Stabkill, see last paragraph.
Submitted by Realpolitik (user info) at 2007-02-26 21:47:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The best part is that the Kyoto treaty actually hurts the environment because it allows third world nations which are in the process of "industrializing" unlimited carbon credits, while limiting the ozone emissions of first world countries. Traditionally, third world countries have pumped the majority of C02 into the atmosphere while first world countries have stringent standards.
Submitted by Cakes (user info) at 2007-02-26 21:45:48 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2007-02-26 21:26:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/geowissenschaften/bericht-78788.html
BB is RIGHT about the glaciers in Greenland, Cakes. So are you going to issue and apology/retraction? I doubt it.
The scientists admit they just simply do not know the answers. You can tell the truth, or you can blame global warming on FUCKING EVERYTHING like some clowns do.
---
Substantiate your claim.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2007-02-26 21:26:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/geowissenschaften/bericht-78788.html
BB is RIGHT about the glaciers in Greenland, Cakes. So are you going to issue and apology/retraction? I doubt it.
The scientists admit they just simply do not know the answers. You can tell the truth, or you can blame global warming on FUCKING EVERYTHING like some clowns do.
Submitted by coley (user info) at 2007-02-26 21:23:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I <3 Ax, TTOM, bob and Caul.
What a combo.
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2007-02-26 21:03:03 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Your scientific ability is astounding.
Submitted by Cakes (user info) at 2007-02-26 20:56:46 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
• Although some of the glaciers in Greenland have shrunk, in the past few years, they have been growing back.
...
All credibility would have been lost with that one statement, had it ever been established in the first place.
Very unusual, such unfounded statements coming from such an intelligent person (I've been reading here on and off for some time).
Sources? Jim Beam?
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-02-26 20:47:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-02-26 18:40:22 (#)
Ranking: -2
Doesn't it bother you that the factoids you have posted here are so absurdly simple and straightforward as to be unmissable for any climate scientist?
--------------
It does bother me, because it isn't an actual science, yet it gets passed on to the unsuspecting as if it were. It's kind of like solve a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h+i+J=256 for a. There are too many variables to pinpoint the cause, let alone isolate the causes from the symptoms.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2007-02-26 20:29:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Snare is spouting off the alarmist crap that has been told since the beginning of time.
"These are the end times!" Snare can shout while ringing a bell and wearing a sign that states "global warming is killing us all."
Fuckin' loons.
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-02-26 20:14:53 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Present day — the Holocene extinction event. A 1998 survey by the American Museum of Natural History found that 70% of biologists view the present era as part of a mass extinction event, possibly one of the fastest ever. Some, such as E. O. Wilson of Harvard University, predict that man's destruction of the biosphere could cause the extinction of one-half of all species in the next 100 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
Global warming over the next century could trigger a catastrophe to rival the worst mass extinction in the history of the planet, scientists have warned.
Researchers at Bristol University have discovered that a mere 6 degrees of global warming was enough to wipe out up to 95 per cent of the species which were alive on earth at the end of the Permian period, 250 million years ago.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/19/1055828440526.html
So if 6 degrees of warming caused an extinction event 250 million years ago, and we are in the middle fo the fastest extiction event on record, what can we infer about curretn global temperature changes?
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-02-26 19:57:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"We do not have records going back millions of years."
"The earth is not warmer today than at any time in the past few million years."
---
Nothing contradictory about those two statements huh?
Submitted by manic_impressive (user info) at 2007-02-26 19:56:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
GLOBAL WARMING CANNOT YET BE CATEGORICALLY PROVEN OR REFUTED.
Your denial is equally ill-informed as other people's adamant assertion.
The politicising of an environmental issue cheapens the dialogue that should surround it. Scientific dialogue, not political dialogue.
You cannot deny that there is evidence either way. There are various scientific schools of thought that support both sides of the argument and it is, as such, unresolved.
What annoys me most is how you criticise people drawing conclusions form incomplete data when you do EXACTLY the same thing to draw your own conclusions.
Weak.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-02-26 19:41:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-02-26 18:58:57 (#)
Ranking: -2
So what's your point?
I typed "millions" instead of "nearly one million" and global warming must be a fallacy?
The correlation between CO2 and global temperature is universally accepted, and these ice cores show co2 is significantly higher today than at any point in the coring record. therefore global temperatures today are higher than at any point in the coring record.
But according to DCWoody "that's just wrong."
It just goes to show...you can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point was that what you said is wrong idiot, and you're still wrong in what you said there....you obviously failed to understand your own link.
My point was that.
We do not have records going back millions of years.
The earth is not warmer today than at any time in the past few million years.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2007-02-26 19:32:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Al Gore is a hypocritical has-been that flies around the world sucking up untold tons of JP-9 jet fuel complaining that we all need to change the way we live and thinks that throwing five dollars to some Chinese firm that will "offset" his carbon footprint makes it okay.
Sometimes I think he should have been president. He would have been on my TV a whole lot less.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-02-26 19:31:44 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I'd like an answer, please.
Submitted by Sinistral (user info) at 2007-02-26 19:18:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero," flashed behind Melissa Etheridge while she sang her Algore song. So, we should all stop breathing?
--------
+2 for that.
What really pisses me off is that Al Gore is up for the Nobel Peace Prize. Now, one can argue the merits for his nomination for a Nobel prize in some sort of science field, but the PEACE PRIZE? You've got to be shitting me.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2007-02-26 19:18:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The fact is this: do you want to do something about it or do you want to talk shit and make up shit that isn't going to work? That's what Al Gore does. And then he's a major hypocrite about it.
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-02-26 18:58:57 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
So what's your point?
I typed "millions" instead of "nearly one million" and global warming must be a fallacy?
The correlation between CO2 and global temperature is universally accepted, and these ice cores show co2 is significantly higher today than at any point in the coring record. therefore global temperatures today are higher than at any point in the coring record.
But according to DCWoody "that's just wrong."
It just goes to show...you can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2007-02-26 18:53:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Is that a second can in his left hand, or is Limbaugh's penis shaped like an bottle of WD-40?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-26 18:52:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Earlier results from the Epica core were published in 2004 and 2005, detailing the events back to 440,000 years and 650,000 years respectively. Scientists have now gone the full way through the column, back another 150,000 years. """
that kinda discredits your MILLIONS OF YEARS but i suppose you were making an hyperbole
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-02-26 18:49:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Snare, if that was a response to me I can't be bothered to read it. The bit I quoted from you made two inaccurate points
1."with ice cores taken from Antarctica we have a record that goes back into the millions of years"
This is wrong. Inaccurate. not-right.
2. "N MILLIONS OF YEARS THE EARTH HAS NEVER BEEN AS WARM AS IT IS TODAY"
This is also wrong.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-02-26 18:40:22 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Doesn't it bother you that the factoids you have posted here are so absurdly simple and straightforward as to be unmissable for any climate scientist?
Submitted by alragusa (user info) at 2007-02-26 18:37:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hey Snare - your post was shit.
It's a scare tactic. The earth was once covered in ice. To my knowledge, we are still here. These scientists are only looking for grant money. Skepticism is the basis of science. Wake up numbnuts.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-26 18:32:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I will trap my semen into an ice core and after humanity is done cooking up, antartica will melt and my seed will be unleashed upon earth.
A new era of me. I can't wait.
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-02-26 18:21:53 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
NO, IT'S NOT.
[edit] Antarctica
[edit] Vostok
Vostok team.Up to 2003, the longest core drilled was at Vostok station. It reached back 420,000 years and revealed 4 past glacial cycles. Drilling stopped just above Lake Vostok. The Vostok core was not drilled at a summit, hence ice from deeper down has flowed from upslope; this slightly complicates dating and interpretation. Vostok core data is available [31].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years, the latest study of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirms.
The in-depth analysis of air bubbles trapped in a 3.2km-long core of frozen snow shows current greenhouse gas concentrations are unprecedented.
The East Antarctic core is the longest, deepest ice column yet extracted.
Project scientists say its contents indicate humans could be bringing about dangerous climate changes.
"My point would be that there's nothing in the ice core that gives us any cause for comfort," said Dr Eric Wolff from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS).
"There's nothing that suggests that the Earth will take care of the increase in carbon dioxide. The ice core suggests that the increase in carbon dioxide will definitely give us a climate change that will be dangerous," he told BBC News.
The Antarctic researcher was speaking here at the British Association's (BA) Science Festival.
Slice of history
The ice core comes from a region of the White Continent known as Dome Concordia (Dome C). It has been drilled out by the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (Epica), a 10-country consortium.
The column's value to science is the tiny pockets of ancient air that were locked into its millennia of accumulating snowflakes.
Each slice of this now compacted snow records a moment in Earth history, giving researchers a direct measure of past environmental conditions.
Not only can scientists see past concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane - the two principal human-produced gases now blamed for global warming - in the slices, they can also gauge past temperatures from the samples.
This is done by analysing the presence of different types, or isotopes, of hydrogen atom that are found preferentially in precipitating water (snow) when temperatures are relatively warm.
'Scary' rate
Earlier results from the Epica core were published in 2004 and 2005, detailing the events back to 440,000 years and 650,000 years respectively. Scientists have now gone the full way through the column, back another 150,000 years.
The picture is the same: carbon dioxide and temperature rise and fall in step.
Like tiny time capsules, bubbles trap ancient samples of atmosphere
"Ice cores reveal the Earth's natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years. When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change. Over the last 200 years human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range," explained Dr Wolff.
The "scary thing", he added, was the rate of change now occurring in CO2 concentrations. In the core, the fastest increase seen was of the order of 30 parts per million (ppm) by volume over a period of roughly 1,000 years.
"The last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years. We really are in the situation where we don't have an analogue in our records," he said.
Natural buffer
The plan now is to try to extend the ice-core record even further back in time. Scientists think another location, near to a place known as Dome A (Dome Argus), could allow them to sample atmospheric gases up to a million and a half years ago.
Some of the increases in carbon dioxide will be alleviated by natural "sinks" on the land and in the oceans, such as the countless planktonic organisms that effectively pull carbon out of the atmosphere as they build skeletons and shell coverings.
But Dr Corinne Le Quéré, of the University of East Anglia and BAS, warned the festival that these sinks may become less efficient over time.
We could not rely on them to keep on buffering our emissions, she said.
"For example, we don't know what the effect will be of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems. There is potential for deterioration," she explained.
More CO2 absorbed by the oceans will raise their acidity, and a number of recent studies have concluded that this will eventually disrupt the ability of marine micro-organisms to use the calcium carbonate in the water to produce their hard parts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2007-02-26 18:18:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Seen drudgereport.com lately? If not.... READ ON....
POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'
Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:
Last night, Al Gore's global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.
Gore's mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore's average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Gore's extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-02-26 18:04:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-02-26 17:51:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-02-26 17:50:51 (#)
Ranking: 0
reading through all these reviews....at least half of what people have written as if they are facts are wrong.
============
Not mine, I did this thing called.......research
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mostly....but you saying 'higher temperatures than have ever been recorded' is a little misleading......higher than have ever been recorded with a thermometer maybe, but we know it's been hotter in the past.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-02-26 17:51:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-02-26 17:50:51 (#)
Ranking: 0
reading through all these reviews....at least half of what people have written as if they are facts are wrong.
============
Not mine, I did this thing called.......research
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-02-26 17:50:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
reading through all these reviews....at least half of what people have written as if they are facts are wrong.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-02-26 17:47:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/99172
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-02-26 17:47:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"The present upswing is already nearly twice the distance from the mean than any other on record. And understand that with ice cores taken from Antarctica we have a record that goes back into the millions of years. You get that? IN MILLIONS OF YEARS THE EARTH HAS NEVER BEEN AS WARM AS IT IS TODAY, AND ITS STILL GETTING WARMER!"
This is complete and utter bullshit.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (