Do you believe in Global Warming?

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

Do you believe in Global Warming?

  • Yes

    Votes: 26 57.8%

  • No

    Votes: 19 42.2%
  • Total voters
    45
Ethereal

Ethereal

Sicc OG
#41
Mar 18, 2003
5,362
194
0
44
#41
FATHERJOE said:
You hate Fox newswatchers but do you also equally hate CBS/NBC/ABC watchers? Because they are both equally stupid.
Click to expand...
It's fair to say that all media outlets are biased to varying degrees. In this particular case I'm focusing in on Fox News as it relates to climate change. As I stated, this should not be a political debate but it is. And to understand why, all you need to do is follow the money:

  • The Koch brothers are oil tycoons. They work [own, rather] in an industry which has been attributed to being a major factor in the cause of "global warming".
  • They have openly stated that they are going to spend $900,000,000 funding the [republican] candidate of their choosing.
  • It appears as though most of the biggest names on the conservative side either don't believe in climate change or plan to do nothing about it.
    The story is different when you look at the democratic side.
  • I live in a mostly conservative town, and I consistently see people posting about how global warming is bullshit, often just referencing articles from conservative media outlets.

Now, the above is how I personally see this information trickling down.

It's crazy how money can buy the opinion of an individual who, to be quite honest, doesn't necessarily know why they believe what they do.
 
Ethereal

Ethereal

Sicc OG
#42
Mar 18, 2003
5,362
194
0
44
#42
StillHustlin said:
The gubmint is full of shit and just because someone has scientist for their title does not mean they are always right or always telling the truth. Science is always adapting and always learning something different than previously thought or assumed.
Click to expand...
Being a scientist does not mean you are always right, certainly; but they do tend to be more honest than, say, a politician. It's possible scientific opinions can be bought and paid for -- it's happened before. But we are talking about collective studies from more than 90% of the worlds population of scientists. What would their agenda be? To troll everyone?
 
T

ThaG

Sicc OG
#45
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#45
All you're proving is your lack of understanding of basic concepts such as averages and variation.

2012 was exceptional because the ice was shrunk much more than it would have otherwise been by storms.

That could have lead to real fast death spiral over the next few years (less ice means less refrezzing, faster melting next year, even less refereezing, etc.) and some people indeed talked about the possibility of this happening by 2015. It didn't. But that does not mean the ice is not shrinking.

Look at the first plot.

There are two things you should have noted

1) This year's ice extent is below the 1981-2010 average +/- 2 standard deviations.
2) They are showing you the 1981-2010 average. 5 years ago they used to show the 1981-2001 average. Now guess what has happened to the 1981-2010 average compared to the 1981-2001 average after the years 2002-2010 (which saw several record breaking low ice extents) have been added?
 
StillHustlin

StillHustlin

MAC AVE LEE
#46
May 7, 2013
13,444
16,320
113
33°
www.hoescantstopme.biz
#46
ThaG said:
All you're proving is your lack of understanding of basic concepts such as averages and variation.

2012 was exceptional because the ice was shrunk much more than it would have otherwise been by storms.

That could have lead to real fast death spiral over the next few years (less ice means less refrezzing, faster melting next year, even less refereezing, etc.) and some people indeed talked about the possibility of this happening by 2015. It didn't. But that does not mean the ice is not shrinking.

Look at the first plot.

There are two things you should have noted

1) This year's ice extent is below the 1981-2010 average +/- 2 standard deviations.
2) They are showing you the 1981-2010 average. 5 years ago they used to show the 1981-2001 average. Now guess what has happened to the 1981-2010 average compared to the 1981-2001 average after the years 2002-2010 (which saw several record breaking low ice extents) have been added?
Click to expand...
I can see the graphs and data just fine thank you. All you're proving is your failure to understand basic concepts such as the age of the earth and the age of earth's atmosphere. Even if we say the atmosphere is much younger than that of earth's age, say 1.2 million years vs 4.5 billion years, the modern scientific community is comparing <40 years of data above, and <150 years of weather record data. What is the 1.2 million year-old weather pattern (please don't pretend YOU know). A weather record of <150 years is still only .0125% of the conservative estimate of the existence of earth's atmosphere. You would be a fool to trust .0125% of something as proof positive, let alone in science- the word anomaly comes to mind. Do I deny the fact that there are definitely viable technologies to improve our standards of living in a less wasteful and less polluting manner? No, I do not deny that. I also don't deny that the climate hustlers have a hold on the scientific community, which is preventing transparency on the entire conversation. This conversation has been dominated solely by agendas.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Nice Guy

