An Inconvenient Truth...Global Warming my Ass... - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

will76 · 01-12-2007, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

Again, Will - in "history"??!! How can someone even claim to know this? What exactly were the CO2 levels on earth 2 million years ago? 1 million? Even 200,000 years ago?

It's limited data. Period. You can't deny that. I'll again refer to the fact that we don't even know what killed the dinosaurs - huge things - bigger than humans. Many different varieties. All gone. How? Why? Perhaps the CO2 levels were a LOT worse then? We don't know because we have VERY limited data on the earth's history.

Are you fucking serious ? This has to be one of the most close minded and idiotic things I have heard someone say. So i guess you believe the earth is the center of the universe, there is no other life forms out there, etc..

So you are saying we can only record things from our past that took place while we were here to record it ??? I guess you never heard of things like carbon dating ?

In the documentary, which I guess you have never seen, they used a very common method amoung the scientific community which is drilling holes deep into the ice and getting ice cores which contain information from millions of years ago. I am not the best person to explain to you how this works but here are some pictures i just found to give you picture of what it is. http://www.waisdivide.unh.edu/Galler...?GALLERY_ID=61

Do a little research and open up your mind.

will76 · 01-12-2007, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

There are areas in the states that are having the coldest winters in years, more snow, ice, etc. 4 years ago we had the coldest winter in GA since records were started.

OMG, GLOBAL COOLING!! DON'T DRIVE ANY WHERE!

someone was right when they said earlier " it is the end of the world as we know it" it might not be from global warming but it will be from people with this amount of intelligence taking over.

Semi-Retired-Dave · 01-12-2007, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starpimps

WARNING
POSTING ON GFY DEPLETES THE OZONE LAYER!
stop posting now! or get an ozone friendly msg board.
"paper or plastic sir?"

baddog · 01-12-2007, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

And that right there is the biggest problem. I wouldn't suggest getting your "facts" from the newspaper or CNN on this one, it requires a little more indept research then that.

you don't believe in el nino?

will76 · 01-12-2007, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThunderBalls

But global warming is a fact, its funny that the ones that think different are Bush supporters.

They are listening to too much Rush on the radio.

It's sad, the govt is the reason we are still dependent on oil. If the people in power weren't benefiting from OIL is one way $ or another $$ then we would have made a big switch to alternative sources of fuel YEARS ago. We would be to a level of oil consumption that we could produce ourselves by now, on our way to being off of it 95% or more.

If they have to make changes that would stop global warming it would be 100x worse then what they needed to do to get us off of OIL. that is the sad facts. They brainwash all you people to thinking it is a myth so you don't boot their ass out of office. However stupidity and apathy is so rampit i don't think it really matters if the govt admitted global warming is real people probably still wouldnt give a shit. Case in point is our dependency on oil. The public knew there were other ways to produce energy several years ago but you never heard an out cry from the people to force govt to make the changes.

95% of the people are either are stupid to t he issues or don't care. Of the 5% that knows what is going on, 4.9% are too lazy to do anything. The other .01% that speak up are usually labled as quacks.

stickyfingerz · 01-12-2007, 12:48 PM

Im sure alot ignored this, so Ill repost here on page 4

Quote:

AL GORE INCONVIENIENT TRUTH

In May, our nation was exposed to perhaps one of the slickest science propaganda films of all time: former Vice President Gore?s ?An Inconvenient Truth.? In addition to having the backing of Paramount Pictures to market this film, Gore had the full backing of the media, and leading the cheerleading charge was none other than the Associated Press.

On June 27, the Associated Press ran an article by Seth Borenstein that boldly declared ?Scientists give two thumbs up to Gore's movie.? The article quoted only five scientists praising Gore?s science, despite AP?s having contacted over 100 scientists. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news...-reviews_x.htm

The fact that over 80% of the scientists contacted by the AP had not even seen the movie or that many scientists have harshly criticized the science presented by Gore did not dissuade the news outlet one bit from its mission to promote Gore?s brand of climate alarmism. http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

I am almost at a loss as to how to begin to address the series of errors, misleading science and unfounded speculation that appear in the former Vice President?s film Here is what Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist from MIT has written about ?An Inconvenient Truth.? ?A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.? http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

What follows is a very brief summary of the science that the former Vice President promotes in either a wrong or misleading way:

? He promoted the now debunked ?hockey stick? temperature chart in an attempt to prove man?s overwhelming impact on the climate

?He attempted to minimize the significance of Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age

?He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most sciences believe does not exist.

?He asserted that today?s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930?s were as warm or warmer

?He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.

?He hyped unfounded fears that Greenland?s ice is in danger of disappearing

?He erroneously claimed that ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame the ice loss on local land-use practices

?He made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way out side of any supposed scientific ?consensus? and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature.

?He incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming, while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other glaciers in South America are advancing

?He blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, despite NASA scientists concluding that local population and grazing factors are the more likely culprits

?He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact they are thriving

?He completely failed to inform viewers that the 48 scientists who accused President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004

Now that was just a brief sampling of some of the errors presented in ?An Inconvenient Truth.? Imagine how long the list would have been if I had actually seen the movie -- there would not be enough time to deliver this speech today.

Anthony · 01-12-2007, 12:49 PM

Living in Fear ain't no way to live.

will76 · 01-12-2007, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

you don't believe in el nino?

yes i do, but i don't believe that el nino is causing global warming. I didn't say everything in the newspaper isn't true. EL nino isn't the cause of global warming as someone was trying to contect those dots.

Pleasurepays · 01-12-2007, 12:54 PM

I for one am happy to see all of the resident GFY Climatologists ironing out their differences and deciding the future of the planet for generations to come. Surely one day all of humanity will look back on this time and it shall be known as "the time the exploiters of woman, affiliate reps, crappy designers and second rate programmers saved the world"

will76 · 01-12-2007, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Im sure alot ignored this, so Ill repost here on page 4

LOL i am not even a scientist and I can see through a lot of the bullshit points you posted. Maybe later when i have some time to waste i will reply to some of them. Where did they get these people to refute the information in the movie, the street corner.

Here is some good info for you. You are ALWAYS going to have someone saying that you are wrong ALWAYS. he could have said the sky is blue and you would have a list of points like you posted still. This happens even more so when what he says will cost huge corperations billions of dollars.

Peaches · 01-12-2007, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Glad to see someone watches the Discovery Channel.

I actually paid attention in class 30+ years ago when they were talking about how much more of the earth was covered in water millions of years ago so to have it happen again wouldn't be that much of a surprise.

Not to mention all the continents being one land mass. I think I'm going to blame big business for the creation of the 7 continents too.

Have humans screwed up and polluted their environment? Of course they have. It is as much of a problem as it's being portrayed as in order to sell movie tickets and a DVD? No, I don't believe it is. But I'll think about it while driving my SUV 60 miles each way to dinner tonight

BradM · 01-12-2007, 12:59 PM

Global warming is such horse shit. How do we know we don't have 5* weather changes every 400 years? We have 100 years worth of data to go by. How do we know every 110,234 years we don't get a 2.2* increase every summer?

Global warming = crap.

psili · 01-12-2007, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Im sure alot ignored this, so Ill repost here on page 4

I haven't seen the Gore movie but I'm quite sure a lot of the points in the article you posted could be refuted as well; just like with the rest of the stats being thrown around. But I'm curious, did you stop at reading the article that refutes "An Inconvenient Truth" or did you go look for yourself at reports on climate change?

Here's another nasa one:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

Quote:

Global warming is now 0.6°C in the past three decades and 0.8°C in the past century. It is no longer correct to say that "most global warming occurred before 1940". More specifically, there was slow global warming, with large fluctuations, over the century up to 1975 and subsequent rapid warming of almost 0.2°C per decade.

Recent warming coincides with rapid growth of human-made greenhouse gases. Climate models show that the rate of warming is consistent with expectations (5). The observed rapid warming thus gives urgency to discussions about how to slow greenhouse gas emissions (6).

Peaches · 01-12-2007, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

yes i do, but i don't believe that el nino is causing global warming. I didn't say everything in the newspaper isn't true. EL nino isn't the cause of global warming as someone was trying to contect those dots.

Actually I clearly stated that the oddities in the weather this year are attributed to El Nino. Those were the only dots I was connecting.

Tom_PM · 01-12-2007, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

I for one am happy to see all of the resident GFY Climatologists ironing out their differences and deciding the future of the planet for generations to come. Surely one day all of humanity will look back on this time and it shall be known as "the time the exploiters of woman, affiliate reps, crappy designers and second rate programmers saved the world"

WarChild · 01-12-2007, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psili

I found a page with a bunch of NASA graphs too, but they trend upward *shrug*

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

I also couldn't find a graph that had CO2 emissions trending down. And the only thing I'm pretty confident when reading about this stuff is that:

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. Globally, CO2 emissions are increasing due to man's actions.
3. Greenhouse gasses trap heat.

What am I missing?

The difference, from what I can tell at a fairly quick glance, is that the charts you linked to are only measuring variance in temperature where as the one I posted is measuring both temperature variance and CO2 levels. I'm not arguing that temperature has not been increasing somewhat in the last 50 years.

What my chart showed is that for a period of at least 30 years, while CO2 levels were continually climbing, temperature was in fact falling. This makes it a little more difficult to believe that CO2 alone is responsible for temperature increases.

will76 · 01-12-2007, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony

Living in Fear ain't no way to live.

neither is driving 120 mph down a side street with your setbelt off. LOL

Close your eyes, if you can't see it, it isn't there.

Peaches · 01-12-2007, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

I for one am happy to see all of the resident GFY Climatologists ironing out their differences and deciding the future of the planet for generations to come. Surely one day all of humanity will look back on this time and it shall be known as "the time the exploiters of woman, affiliate reps, crappy designers and second rate programmers saved the world"

I have printed this thread and will put it in a time capsule to be opened in 2000 years so we can be thanked posthumously.

will76 · 01-12-2007, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

Actually I clearly stated that the oddities in the weather this year are attributed to El Nino. Those were the only dots I was connecting.

Ok i understand now, global warming took the year off and it was el nino that caused all of the weather events this year around the world.... interesting.

D · 01-12-2007, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Im sure alot ignored this, so Ill repost here on page 4

I can't comment on all of those points as an authority, but I sure as hell can on the polar bear bit, as I just finished a Biological Systems and Environmental Science college term paper and powerpoint presentation on the state of Polar Bears a month or so ago.

They are not thriving. In fact, "just a couple of weeks ago the U.S. government proposed listing polar bears as threatened with extinction under the Endangered Species Act because the animals' s ice habitat is melting"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...lar-bears.html

This proposal was the result of a year long study on data that has been collected on the mammals from the 1980's to date that I have studied in detail.

The same article comments briefly on the science of global warming.

Too, we're also threatening their ability to reproduce by introducing human manufactured toxins into their bodies that cannot dissipate via Phase II metabolism. This has been proven in a series of experiments involving Polar Bear Livers.

I could go on, but the main point is that you're simply wrong here. Polar Bears are not thriving. And if that one point (that you present as fact) is flat-out incorrect, I'm willing to bet the others have their weak points, too.

I don't think we're the ones that are affected by "propaganda" here, sticky.

justinsain · 01-12-2007, 01:23 PM

This thread needs more global warming pics

MarkTiarra · 01-12-2007, 01:24 PM

I used to think humanity had a chance until I read so many moronic posts in this thread. We don't deserve this planet.

_Richard_ · 01-12-2007, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Umm because you could actually SEE the pollution 30 to 50 years ago. SEE IT!. Now you show me pictures of visible pollution today. Lets see it. I already posted pictures of what it used to be like, show me where its anywhere near that bad today.

1954 show me a picture today that looks ANYWHERE near this bad.

wow.. that's a really nice picture.

Question, how do i know that's not fog? What "facts" have you shown me that states that is actually pollution?

Can we get back to what we were talking about? Do i actually need to beat you with a stick to get you to accept the fact we're fucking up the planet, and mere pictures are basically worthless? I can walk towards any direction from 1500 W Georgia, Downtown Vancouver, and SEE the effects of pollution.

Out of the spirit that you might be right, i looked for images of "today's non-existant pollution. I gave up.

http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=smog+2006

Look for yourself.

R

Peaches · 01-12-2007, 01:27 PM

OK, so the world's temp has gone up .08C degrees in 100 years and ALMOST .02C per decade.

I'm sorry if I just don't see that as disastrous nor do I see it as something that's not ever happened before in the entire history of the earth. In actuality, it's probably happened several times in the history of the earth.

Like I said, when there are seashell fossils several hundred miles inshore, you have to accept that more of the earth has been covered with liquid water than it is now, ergo less frozen water, ergo previous warmer conditions.

Sorry that I'm just not that worried about it

Pleasurepays · 01-12-2007, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkTiarra

I used to think humanity had a chance until I read so many moronic posts in this thread. We don't deserve this planet.

what could be said about a moron that uses GFY as a general litmus test of the attitudes and intelligence of 6 billion people?

Pleasurepays · 01-12-2007, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

OK, so the world's temp has gone up .08C degrees in 100 years and ALMOST .02C per decade.

I'm sorry if I just don't see that as disastrous nor do I see it as something that's not ever happened before in the entire history of the earth. In actuality, it's probably happened several times in the history of the earth.

Like I said, when there are seashell fossils several hundred miles inshore, you have to accept that more of the earth has been covered with liquid water than it is now, ergo less frozen water, ergo previous warmer conditions.

Sorry that I'm just not that worried about it

Geology 101 - tectonic plates move and are in a continual cycle of abduction and subduction. finding seashell fossiles 100's of miles inshore might be proof that the area in question was underwater... however, it ignores the other realities of geology, namely the fact that the tectonic plates are moving and constantly being forced up from underwater or being forced under.

;)

dv2 · 01-12-2007, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Sexbankroll

wow.. that's a really nice picture.

Question, how do i know that's not fog? What "facts" have you shown me that states that is actually pollution?

Can we get back to what we were talking about? Do i actually need to beat you with a stick to get you to accept the fact we're fucking up the planet, and mere pictures are basically worthless? I can walk towards any direction from 1500 W Georgia, Downtown Vancouver, and SEE the effects of pollution.

Out of the spirit that you might be right, i looked for images of "today's non-existant pollution. I gave up.

http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=smog+2006

Look for yourself.

R

Oh shit...this is hilarious.
It's a fucking photo from 50 years ago on a rainy day with some crappy old camera over 50 years old.
If thats smog, then wait till you see the night time pics.
The smog rolls in at sunset and engulfs the whole region making it
impossible to see without lights.
Brilliant

MarkTiarra · 01-12-2007, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

what could be said about a moron that uses GFY as a general litmus test of the attitudes and intelligence of 6 billion people?

Good point.

_Richard_ · 01-12-2007, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Im sure alot ignored this, so Ill repost here on page 4

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news...-reviews_x.htm

or, if you don't want to bother: THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT FOUND.

funny.

1. He promoted the now debunked ?hockey stick? temperature chart in an attempt to prove man?s overwhelming impact on the climate.

funny: Ever since the publication of Mann, Bradley and Hughes' data, global warming sceptics have tried to chip away at this record.. coping mechanism?

But Joyce Penner thinks the signs are that the analysis behind the chart of temperature variation is sound:

"Even if more data is added, I would be surprised if it changed the shape of that curve much. There is such a strong difference between pre-industrial behaviour and the growth during the last 100 years or so," she said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3569604.stm

2. He attempted to minimize the significance of Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age

funny: In an article in the publication Energy and Environment, Legates and fellow climate scientists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas criticised Mann and Jones' chart for leaving out the so-called Medieval Warm Period (AD 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (AD 1600 to 1850).

Some scientists believe that the timing of these cold and warm periods varied geographically over the globe in a considerable way. (ie NON SUFFICIENT DATA - see borehole)

3. He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most sciences believe does not exist.

funny: alright, this isn't funny, this is stupid. Warm waters cause higher winds? GET THE FUCK OUT! I need a phd to confirm or deny this? I need a sail boat!

Kevin E. Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, with others, wrote "It should be recognized that the issue is not black or white, but rather that global warming has a pervasive influence on ocean SST [sea surface temperature] and heat content, atmospheric temperature, water vapor, and atmospheric and oceanic general circulation patterns, all of which affect tropical cyclones in complex, not yet fully understood ways." and "in our view the growing body of evidence suggests a direct and growing trend in several important aspects of tropical cyclones, such as intensity, rainfall, and sea level, all of which can be attributed to global warming."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_Current

4. He asserted that today?s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930?s were as warm or warmer

who asserted? sorry..

Alright, once again.. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0924-06.htm

Wait wait wait.. does that say we just lost one of six ice shelfs that have been there for thousands of years? So, nothing actually broke off in the 1930's? Is this an argument? I don't have an iq of 140 or whatever, hell, maybe i do

5. He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.

funny: ok, so if one pillar breaks.. and we do nothing about it.. it's not a problem? Ok, i'll go find something to prove this utterly wrong, be back in 30 secs.. actually, i have to get back to my job, and i didn't cut and paste a fake article.

R

dv2 · 01-12-2007, 01:48 PM

Oops...i quoted the wrong pic...damnit. Now my whole theory makes no sense

Peaches · 01-12-2007, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

Geology 101 - tectonic plates move and are in a continual cycle of abduction and subduction. finding seashell fossiles 100's of miles inshore might be proof that the area in question was underwater... however, it ignores the other realities of geology, namely the fact that the tectonic plates are moving and constantly being forced up from underwater or being forced under.

;)

Oh bite me, Mr. Logic.

Now the group's going to blame Bush/Big business/Whatever for moving the tectonic plates

_Richard_ · 01-12-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dv2

Oops...i quoted the wrong pic...damnit. Now my whole theory makes no sense

that's ok.. i'm sure people will figure it out. This guy has to start accepting the fact that he might be wrong.

oh, about hte polar bears, cause that is important:

On a trip this summer "We saw a couple of polar bears in the sea east of Svalbard -- one of them looked to be dead and the other one looked to be exhausted," said Julian Dowdeswell, head of the Scott Polar Research Institute in England.

He said that the bears had apparently been stranded at sea by melting ice. The bears generally live around the fringes of the ice where they find it easiest to hunt seals.

NASA projected this week that Arctic sea ice is likely to recede in 2006 close to a low recorded in 2005 as part of a melting trend in recent decades. A stormy August in 2006 had slightly slowed the 2006 melt.

"There are very unusual conditions this year from Svalbard to Alaska," said Samantha Smith, director of the WWF's environmental group's Arctic Programme.

One international study in 2004 projected that summer ice could disappear completely by 2100, undermining the livelihoods of indigenous peoples and driving creatures such as polar bears towards extinction.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1367342006

DWB · 01-12-2007, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkTiarra

I used to think humanity had a chance until I read so many moronic posts in this thread. We don't deserve this planet.

I concur.

corbu · 01-12-2007, 03:04 PM

we are all going to hell for the fact that we are fucking up this place!
major global warming in hell!

stickyfingerz · 01-12-2007, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

I have printed this thread and will put it in a time capsule to be opened in 2000 years so we can be thanked posthumously.

No worries you only need to keep it maybe.... 5 years and I think the results will be clear.

What we really need are the odd in vegas on what the next big gloom and doom issue will be.

Semi-Retired-Dave · 01-12-2007, 03:37 PM

This thread became very educational, thanks.

directfiesta · 01-12-2007, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dv2

Oops...i quoted the wrong pic...damnit. Now my whole theory makes no sense

it's OK ...

Intelligent people can figure it out ...

Let the others look at dinosaurs pictures ...

Dagwolf · 01-12-2007, 03:39 PM

I could use a little global warming right now.

stickyfingerz · 01-12-2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Sexbankroll

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news...-reviews_x.htm

or, if you don't want to bother: THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT FOUND.

funny.

1. He promoted the now debunked ?hockey stick? temperature chart in an attempt to prove man?s overwhelming impact on the climate.

funny: Ever since the publication of Mann, Bradley and Hughes' data, global warming sceptics have tried to chip away at this record.. coping mechanism?

But Joyce Penner thinks the signs are that the analysis behind the chart of temperature variation is sound:

"Even if more data is added, I would be surprised if it changed the shape of that curve much. There is such a strong difference between pre-industrial behaviour and the growth during the last 100 years or so," she said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3569604.stm

2. He attempted to minimize the significance of Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age

funny: In an article in the publication Energy and Environment, Legates and fellow climate scientists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas criticised Mann and Jones' chart for leaving out the so-called Medieval Warm Period (AD 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (AD 1600 to 1850).

Some scientists believe that the timing of these cold and warm periods varied geographically over the globe in a considerable way. (ie NON SUFFICIENT DATA - see borehole)

3. He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most sciences believe does not exist.

funny: alright, this isn't funny, this is stupid. Warm waters cause higher winds? GET THE FUCK OUT! I need a phd to confirm or deny this? I need a sail boat!

Kevin E. Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, with others, wrote "It should be recognized that the issue is not black or white, but rather that global warming has a pervasive influence on ocean SST [sea surface temperature] and heat content, atmospheric temperature, water vapor, and atmospheric and oceanic general circulation patterns, all of which affect tropical cyclones in complex, not yet fully understood ways." and "in our view the growing body of evidence suggests a direct and growing trend in several important aspects of tropical cyclones, such as intensity, rainfall, and sea level, all of which can be attributed to global warming."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_Current

4. He asserted that today?s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930?s were as warm or warmer

who asserted? sorry..

Alright, once again.. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0924-06.htm

Wait wait wait.. does that say we just lost one of six ice shelfs that have been there for thousands of years? So, nothing actually broke off in the 1930's? Is this an argument? I don't have an iq of 140 or whatever, hell, maybe i do

5. He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.

funny: ok, so if one pillar breaks.. and we do nothing about it.. it's not a problem? Ok, i'll go find something to prove this utterly wrong, be back in 30 secs.. actually, i have to get back to my job, and i didn't cut and paste a fake article.

R

Fake article? It was a transcript from the Senate floor by

SENATOR JAMES INHOFE CHAIRMAN, SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

SENATE FLOOR SPEECH DELIVERED MONDAY SEPTEMBER 25, 2006

Fake article? Try to actually read it, and see what the whole page says.

http://community.livejournal.com/twc...os/528088.html

aico · 01-12-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Here Ill save some time by quoting myself.

You're an idiot. Have you even seen the movie? Since they get the CO2 readings from ice core samples, I highly doubt there is any frequency in record keeping discrepancies, the ice does not lie.

There are no "theories" in the movie, try watching it then come in here and act like you know what the fuck you are talking about.

They don't fucking read the Farmers' Almanac to get their information.

After Shock Media · 01-12-2007, 03:46 PM

You can argue with the vast majority of scientists.
You can attempt to fault them for changing their minds (theories) as new data comes in, after all why should anyone change their mind.
You can state silly things like "we still do not know what killed the dinosaurs", which of course we can never truly know but we do have a damn good and solid theory with a great deal of supporting data of what did it.
You can say it was worse at a certain point in time (take the pictures posted), yet you can still find near almost identical pictures with a change in car types if you look toward China or India. Yet why, it is not the US is it, where we have learned to use fuels that produce less colored gases that are still harmful.
You can believe what you desire in reality.

Can I ask just one real simple question.

Even if those of us who believe it are wrong, what is the harm in an approved environment and wanting to improve it?

It is not that damn hard to switch types of light bulbs. Drive a little less if you can by doing as many trips at once as possible. Recycle your aluminum, glass, and plastics. If you remodel, just pay the little extra for the correct amount of insulation, use dual pane windows, weather seal your doors, outlets, windows etc. None of that is difficult and it will also save you money.

Lastly if you can. Plant five tree's per person in your household. Extras if you have to remove any tree's in your life. Do not have room, just sponsor five tree's to be planted somewhere else (it is cheap). This alone can make a major impact.

stickyfingerz · 01-12-2007, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Sexbankroll

wow.. that's a really nice picture.

Question, how do i know that's not fog? What "facts" have you shown me that states that is actually pollution?

Can we get back to what we were talking about? Do i actually need to beat you with a stick to get you to accept the fact we're fucking up the planet, and mere pictures are basically worthless? I can walk towards any direction from 1500 W Georgia, Downtown Vancouver, and SEE the effects of pollution.

Out of the spirit that you might be right, i looked for images of "today's non-existant pollution. I gave up.

http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=smog+2006

Look for yourself.

R

Dude its fucking Pittsburg in 1954. My family grew up there its fucking pollution from the smoke stacks of the steel factories. Fog Jesus....

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Pittsburgh 1906

1947

1954

1972

Today

aico · 01-12-2007, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

Are you fucking serious ? This has to be one of the most close minded and idiotic things I have heard someone say. So i guess you believe the earth is the center of the universe, there is no other life forms out there, etc..

So you are saying we can only record things from our past that took place while we were here to record it ??? I guess you never heard of things like carbon dating ?

In the documentary, which I guess you have never seen, they used a very common method amoung the scientific community which is drilling holes deep into the ice and getting ice cores which contain information from millions of years ago. I am not the best person to explain to you how this works but here are some pictures i just found to give you picture of what it is. http://www.waisdivide.unh.edu/Galler...?GALLERY_ID=61

Do a little research and open up your mind.

Thank you, jesus, some people are so fucking stupid.

stickyfingerz · 01-12-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

You can argue with the vast majority of scientists.
You can attempt to fault them for changing their minds (theories) as new data comes in, after all why should anyone change their mind.
You can state silly things like "we still do not know what killed the dinosaurs", which of course we can never truly know but we do have a damn good and solid theory with a great deal of supporting data of what did it.
You can say it was worse at a certain point in time (take the pictures posted), yet you can still find near almost identical pictures with a change in car types if you look toward China or India. Yet why, it is not the US is it, where we have learned to use fuels that produce less colored gases that are still harmful.
You can believe what you desire in reality.

Can I ask just one real simple question.

Even if those of us who believe it are wrong, what is the harm in an approved environment and wanting to improve it?

It is not that damn hard to switch types of light bulbs. Drive a little less if you can by doing as many trips at once as possible. Recycle your aluminum, glass, and plastics. If you remodel, just pay the little extra for the correct amount of insulation, use dual pane windows, weather seal your doors, outlets, windows etc. None of that is difficult and it will also save you money.

Lastly if you can. Plant five tree's per person in your household. Extras if you have to remove any tree's in your life. Do not have room, just sponsor five tree's to be planted somewhere else (it is cheap). This alone can make a major impact.

Nothing is wrong with wanting to clean things up, no one is debating that. Its the gloom and doom mentality of it.

baddog · 01-12-2007, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Sexbankroll

On a trip this summer "We saw a couple of polar bears in the sea east of Svalbard -- one of them looked to be dead and the other one looked to be exhausted," said Julian Dowdeswell, head of the Scott Polar Research Institute in England.

He said that the bears had apparently been stranded at sea by melting ice. The bears generally live around the fringes of the ice where they find it easiest to hunt seals.

Oh man . . . are you suggesting that this hasn't happened in the past, prior to "global warming?"

stickyfingerz · 01-12-2007, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aico

You're an idiot. Have you even seen the movie? Since they get the CO2 readings from ice core samples, I highly doubt there is any frequency in record keeping discrepancies, the ice does not lie.

There are no "theories" in the movie, try watching it then come in here and act like you know what the fuck you are talking about.

They don't fucking read the Farmers' Almanac to get their information.

Yes you are totally right, Ill start buying sunblock and move to a really high mountain top right away...

Think Ill buy a bunch of mac computers while Im at it.

aico · 01-12-2007, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

OK, so the world's temp has gone up .08C degrees in 100 years and ALMOST .02C per decade.

I'm sorry if I just don't see that as disastrous nor do I see it as something that's not ever happened before in the entire history of the earth. In actuality, it's probably happened several times in the history of the earth.

Like I said, when there are seashell fossils several hundred miles inshore, you have to accept that more of the earth has been covered with liquid water than it is now, ergo less frozen water, ergo previous warmer conditions.

Sorry that I'm just not that worried about it

It's not the temperature you should be worried about, it's the CO2 levels, but I am sure you've seen the movie, otherwise, why would you be posting like you know what you are talking about?

aico · 01-12-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Yes you are totally right, Ill start buying sunblock and move to a really high mountain top right away...

Think Ill buy a bunch of mac computers while Im at it.

LMAO, sunblock, thanks for pointing out that you have absolutely zero knowledge of the problem.

Fucking idiot.

stickyfingerz · 01-12-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aico

It's not the temperature you should be worried about, it's the CO2 levels, but I am sure you've seen the movie, otherwise, why would you be posting like you know what you are talking about?

I saw it, and its the typical seed of doubt crap. Just cause you dont remember hearing the same spew for the last 30 or 40 years doesnt mean others dont remember.

_Richard_ · 01-12-2007, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Dude its fucking Pittsburg in 1954. My family grew up there its fucking pollution from the smoke stacks of the steel factories. Fog Jesus....

dude, i just give up on you. You are a smart guy, i've read and agree with a lot of the stuff you post in here.

I know it's pollution. I was making a point. I can deny stuff too. It's easy!

You act like a propagandist. You show several pictures of smog from years ago and show a nice pretty picture today. That's really great man. But why didn't you click the link i posted about pictures of smog in 2006? Did you even click it?

If you waste my time here, that's fine. At least you now have an idea that you might be wrong, and in this case, i have all the time in the world till it won't matter if you believe it or not. It will have already happened.

I was the same way, it was easier to believe that someone else will fix it, but i don't want to go BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA anymore.

R

01-12-2007, 12:49 PM	#157
Anthony Keyboard Warrior Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: One of the outer rings of Hell Posts: 9,653	Living in Fear ain't no way to live. __________________

01-12-2007, 01:24 PM	#172
MarkTiarra Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: NJ Posts: 3,833	I used to think humanity had a chance until I read so many moronic posts in this thread. We don't deserve this planet. __________________ Retired Pornosticator

01-12-2007, 03:04 PM	#184
corbu Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: los angeles Posts: 1,461	we are all going to hell for the fact that we are fucking up this place! major global warming in hell! __________________ Katie Ayanami

01-12-2007, 03:37 PM	#186
Semi-Retired-Dave Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: LA Posts: 11,190	This thread became very educational, thanks. __________________ Support a Good Cause

01-12-2007, 03:39 PM	#188
Dagwolf President of Canada Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Leaving Hell, Entering Limbo Posts: 23,141	I could use a little global warming right now. __________________ Sleep well, and dream of large women.

01-12-2007, 12:54 PM	#159
Pleasurepays BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I live in a pile of boogers Posts: 11,913	I for one am happy to see all of the resident GFY Climatologists ironing out their differences and deciding the future of the planet for generations to come. Surely one day all of humanity will look back on this time and it shall be known as "the time the exploiters of woman, affiliate reps, crappy designers and second rate programmers saved the world"

01-12-2007, 12:59 PM	#162
BradM Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 1123,6536,5231 Posts: 3,397	Global warming is such horse shit. How do we know we don't have 5* weather changes every 400 years? We have 100 years worth of data to go by. How do we know every 110,234 years we don't get a 2.2* increase every summer? Global warming = crap.

01-12-2007, 01:23 PM	#171
justinsain Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,374	This thread needs more global warming pics

01-12-2007, 01:27 PM	#174
Peaches Old broad Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Away Posts: 13,933	OK, so the world's temp has gone up .08C degrees in 100 years and ALMOST .02C per decade. I'm sorry if I just don't see that as disastrous nor do I see it as something that's not ever happened before in the entire history of the earth. In actuality, it's probably happened several times in the history of the earth. Like I said, when there are seashell fossils several hundred miles inshore, you have to accept that more of the earth has been covered with liquid water than it is now, ergo less frozen water, ergo previous warmer conditions. Sorry that I'm just not that worried about it

01-12-2007, 01:48 PM	#180
dv2 Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: New York Posts: 286	Oops...i quoted the wrong pic...damnit. Now my whole theory makes no sense

01-12-2007, 03:46 PM	#191
After Shock Media It's coming look busy Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn". Posts: 35,299	You can argue with the vast majority of scientists. You can attempt to fault them for changing their minds (theories) as new data comes in, after all why should anyone change their mind. You can state silly things like "we still do not know what killed the dinosaurs", which of course we can never truly know but we do have a damn good and solid theory with a great deal of supporting data of what did it. You can say it was worse at a certain point in time (take the pictures posted), yet you can still find near almost identical pictures with a change in car types if you look toward China or India. Yet why, it is not the US is it, where we have learned to use fuels that produce less colored gases that are still harmful. You can believe what you desire in reality. Can I ask just one real simple question. Even if those of us who believe it are wrong, what is the harm in an approved environment and wanting to improve it? It is not that damn hard to switch types of light bulbs. Drive a little less if you can by doing as many trips at once as possible. Recycle your aluminum, glass, and plastics. If you remodel, just pay the little extra for the correct amount of insulation, use dual pane windows, weather seal your doors, outlets, windows etc. None of that is difficult and it will also save you money. Lastly if you can. Plant five tree's per person in your household. Extras if you have to remove any tree's in your life. Do not have room, just sponsor five tree's to be planted somewhere else (it is cheap). This alone can make a major impact. __________________ [email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]