To all the retards who still believe in Obama and global warming shit - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

David! · 07-12-2009, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

Loser republicans cry endlessly like little girls.

But they are feeble and can't accomplish a thing.

Booo hooo hoooo - cry all you want, wingnuts. Nobody cares anymore. You had your chance to govern, and all you proved was you can't get anything done.

Now you are reduced to endless crying - and nobody with power gives a shit - you can't even be effective little girls.

In 16 months, there will be elections and the way it now looks, the Democrats are about to get whipped. So, it will be you and idiots like you who will be responsible for putting Republicans back in power.
Now you can go back to Barry's cock

Kevin Marx · 07-12-2009, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PussyMan

In 16 months, there will be elections and the way it now looks, the Democrats are about to get whipped. So, it will be you and idiots like you who will be responsible for putting Republicans back in power.
Now you can go back to Barry's cock

I am no supporter of the Dems, but unfortunately, as you just said, the elections are 16 months away. Lots can happen between now and then and people's memories are short. They won't give a shit at that point about 2 years prior, only then and what they are fed to believe.

The country voted for a guy that fed them one thing and is now doing something fairly different. Think that can possibly happen again? Absolutely.

Elections are won by the person with the most believable story.

Fire · 07-12-2009, 11:20 PM

What I find really amusing is that these "scientist" who claim that man made global warming is occurring because the climate is warming faster than predicted are totally loony. I am supposed to believe that their predictions for 15-20 yrs out are accurate and that variations cause a problem. Yet they can't tell me with any accuracy what the weather will be like in 3 days. Case in point, a few months ago the weekend was supposed to be abysmal. Tons of rain and wind. Yet when the weekend came is was sunny for 4 days and no breeze anywhere. So when the climate is different from what these guys predict I am supposed to think we caused it? How about they just guessed wrong!

Also, scientific consensus doesn't equal scientific fact. Consensus is just a word you global warming buffoons started to throw around to make it sound like you know what you are talking about. Has anyone actually polled every scientist out there to see what there opinion is?

Alky · 07-12-2009, 11:40 PM

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...html?id=332289

Sukiho · 07-12-2009, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire

Has anyone actually polled every scientist out there to see what there opinion is?

What if they have? The info is there for those interested, I mean the info from the source, the satellite and temperature records etc, the only opinions that might matter are those of people who have studied the subject for years, the ones you call looneys

roly · 07-13-2009, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordhaus

how do you explain this?

http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/04/n...ove-norma.html

how very typical - cry that the arctic ice is melting - then conveniently leave out that the antarctic ice is expanding.

the difference being that antarctica is a land mass compared to the arctic which is frozen sea. therefore an increase in sea temperatures melt the ice at the arctic, as opposed to just air temperatures having an effect in Antarctica.

Libertine · 07-13-2009, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire

What I find really amusing is that these "scientist" who claim that man made global warming is occurring because the climate is warming faster than predicted are totally loony. I am supposed to believe that their predictions for 15-20 yrs out are accurate and that variations cause a problem. Yet they can't tell me with any accuracy what the weather will be like in 3 days. Case in point, a few months ago the weekend was supposed to be abysmal. Tons of rain and wind. Yet when the weekend came is was sunny for 4 days and no breeze anywhere. So when the climate is different from what these guys predict I am supposed to think we caused it? How about they just guessed wrong!

Also, scientific consensus doesn't equal scientific fact. Consensus is just a word you global warming buffoons started to throw around to make it sound like you know what you are talking about. Has anyone actually polled every scientist out there to see what there opinion is?

Scientists have in fact been polled:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Quote:

Examining the Scientific Consensus
on Climate Change

Fifty-two percent of Americans think most climate scientists agree that the Earth has been warming in recent years, and 47% think climate scientists agree (i.e., that there is a scientific consensus) that human activities are a major cause of that warming, according to recent polling. However, attempts to quantify the scientific consensus on anthropogenic warming have met with criticism. For instance, Oreskes [2004] reviewed 928 abstracts from peer-reviewed research papers and found that more than 75% either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that Earth?s climate is being affected by human activities. Yet Oreskes?s approach has been criticized for overstating the level of consensus acceptance within the examined abstracts [Peiser, 2005] and for not capturing the full diversity of scientific opinion [Pielke, 2005]. A review of previous attempts at quantifying the consensus and criticisms is provided by Kendall Zimmerman [2008]. The objective of our study presented here is to assess the scientific consensus on climate change through an unbiased survey of a large and broad group of Earth scientists.

An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and so forth). To maximize the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than 2 minutes to complete, and it was administered by a professional online survey site that allowed one-time participation by those who received the invitation. This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey, which contained up to nine questions (the full study is given by Kendall Zimmerman [2008]):

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%. This is a typical response rate for Web-based surveys [Cook et al., 2000; Kaplowitz et al., 2004]. Of our survey participants, 90% were from U.S. institutions and 6% were from Canadian institutions; the remaining 4% were from institutions in 21 other nations. More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master?s degrees. With survey participants asked to select a single category, the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5?7% of the total respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change. While respondents? names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory.

Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered ?risen? to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered ?risen? to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2. This is in contrast to results of a recent Gallup poll suggests that only 58% of the general public would answer yes to our question 2. The two areas of expertise in the survey with the smallest percentage of participants answering yes to question 2 were economic geology with 47% (48 of 103) and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36).

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

Yes, there is a consensus.

And (how surprising!) the area of expertise with the smallest percentage of scientists agreeing with the consensus is economic geology - which is primarily concerned with digging up oil, coal and ore. The area of expertise with the largest percentage of scientists agreeing with the consensus, on the other hand, is climate science.

Libertine · 07-13-2009, 02:38 AM

By the way, for those wondering what is really happening here:

It's called a manufactured controversy. The same thing that's been done with evolution/intelligent design, the same thing that's been done with the link between tobacco and cancer, etc.

It's a simple and effective PR strategy: get a few scientists or institutions to disagree with a specific position and spend a good deal of money to make sure they get attention. The public, unaware of actual scientific publications, will tend to think that nothing has been proven yet.

It's best summed up by line from a tobacco industry memo a few decades ago:

?Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ?body of fact? that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy. ... Spread doubt over strong scientific evidence and the public won?t know what to believe.?

The Discovery Institute, in trying to fight the theory of evolution, actually named their campaign "Teach the Controversy".

Now, the same thing is being done with climate science.

It's not a coincidence that ExxonMobil is one of the largest contributors to most of the institutions that say the evidence is inconclusive.

It's not a coincidence that Frederick Seitz, who was one of the most influential scientists opposing the idea of climate change, worked as a scientist for the tobacco industry a few decades ago - doing the exact same thing in that public debate.

It's not a coincidence that the Executive Director of the George C. Marshall Institute quit his job and stated that it "consisted of making arguments about global warming that just happened to coincide with the positions taken by the oil companies that funded the think tank."

It's not a coincidence that the Heartland Institute offered scientists money to come to a conference with the stated goal of getting media attention for the "controversy", nor that their Board of Directors includes the Director of Economic Policy of General Motors.

It's not a coincidence that only ~50% of the American public think that most climate scientists agree on the matter of global warming, even though over 90% of climate scientists actually do agree on the matter.

I could go on for quite a while, but to any sane mind, the situation should be clear: you "skeptics" are being played like fools through a clever marketing campaign.

raven1083 · 07-13-2009, 04:18 AM

any proof for this thread?

Mickey_ · 07-13-2009, 04:31 AM

Everyone on gfy is a climate expert, there is scientific evidence that backs up this statement. ;)

Slappin Fish · 07-13-2009, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libertine

Scientists have in fact been polled:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Yes, there is a consensus.

And (how surprising!) the area of expertise with the smallest percentage of scientists agreeing with the consensus is economic geology - which is primarily concerned with digging up oil, coal and ore. The area of expertise with the largest percentage of scientists agreeing with the consensus, on the other hand, is climate science.

Real scientists, bah.. what do they know?

Bunch of lefties.

A youtube vid and a link to a conspiracy site, that is proper proof

Carmine Raguso · 07-13-2009, 05:12 AM

This is just the last 2 billion years. Not the 4.5 billion that the earth has been around. Do you see a trend? It warms, it cool, it warms, it cools. Were dinosaurs driving SUV's that created the global hot house that they lived in?

Anybody that thinks that the Earth actually gives a fuck that we are here is a total dipshit moron. The Earth could shake us off like a bad case of fleas anytime she decides to.

Fabien · 07-13-2009, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

Whatever crazy taxes or politics, wrong or not, doesn't change the scientific fact that global warming is happening and CO2 is causing it.

Well you ain't living here dude to say this !
What a shitty spring and summer we're having here.
Yeah right "global warming"

I would beleive ya if you were talking about "global ice age" coming back.

Fabien · 07-13-2009, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worldnet

Its amazing how people have been brainwashed into believing this global warming crap. Sheep going to slaughter, and don't know it.

You know what ? It's the biggest hoax we've ever witness !
Made shit load of cash to some people and still do.

Fabien · 07-13-2009, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

So what were "experts" saying about the climate 30 years ago

From the 1970s

More great quotes here:

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/earth-d...ctions-of-2009

BINGO !
RIGHT IN THE BALLS

Now you're talking !

Fabien · 07-13-2009, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire

What I find really amusing is that these "scientist" who claim that man made global warming is occurring because the climate is warming faster than predicted are totally loony. I am supposed to believe that their predictions for 15-20 yrs out are accurate and that variations cause a problem. Yet they can't tell me with any accuracy what the weather will be like in 3 days. Case in point, a few months ago the weekend was supposed to be abysmal. Tons of rain and wind. Yet when the weekend came is was sunny for 4 days and no breeze anywhere. So when the climate is different from what these guys predict I am supposed to think we caused it? How about they just guessed wrong!

Also, scientific consensus doesn't equal scientific fact. Consensus is just a word you global warming buffoons started to throw around to make it sound like you know what you are talking about. Has anyone actually polled every scientist out there to see what there opinion is?

Excatly. Best reply in fact. It resumes everything.
End of dicussion

Libertine · 07-13-2009, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

So what were "experts" saying about the climate 30 years ago

From the 1970s

More great quotes here:

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/earth-d...ctions-of-2009

So, because a handful of scientists said stupid stuff a few decades back, you would now distrust all scientists working in that field?

That's like distrusting all doctors because there are a few who think they can cure cancer by giving you herbal tea.

There are always some nuts saying stupid stuff. In every single field. And yes, listening to them would be quite dumb.

What matters here is what the mainstream of scientists say. Not the ones who say the earth will heat up by 50 degrees over the next 10 years, nor the ones who say we'll go into a new ice age in the next 25 years.

And even then, science isn't infallible - but it's the best thing we have.

David! · 07-13-2009, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carmine raguso

this is just the last 2 billion years. Not the 4.5 billion that the earth has been around. Do you see a trend? It warms, it cool, it warms, it cools. Were dinosaurs driving suv's that created the global hot house that they lived in?

Anybody that thinks that the earth actually gives a fuck that we are here is a total dipshit moron. The earth could shake us off like a bad case of fleas anytime she decides to.

bingo!!!

DamianJ · 07-13-2009, 06:39 AM

Sigh....

Martin · 07-13-2009, 07:37 AM

Al Gore is a fucking asshole for spreading that propaganda. Carbon tax is just another way to tax the people. Don't buy into the bullshit.

Scott McD · 07-13-2009, 07:45 AM

I'm past caring about the whole thing to be honest. We'll all be long gone before it has any major affect on any of us if it is happening.
It's amazing how the past few years they have suddenly realised that if we don't change our ways....... "blah blah blah"... the shits gonna hit the fan.

It's just another way of taxing people. They were running out of ideas untill this came along. Nothing more, nothing less.

TheDoc · 07-13-2009, 08:01 AM

Damn taxes... Be sure to write, email or call your local state reps and tell them not to support this scam or you won't support them.

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Smiley · 07-13-2009, 08:28 AM

for all the na-sayers...do your own test.....go into your garage, close the door, start your car and see if the garage warms up...now think globally.....of course doing this test will help because they will be dead and well then the scientific community can maybe rid the world of fossil fuels...

the earth does heat up and cool off, its has always done this and will continue long after we wipe ourselves off the planet.....the fact that we are contributing to the rapid effect of this is very easy to see....especially in developing countries like China who opens coal burning factories at a rate of like 6 a week.....the earth has shifted its axis before also...and will again over time....we are only leasing this planet and know mother nature and the earth is a living entity that will win in the end...

both sides need to have an argument so they can justify their connections to the cash cow of oil....

the shifting of the ice is also part of the melting freezing process and along with slowing of the earths core, the shifting of its axis..

global warming is no different then years ago when it was ok for huge steel plants and chemical plants to dump toxins into the water/oceans....very small minded...."oh there is plenty of water to dilute this stuff"...but keep dumping and keep adding developing countries toxins and it will build up....there is only a certain amount of space in the oceans, and in the air...

solar, wind and nuclear would help alleviate adding more to the air....but then you have the na-sayers and all the oil companies and the republicans saying it cost too much to go that route.....actually yes, EVERYONE on this board who runs a business knows that start up costs are expensive....but once more and more people are doing it and other technologies come to light, it drives down the costs...

Rochard · 07-13-2009, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

Whatever crazy taxes or politics, wrong or not, doesn't change the scientific fact that global warming is happening and CO2 is causing it.

But twenty years ago they told us just the opposite, that we were heading towards another ice age.

TheDoc · 07-13-2009, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smiley

for all the na-sayers...do your own test.....go into your garage, close the door, start your car and see if the garage warms up...now think globally.....of course doing this test will help because they will be dead and well then the scientific community can maybe rid the world of fossil fuels...

the earth does heat up and cool off, its has always done this and will continue long after we wipe ourselves off the planet.....the fact that we are contributing to the rapid effect of this is very easy to see....especially in developing countries like China who opens coal burning factories at a rate of like 6 a week.....the earth has shifted its axis before also...and will again over time....we are only leasing this planet and know mother nature and the earth is a living entity that will win in the end...

both sides need to have an argument so they can justify their connections to the cash cow of oil....

the shifting of the ice is also part of the melting freezing process and along with slowing of the earths core, the shifting of its axis..

global warming is no different then years ago when it was ok for huge steel plants and chemical plants to dump toxins into the water/oceans....very small minded...."oh there is plenty of water to dilute this stuff"...but keep dumping and keep adding developing countries toxins and it will build up....there is only a certain amount of space in the oceans, and in the air...

solar, wind and nuclear would help alleviate adding more to the air....but then you have the na-sayers and all the oil companies and the republicans saying it cost too much to go that route.....actually yes, EVERYONE on this board who runs a business knows that start up costs are expensive....but once more and more people are doing it and other technologies come to light, it drives down the costs...

If you pump co2 into your garage without a car running, the temperature isn't going to increase. A co2 container isn't hot to the touch because it has more co2 in it or not.

Humans are not adding to co2 levels. In a single day, 1 volcano and one area of the ocean, each.. release more co2 than all humans do in a year combined. The co2 being poured into the air didn't come from humans before and it's not coming from us now.

We have plenty of air/land mass left, human eyes have still not seen all of earth and we only live on like .05% of the planets land mass.

We aren't anything.. cows release more co2 than humans.

Sukiho · 07-13-2009, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

But twenty years ago they told us just the opposite, that we were heading towards another ice age.

they are coming to take us away haha hehe

Libertine · 07-13-2009, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

But twenty years ago they told us just the opposite, that we were heading towards another ice age.

Thirty years ago, and it was a fringe position with only a few scientists backing it as well as a small bit of media hype.

It's hugely different from the situation now, where there is a broad scientific consensus.

TheDoc · 07-13-2009, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libertine

Thirty years ago, and it was a fringe position with only a few scientists backing it as well as a small bit of media hype.

It's hugely different from the situation now, where there is a broad scientific consensus.

Oh please.. During it's peak hype Science was SUPER pushing it... It was even taught in schools.

The difference today is lobbyist and politicians can buy votes, very easily or cut funding off, for any field they want.

Tom_PM · 07-13-2009, 08:57 AM

Anyone want to volunteer to go back in time so doctors from the 1970's with 1970's "state of the art" tools can treat your sudden heart attack or stroke? Step right up!

The real problem with "global warming" is the name "global warming" and how it is used by anyone for anything related to energy or recycling or whatever else chaps their ass.

The name ASSUMES that an intelligent person will be the reader, and knows how the greenhouse effect works and can run out of control. Obviously that is too much to ask the reader to admit to.

The whole thing should have been put under a simpler umbrella. I know it's hard to dumb something down past dumb.. but it's clearly required that we do so.

Libertine · 07-13-2009, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

If you pump co2 into your garage without a car running, the temperature isn't going to increase. A co2 container isn't hot to the touch because it has more co2 in it or not.

Humans are not adding to co2 levels. In a single day, 1 volcano and one area of the ocean, each.. release more co2 than all humans do in a year combined. The co2 being poured into the air didn't come from humans before and it's not coming from us now.

We have plenty of air/land mass left, human eyes have still not seen all of earth and we only live on like .05% of the planets land mass.

We aren't anything.. cows release more co2 than humans.

Humans actually are adding to co2 levels. In fact, since the start of industrialization, co2 concentrations have gone up by ~30%. And they'd been stable for the past few thousand years or so before that.

In the past, there used to be a balance. The co2 a cow releases comes from the co2 absorbed from the air by the plants the cow has eaten. Volcanoes released co2, but plants absorbed it, died, and stored it in the ground. Etc.

The co2 humans now release comes from oil and coal that was slowly stored during hundreds of millions of years.

Now, while it's true that our co2 output is much smaller than that of natural sources (about 3% of the total), it's an external influence on a fairly balanced system.

Compare it to money. Let's say you have $1000 in your bank account, make $10 a day and spend $10 a day. Then, at some point, you start buying a $0.50 pack of gum a day extra - only 5% more than you were originally spending. After 6 years, your bank account will be empty.

And as an aside:

Cows don't have more of an effect than humans. What you're thinking of is the bit that was in the news about cows having a bigger effect than cars, and not because of co2, but because of methane. And, of course, we're responsible for there being that many cows out there.

As for volcanoes, humans are actually responsible for an output of about 125 times as much co2 as volcanoes.

Libertine · 07-13-2009, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Oh please.. During it's peak hype Science was SUPER pushing it... It was even taught in schools.

The difference today is lobbyist and politicians can buy votes, very easily or cut funding off, for any field they want.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...-cooling_N.htm

Quote:

The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s ? frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds ? is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."

BestXXXPorn · 07-13-2009, 09:23 AM

Global Warning has not been proved on any level...

At first scientists were heavily criticized if they even questioned the idea that Global Warming wasn't real... now more and more are starting to speak out.

Dirty Dane · 07-13-2009, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by biskoppen

What caused all the previous global warming periodes the earth had thousands of years ago?
What causes the same global warming going on on Mars right now?

1. All periods were not human made, but that do not change the fact that the earth is warmer than it is supposed to be today.

2. There is no evidence of global warming on Mars. It is only 1 icy spot melting, and this has been observed for only few years. On Earth we have tons of evidence and observed for many years. Even if that is the case, does not change the fact as I said above.

Dirty Dane · 07-13-2009, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fabien

Well you ain't living here dude to say this !
What a shitty spring and summer we're having here.
Yeah right "global warming"

I would beleive ya if you were talking about "global ice age" coming back.

Rule #1 in science: Weather is not the same as climate

Dirty Dane · 07-13-2009, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

But twenty years ago they told us just the opposite, that we were heading towards another ice age.

"They" did not tell us that. That was some few scientists and the popular press. There were no consensus about ice age, and there is no consensus about ice age today. In 20 years from now, when it has become even warmer than today, will you quote the few scientists and "experts" again to tell majority is wrong?

Dirty Dane · 07-13-2009, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Humans are not adding to co2 levels. In a single day, 1 volcano and one area of the ocean, each.. release more co2 than all humans do in a year combined. The co2 being poured into the air didn't come from humans before and it's not coming from us now.

We have plenty of air/land mass left, human eyes have still not seen all of earth and we only live on like .05% of the planets land mass.

We aren't anything.. cows release more co2 than humans.

You are misguided. The CO2 emissions is not about our yearly percentage compared to nature, but yearly contribution to the extension. The natural contribution is a cycle, but when we add CO2 to that cycle for many years, you affect that balance.

Btw, the problem with cows is not CO2, but methan. And it is humans that control the amount of cows...

SoloGirlsContent · 07-13-2009, 09:56 AM

Dude..Shut the fuck up already about OBAMA...You lost, get over it and go suck his dick if it makes you feel better

TheDoc · 07-13-2009, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

You are misguided. The CO2 emissions is not about our yearly percentage compared to nature, but yearly contribution to the extension. The natural contribution is a cycle, but when we add CO2 to that cycle for many years, you affect that balance.

Btw, the problem with cows is not CO2, but methan. And it is humans that control the amount of cows...

We don't add to the Co2 levels.. This is why it goes down without humans doing anything, this is why it will go up, even if humans 100% stopped producing any man made Co2.

As nature/sun, etc continue to naturally warm us up, more Co2 will naturally be releases. This happens because as the sun does it's job, ice melts, more light can hit the ocean, life starts and more and more Co2 is produced. As this happens more and more, the under ocean ice sheets thin out, releasing even more Co2 and methane into the air.

Without humans, we would have a lot more cows. And methane, is far more dangerous than Co2. One methane burp from the ocean and a single bolt of lightening can spark a match you haven't ever seen before.

TheDoc · 07-13-2009, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libertine

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...-cooling_N.htm

Oh wow, all 70... with just over half not thinking it was real. But it was hyped either way, well into the 80's. And just like the hole in the ozone layer that was eating away, that could float around... that was man doing it then too.. it's was all bullshit.

This sounds a lot like today.. Other than we know global warming is real, and the hype is still - if it's man is making it happen. 20-40 years later, it's the same cycles and same b.s. hype and the same split on those who think it's real or not.

Dirty Dane · 07-13-2009, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

We don't add to the Co2 levels.. This is why it goes down without humans doing anything, this is why it will go up, even if humans 100% stopped producing any man made Co2.

As nature/sun, etc continue to naturally warm us up, more Co2 will naturally be releases. This happens because as the sun does it's job, ice melts, more light can hit the ocean, life starts and more and more Co2 is produced. As this happens more and more, the under ocean ice sheets thin out, releasing even more Co2 and methane into the air.

Without humans, we would have a lot more cows. And methane, is far more dangerous than Co2. One methane burp from the ocean and a single bolt of lightening can spark a match you haven't ever seen before.

It is correct that nature cause variations, but I do not think you understand how CO2 in energy budget works. When you burn off oil or coal, we DO add CO2 to the cycle and the molecules WILL stay in that cycle for many years. Without humans, it will go up, yes, but we contribute to even more warming. That is the problem; at some point of time, it is supposed to cool again, but it won't happen because we affected the balance.

I'm not sure what you mean by "without humans, we would have a lot more cows". Why do you think so?

David! · 07-13-2009, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simonsyinister

Dude..Shut the fuck up already about OBAMA...You lost, get over it and go suck his dick if it makes you feel better

I think you are the one sucking cock right now, a big black one that is...
word

CheeseFrog · 07-13-2009, 10:46 AM

The people who are spouting all this crap about "no such thing as global warming" are the ones who stand to profit the most from continued use of fossil fuel energy: big oil. And they've seemed to dump a shit ton of money into propagating disinformation. Unfortunately a lot of gullible people buy into it. We even have some people so brainwashed that they think the earth is *COOLING* FFS! I mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the direction our environment is taking when there's no glaciers left in Glacier Park. Cooling? Really? What kind of evidence would you need to convince you that global warming IS taking place? A city under water?

Libertine · 07-13-2009, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Oh wow, all 70... with just over half not thinking it was real.

7 out of 71 did support it. That's less than 10%. Over half thought the opposite was the case.

Incidentally, that opposite, which even back then 50% supported, is what 90%+ now support. So over the past few decades, a widely accepted theory has grown into a consensus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

But it was hyped either way, well into the 80's.

It was hyped by the popular media. You can hardly blame science for what popular media publish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

And just like the hole in the ozone layer that was eating away, that could float around... that was man doing it then too.. it's was all bullshit.

Eh... ozone depletion isn't bullshit. Go read up on it. We quit using CFCs for many things, and because of that, ozone depletion was halted. It will still take half a century for ozone concentrations to reach their pre-1975 levels, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

This sounds a lot like today.. Other than we know global warming is real, and the hype is still - if it's man is making it happen. 20-40 years later, it's the same cycles and same b.s. hype and the same split on those who think it's real or not.

Except that it isn't a split.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

In that poll, 75 out of 77 climate scientists said that they thought human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

The only split worthy of the name exists in the public opinion. There is a consensus among specialists, but a fierce debate between people who don't know all that much about the subject.

TheDoc · 07-13-2009, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

It is correct that nature cause variations, but I do not think you understand how CO2 in energy budget works. When you burn off oil or coal, we DO add CO2 to the cycle and the molecules WILL stay in that cycle for many years. Without humans, it will go up, yes, but we contribute to even more warming. That is the problem; at some point of time, it is supposed to cool again, but it won't happen because we affected the balance.

I'm not sure what you mean by "without humans, we would have a lot more cows". Why do you think so?

We would have a lot more of all animals, fish, birds, etc without humans. That is without question.

I know exactly how co2 works. It's naturally produced and naturally cycled by plants, water, and dirt. Just like upper air above the oil/coal burning centers don't have higher co2 than the air over the ocean. co2 is not why LA is warmer.

It's going to get 15-20 degrees warmer, even if humans never produced a particle extra of co2.

TheDoc · 07-13-2009, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libertine

7 out of 71 did support it. That's less than 10%. Over half thought the opposite was the case.

Incidentally, that opposite, which even back then 50% supported, is what 90%+ now support. So over the past few decades, a widely accepted theory has grown into a consensus.

No, 7% supported..the other almost half didn't have a clue. And of course "now" we can look back and see it was wrong, we aren't in a ice age or anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libertine

It was hyped by the popular media. You can hardly blame science for what popular media publish.

Exactly like today, other than today more money is paid to people and forced to publish whatever the 'payments' tell them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libertine

Eh... ozone depletion isn't bullshit. Go read up on it. We quit using CFCs for many things, and because of that, ozone depletion was halted. It will still take half a century for ozone concentrations to reach their pre-1975 levels, though.

You missed the point... and again, it was going away, before "man" changed anything. And now, it's been proven as a cycle, and that the estimates given in the 90's were incorrect, it was not as big or bad as they "estimated."

And even more so... when it takes 15-20 years to even see the effects "rise" to the upper atmospheres. Being so mathematically it should still be going on then... and it isn't.

Come on... pull your head out of the dark cavern.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libertine

Except that it isn't a split.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

In that poll, 75 out of 77 climate scientists said that they thought human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

The only split worthy of the name exists in the public opinion. There is a consensus among specialists, but a fierce debate between people who don't know all that much about the subject.

"aid that they thought human activity" <-- lots of thinking..

"Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change."

Wow... all 5% and 8.5% published info on climate change (which nobody is arguing) but it doesn't say, 8.5% on man made climate change.

That's a "GREAT" bit of proof you just posted... So in reality, 3 were qualified to take the "poll."

And, more than enough links have been posted on this thread and others, that say it isn't man made.

TheDoc · 07-13-2009, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheeseFrog

The people who are spouting all this crap about "no such thing as global warming" are the ones who stand to profit the most from continued use of fossil fuel energy: big oil. And they've seemed to dump a shit ton of money into propagating disinformation. Unfortunately a lot of gullible people buy into it. We even have some people so brainwashed that they think the earth is *COOLING* FFS! I mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the direction our environment is taking when there's no glaciers left in Glacier Park. Cooling? Really? What kind of evidence would you need to convince you that global warming IS taking place? A city under water?

I don't see people arguing that global warming isn't real or not. Earth is warming up, as it should be. The debate is if man is "adding" to the Co2 - speeding the process up.

What makes you think we should have Glaciers or ice caps left? We haven't always had them, just like at one point all of earth was almost covered with ice, with humans on it.

Tom_PM · 07-13-2009, 11:30 AM

When you see even one smokestack pumping out gasses and you ask "whuts in da smoke?" and you get the results, and CO2 is in the smoke, how is there one iota of doubt that "man contributes"?? How?
Is that really the question? Thats! Amazing!

TheDoc · 07-13-2009, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

When you see even one smokestack pumping out gasses and you ask "whuts in da smoke?" and you get the results, and CO2 is in the smoke, how is there one iota of doubt that "man contributes"?? How?
Is that really the question? Thats! Amazing!

Co2 is filtered from smoke stacks, very easily.. water and dirt filter it and other stuff, can break c02 down very quickly and cheaply. (Like trees)

baddog · 07-13-2009, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libertine

Thirty years ago, and it was a fringe position with only a few scientists backing it as well as a small bit of media hype.

It's hugely different from the situation now, where there is a broad scientific consensus.

cykoe6 · 07-13-2009, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libertine

Scientists have in fact been polled:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Yes, there is a consensus.

And (how surprising!) the area of expertise with the smallest percentage of scientists agreeing with the consensus is economic geology - which is primarily concerned with digging up oil, coal and ore. The area of expertise with the largest percentage of scientists agreeing with the consensus, on the other hand, is climate science.

It is not that surprising that climate change scientists whose grant money and funding is completely dependent on the the existence of "climate change" would be quite happy to find evidence which supports the theory that pays their rent. Indeed a real shocker.

07-13-2009, 02:38 AM	#58
Libertine sex dwarf Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 17,860	By the way, for those wondering what is really happening here: It's called a manufactured controversy. The same thing that's been done with evolution/intelligent design, the same thing that's been done with the link between tobacco and cancer, etc. It's a simple and effective PR strategy: get a few scientists or institutions to disagree with a specific position and spend a good deal of money to make sure they get attention. The public, unaware of actual scientific publications, will tend to think that nothing has been proven yet. It's best summed up by line from a tobacco industry memo a few decades ago: ?Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ?body of fact? that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy. ... Spread doubt over strong scientific evidence and the public won?t know what to believe.? The Discovery Institute, in trying to fight the theory of evolution, actually named their campaign "Teach the Controversy". Now, the same thing is being done with climate science. It's not a coincidence that ExxonMobil is one of the largest contributors to most of the institutions that say the evidence is inconclusive. It's not a coincidence that Frederick Seitz, who was one of the most influential scientists opposing the idea of climate change, worked as a scientist for the tobacco industry a few decades ago - doing the exact same thing in that public debate. It's not a coincidence that the Executive Director of the George C. Marshall Institute quit his job and stated that it "consisted of making arguments about global warming that just happened to coincide with the positions taken by the oil companies that funded the think tank." It's not a coincidence that the Heartland Institute offered scientists money to come to a conference with the stated goal of getting media attention for the "controversy", nor that their Board of Directors includes the Director of Economic Policy of General Motors. It's not a coincidence that only ~50% of the American public think that most climate scientists agree on the matter of global warming, even though over 90% of climate scientists actually do agree on the matter. I could go on for quite a while, but to any sane mind, the situation should be clear: you "skeptics" are being played like fools through a clever marketing campaign. __________________ /(bb\|[^b]{2})/

07-13-2009, 04:18 AM	#59
raven1083 Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,687	any proof for this thread? __________________ Femdom Stories \| Bound BBW Blog and Videos \|Bondage Sex Videos and Pictures Hardcore Japanese Bondage \| BDSM Movies And Galleries Mistress Cuckold CBT

07-13-2009, 04:31 AM	#60
Mickey_ Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Worldwide Posts: 4,238	Everyone on gfy is a climate expert, there is scientific evidence that backs up this statement. ;) __________________ LifeSelector Affiliates - Make money today promoting the online porn of tomorrow. mb [at] lifeselector.com

07-13-2009, 07:37 AM	#70
Martin "Assassins" Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: At home Posts: 17,277	Al Gore is a fucking asshole for spreading that propaganda. Carbon tax is just another way to tax the people. Don't buy into the bullshit. __________________

07-13-2009, 07:45 AM	#71
Scott McD Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 67,795	I'm past caring about the whole thing to be honest. We'll all be long gone before it has any major affect on any of us if it is happening. It's amazing how the past few years they have suddenly realised that if we don't change our ways....... "blah blah blah"... the shits gonna hit the fan. It's just another way of taxing people. They were running out of ideas untill this came along. Nothing more, nothing less. __________________ I Buy My High Quality Traffic Here, You Should Too!

07-12-2009, 11:20 PM	#53
Fire Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 486	What I find really amusing is that these "scientist" who claim that man made global warming is occurring because the climate is warming faster than predicted are totally loony. I am supposed to believe that their predictions for 15-20 yrs out are accurate and that variations cause a problem. Yet they can't tell me with any accuracy what the weather will be like in 3 days. Case in point, a few months ago the weekend was supposed to be abysmal. Tons of rain and wind. Yet when the weekend came is was sunny for 4 days and no breeze anywhere. So when the climate is different from what these guys predict I am supposed to think we caused it? How about they just guessed wrong! Also, scientific consensus doesn't equal scientific fact. Consensus is just a word you global warming buffoons started to throw around to make it sound like you know what you are talking about. Has anyone actually polled every scientist out there to see what there opinion is?

07-12-2009, 11:40 PM	#54
Alky Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston Posts: 5,651	http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...html?id=332289

07-13-2009, 05:12 AM	#62
Carmine Raguso So Fucking Banned Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Prescott, AZ Posts: 2,158	This is just the last 2 billion years. Not the 4.5 billion that the earth has been around. Do you see a trend? It warms, it cool, it warms, it cools. Were dinosaurs driving SUV's that created the global hot house that they lived in? Anybody that thinks that the Earth actually gives a fuck that we are here is a total dipshit moron. The Earth could shake us off like a bad case of fleas anytime she decides to.

07-13-2009, 06:39 AM	#69
DamianJ Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land Posts: 15,808	Sigh....

07-13-2009, 08:01 AM	#72
TheDoc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Currently Incognito Posts: 13,827	Damn taxes... Be sure to write, email or call your local state reps and tell them not to support this scam or you won't support them. https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml __________________ ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825 It's all disambiguation

07-13-2009, 08:28 AM	#73
Smiley Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Somewhere Between Here & There Posts: 1,265	for all the na-sayers...do your own test.....go into your garage, close the door, start your car and see if the garage warms up...now think globally.....of course doing this test will help because they will be dead and well then the scientific community can maybe rid the world of fossil fuels... the earth does heat up and cool off, its has always done this and will continue long after we wipe ourselves off the planet.....the fact that we are contributing to the rapid effect of this is very easy to see....especially in developing countries like China who opens coal burning factories at a rate of like 6 a week.....the earth has shifted its axis before also...and will again over time....we are only leasing this planet and know mother nature and the earth is a living entity that will win in the end... both sides need to have an argument so they can justify their connections to the cash cow of oil.... the shifting of the ice is also part of the melting freezing process and along with slowing of the earths core, the shifting of its axis.. global warming is no different then years ago when it was ok for huge steel plants and chemical plants to dump toxins into the water/oceans....very small minded...."oh there is plenty of water to dilute this stuff"...but keep dumping and keep adding developing countries toxins and it will build up....there is only a certain amount of space in the oceans, and in the air... solar, wind and nuclear would help alleviate adding more to the air....but then you have the na-sayers and all the oil companies and the republicans saying it cost too much to go that route.....actually yes, EVERYONE on this board who runs a business knows that start up costs are expensive....but once more and more people are doing it and other technologies come to light, it drives down the costs... __________________ NSCash [email protected]

07-13-2009, 08:57 AM	#79
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	Anyone want to volunteer to go back in time so doctors from the 1970's with 1970's "state of the art" tools can treat your sudden heart attack or stroke? Step right up! The real problem with "global warming" is the name "global warming" and how it is used by anyone for anything related to energy or recycling or whatever else chaps their ass. The name ASSUMES that an intelligent person will be the reader, and knows how the greenhouse effect works and can run out of control. Obviously that is too much to ask the reader to admit to. The whole thing should have been put under a simpler umbrella. I know it's hard to dumb something down past dumb.. but it's clearly required that we do so. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

07-13-2009, 09:23 AM	#82
BestXXXPorn Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Asheville, NC Posts: 2,277	Global Warning has not been proved on any level... At first scientists were heavily criticized if they even questioned the idea that Global Warming wasn't real... now more and more are starting to speak out. __________________ ICQ: 258-202-811 \| Email: eric{at}bestxxxporn.com

07-13-2009, 09:56 AM	#87
SoloGirlsContent So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Mother fuckin Earth Posts: 5,013	Dude..Shut the fuck up already about OBAMA...You lost, get over it and go suck his dick if it makes you feel better

07-13-2009, 10:46 AM	#92
CheeseFrog Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: AZ Posts: 1,724	The people who are spouting all this crap about "no such thing as global warming" are the ones who stand to profit the most from continued use of fossil fuel energy: big oil. And they've seemed to dump a shit ton of money into propagating disinformation. Unfortunately a lot of gullible people buy into it. We even have some people so brainwashed that they think the earth is COOLING FFS! I mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the direction our environment is taking when there's no glaciers left in Glacier Park. Cooling? Really? What kind of evidence would you need to convince you that global warming IS taking place? A city under water? __________________ Cary \| AIM: cheesefrog \| ICQ: 4287002

07-13-2009, 11:30 AM	#97
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	When you see even one smokestack pumping out gasses and you ask "whuts in da smoke?" and you get the results, and CO2 is in the smoke, how is there one iota of doubt that "man contributes"?? How? Is that really the question? Thats! Amazing! __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.