Mr. Nice Guy

Sicc OG
#48
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#48
StillHustlin said:
I can see the graphs and data just fine thank you. All you're proving is your failure to understand basic concepts such as the age of the earth and the age of earth's atmosphere. Even if we say the atmosphere is much younger than that of earth's age, say 1.2 million years vs 4.5 billion years, the modern scientific community is comparing <40 years of data above, and <150 years of weather record data. What is the 1.2 million year-old weather pattern (please don't pretend YOU know). A weather record of <150 years is still only .0125% of the conservative estimate of the existence of earth's atmosphere. You would be a fool to trust .0125% of something as proof positive, let alone in science- the word anomaly comes to mind. Do I deny the fact that there are definitely viable technologies to improve our standards of living in a less wasteful and less polluting manner? No, I do not deny that. I also don't deny that the climate hustlers have a hold on the scientific community, which is preventing transparency on the entire conversation. This conversation has been dominated solely by agendas.
Click to expand...

 
Props: StillHustlin and StillHustlin
T

ThaG

Sicc OG
#50
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#50
We've been all over this so many times in the past.

A quite small number of scientists have been honestly sounding the alarm for about half a century and saying it as it is.

A much larger number of people have hopped on the bandwagon and have been pushing the fantasy that we can continue BAU with respect to growth of the economy and the population, we'll just do it in a "green" way.

The large and organized campaign to deny that there is a problem has been primarily directed against the second group. The first group is largely marginalized and nobody pays any serious attention to it. Yet, from within the ideological circles behind that campaign an even more radical strain of thought has emerged and as a result for decades now we have been seeing all these conspiracy theories about how there is some nefarious agenda to depopulate the world, etc.

Any hypothesis/theory has to be evaluated against the evidence. What is the evidence? No person in power talks about anything but more and more growth, the world's population keeps growing by a billion every 13 years, and nobody is doing anything to address the issues, just more damage. So how can such a conspiracy theory still be pushed when all the evidence points in precisely the opposite direction? There is one answer -- we're talking about such monumental scientific illiteracy and complete disconnect from reality that these people are not only unable to understand the gravity of the ecological overshoot crisis but they also lack the mental capacity to evaluate their own conspiracy against the facts.

Which are, as I said, exactly the opposite -- Paul Ehrlich was regularly on TV back in the 1960s and 1970s, now there is barely any coverage of environmental issues and when there is it is pure greenwashing. The real message has been completely pushed out of sight and out of mind.
 
Last edited:
StillHustlin

StillHustlin

MAC AVE LEE
#51
May 7, 2013
13,444
16,320
113
33°
www.hoescantstopme.biz
#51
23-Mar-13 The continuing battle over Marcott et al.
27-Nov-12 Fact and Fancy on Greenhouse Earth (from the archives)
05-Nov-11 Why I Remain a Global-Warming Skeptic - Searching for scientific truth in the realm of climate.
29-Jan-11 Oreskes O-15 Blunder
30-Oct-10 Why the Confusion about Global Warming?
02-Oct-10 THE CENTRAL ROLE OF THE SUN IN CLIMATE CHANGE
25-Sep-10 DOMINATING ROLE OF OCEANS IN CLIMATE CHANGE
18-Sep-10 THE ROLE OF GREENLAND AND ANTARCTIC ICE CORES IN CLIMATE SCIENCE
06-Feb-10 Junkscience #8: The warmest year, decade, century game
30-Jan-10 Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST)
23-Jan-10 Junkscience: Climategate Distortion of Temperature Data
16-Jan-10 Junk Science #5: IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report [IPCC-AR4, 2007]
09-Jan-10 Junk Science #4: IPCC Third Assessment Report [IPCC-TAR, 2001]
02-Jan-10 Junk Science #3: IPCC Third Assessment Report (AR-3, 2001): Hockeystick and ClimateGate (CG)
26-Dec-09 Junk Science #2: IPCC Second Assessment Report (IPCC-AR-2, 1995, published in 1996)
19-Dec-09 Junk Science #1: IPCC
07-Nov-09 No Consensus about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)
31-Oct-09 The rebirth of the hockey-stick?
24-Oct-09 What has happened to global warming since 1998
10-Oct-09 UNEP updates IPCC and brings back the 'Hockeystick' (Part 2)
03-Oct-09 UNEP updates IPCC and brings back the 'Hockeystick' (Part 1)
19-Sep-09 Short-term climate prediction: An unrealistic project
05-Sep-09 Critique of "Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling"
29-Aug-09 Sun spot frequency has an unexpectedly strong influence on cloud formation and precipitation
25-Jul-09 Human Heat Input or GH Effect? A false choice
16-May-09 The IPCC's Evidence for Anthropogenic GW deconstructed #3
18-Apr-09 The IPCC's Evidence for Anthropogenic GW deconstructed #2
11-Apr-09 The IPCC's Evidence for Anthropogenic GW deconstructed
28-Feb-09 Why don't we see any Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming (AGW) in the Climate record?
14-Feb-09 Cost-Benefit Analysis of Climate Change and the Lifetime of CO2

[ame="http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf"]Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate[/ame]

ON WHY CO2 IS KNOWN NOT TO HAVE ACCUMULATED IN THE ATMOSPHERE & WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH CO2 IN THE MODERN ERA

"...............Man's CO2 emissions of about 6 GtC/yr might be lost just in IPCC's errors in estimating the massive natural emissions: 90 GtC/yr from the ocean, 120 GtC/yr from the land, not including 270 GtC/yr from leaf water.

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

ABSTRACT
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.
 
StillHustlin

StillHustlin

MAC AVE LEE
#52
May 7, 2013
13,444
16,320
113
33°
www.hoescantstopme.biz
#52
Hurricane formation is still not even completely understood yet some of you buy into the theories that global governments (or is it global governance?) and their paid scientist stooges give you for so-called "global warming" - based on a weather record with less than two centuries of data while ignoring simple facts and other known pertinent data....

smh

ok

I have magic sand for sale via paypal......
 
Last edited:
T

ThaG

Sicc OG
#57
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#57
Props: Coach E. No and Coach E. No
StillHustlin

StillHustlin

MAC AVE LEE
#58
May 7, 2013
13,444
16,320
113
33°
www.hoescantstopme.biz
#58
ThaG said:
1) RealClimate: So what is really happening in Antarctica?

2) Did you even read the first sentence? Which says:
Click to expand...
1) (founded by friends of Al Gore)

Domain ID:D105219760-LROR
Domain Name:REALCLIMATE.ORG
Created On:19-Nov-2004 16:39:03 UTC
Last Updated On:30-Oct-2005 21:10:46 UTC
Expiration Date:19-Nov-2007 16:39:03 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:B133AE74B8066012
Registrant Name:Betsy Ensley
Registrant Organization:Environmental Media Services
Registrant Street1:1320 18th St, NW
Registrant Street2:5th Floor
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Washington
Registrant State/Province:DC
Registrant Postal Code:20036
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.2024636670

About Environmental Media Services: = (Interesting Read!)
http://www.activistcash.com/organization...

Update: Here is the ZoomInfo on Betsy:

# Betsy Ensley, Web Editor/Program Coordinator: Betsy joined the staff of EMS in April 2002 as a program assistant for EMS's toxics program. Presently, she manages BushGreenwatch.org, a joint EMS-MoveOn.org public awareness website, and coordinates environmental community media efforts to protect and improve environmental and public health safeguards. Before coming to EMS, Betsy interned at the U.S. Department of State in the office of the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. Betsy graduated with honors from the University of Iowa in 2000, where she majored in Global Studies with thematic focus on war, peace and security. She minored in Asian languages.

It looks like part of Betsy's salary is paid by MoveOn.org who is funded by George Soros. l Hansen got some George Soros support also.



2) Yes. Your point?

3) Who are they in bed with again?

http://www.tides.org
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200409220002
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/1092546/posts
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/09/james_hansen_ge.html
http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2004/king/qtr1/0331.htm
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/09/a_follow_up_on_the_previous_st_1.html

http://www.acton.org/commentary/commentary_129.php
 
Last edited:
Coach E. No

Coach E. No

Jesus es Numero Uno
#59
Mar 30, 2013
4,191
7,800
113
#59
I believe weather patterns are cyclic, on a 7-10 year cycle, and possibly beyond that like a 50 or 100 year cycle as well. People were panicking about it after that Al Gore movie, thinking all the ice was going to melt but the amount of northern Arctic sea ice is actually going up and has some of the highest levels if I'm not mistaken.

I'm really curious as to how that Fukushima nuclear spill a couple years ago is affecting the Pacific though. There's been some strange things going on with the marine life on the west coast and could be a sign of a much larger scale damage to the ecosystem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom