TH3 Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 You should go back and read Baskin's link from "rationalwilki" before you get in any deeper. The anonymous author is obviously a global warming enthusiast. Dude - R Fred is a fraud, bought and paid for by the Tobacco people, chemical companies and now the fossil fuel industry. If people on this board are going to vilify lame ass left wing people - as least live by your own standards and don't take up defense of a TOTAL fraud. I am a conservative republican by the way. Do you own research if you don't like my links.....
DC Tom Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 The last 800,000 years (ice core records) http://www.scientifi...ata-help-solve/ Yes, I've read the paper (it's one of the more interesting problems in global warming theory, that I've been harping on for years). Believe me, it's not nearly as conclusive as SciAm makes it out to be.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Dude - R Fred is a fraud, bought and paid for by the Tobacco people, chemical companies and now the fossil fuel industry. If people on this board are going to vilify lame ass left wing people - as least live by your own standards and don't take up defense of a TOTAL fraud. I am a conservative republican by the way. Do you own research if you don't like my links..... A Conservative Republican who supports both a government takeover of healthcare as well as HIGW?
3rdnlng Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Dude - R Fred is a fraud, bought and paid for by the Tobacco people, chemical companies and now the fossil fuel industry. If people on this board are going to vilify lame ass left wing people - as least live by your own standards and don't take up defense of a TOTAL fraud. I am a conservative republican by the way. Do you own research if you don't like my links..... Not exactly how it works. If I don't like your links I should prove your point for you by doing my own research? Ha! Your link was some anonymous blog who screamed "denier" every chance he got. No thanks. Come up with something better if you want to convince anyone.
John Adams Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 That is all you could find to refute? Pretty week argument The temperature has been flat for 17 years even as CO2 has been increasing, meanwhile Al Gore was claiming the ice caps would be gone by this year. Those 17 years include some of the hottest on record. A limited record but nevertheless, still those are some hot years. That said, it's a 17 year period...in the history of the earth. Nice sample size. So the point, lost on you, is that concluding a long term climatic trend from any 17 year sample is moronic, and what's more moronic is concluding that GW is wrong based on that particular small sample. It's stoopid^2. And my post had nothing to do with Al Gore but thanks for being a hack and bringing him up.
GG Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Let's say that we are entering a warming trend and it's man-made. Stopping it may be impossible but adapting to it is not. You mean like mankind has been adapting to nature's changes since dawn of man? Shocking, I know.
OCinBuffalo Posted March 31, 2014 Author Posted March 31, 2014 Couple things - I have not seen any legislation proposed/talked about etc from the "left" in several years - Yes BO is tightening the restrictions on coal plants - but the forces who do not believe in legislation regarding GW have won the war - there will be no GW legislation in the US. While legislation is dead - the science continues. The potential for legislation is not dead, the political issue continues as well. "If I had $100 million, If I had a $100 million, I'd buy you a Senate, I'd buy you a Senate." Did you not hear about the all night Senate session conducted recently, largely to court $100 million from one guy? So JA doesn't cry about sources: here's the NYT version of it. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/us/politics/26-democrats-plan-a-senate-all-nighter-on-climate-change.html?_r=0 $100 mil split amongst ~20 democrats? That can make a HUGE difference in a Senate race, which is why they were willing to be so shameless, and do this entire thing for 1 guy. They don't care about this issue, they care about getting this guy's $. If I had $100 million and I could spend it on this Senate race? I would agree to spend it on R candidates, provided they held an all night session extolling the virtues of the Bills and Sabres, insist that the Shout Song was played 1 time per hour, proposed legislation that keeps both in Buffalo permanently, discussing my proposals for fixing entitlements and adjusting government involvment in health care, and spent at least 1 hour mocking the hell out of this past senate all-nighter. What do you think the chances are that they wouldn't take my money, and do my dance? You're either high, crazy, or stupid if you think Democrats will be reasonable, and concede defeat on this issue: they cannot, as too many of their donors have paid huge $(Hollywood) and these donors will force them back onto this issue no matter what. Besides, once again, Global Warming, the vehicle that leads to implementation of socialism, is simply too perfect to abandon. The only way the elected Democrat can free himself from these people? Stop taking their $. Why the hell would they ever do that? Second - Whose lies? Are we saying that the thermometers are lying? 2013 was - what - 4th warmest on record? So we have the science community maintaining that this is continued evidence. So the right wing points fingers at the science community and says they are liars and simply want to take over the world.... Those who are psychologically committed to Global Warming have lied, and been caught, many times. Do you really want me to produce a list? We've discussed it here every time they get caught lying. Yeah, I'm not gonna lift a finger: you learning how to use the search functions here is the best idea. Search for Global Warming, and you can read up on all of the leftist lies we've already posted and laughed about. Again you are carrying the water of people whose models aren't even close to approaching the observations. Are you that dumb? Don't you realize that the OBSERVED data does not support the AGW theory? Don't you realize that they predicted 2013 to a be a hell of a lot hotter than it was, and the ONLY reason we keep hearing about "hottest year on record" is that they are deflecting from that failed prediction? Don't you realize that this is WHY they MUST defer to these 2 speculations? The "Settled Science" behind the theory cannot stand on it's own. It requires 2 speculations to save its ass. And you ask me who is lying? ALGORE, Inc. and 80% of the Democratic party, called all of this "settled science" in 2006. Perhaps you should start by attempting to explain how that isn't a massive lie, and why ALGORE, Inc. 80% of the Democratic party don't have to answer for that massive lie? I suggest you read the article from Wired regarding coal plants - it is a very straight forward view on the demand of power to raise hundreds of millions from poverty transfixed with the pollutants and the Chinese government attempts to balance these two. Seems the Chinese don't have an issue with accepting the science of GW - they are just at the point of balancing its use with its detriments. The Chinese scoff at you and the dumbass author of this article, as they couldn't care less about any of this....right up until the point that the peasants revolt, because their kids all have asthma. It's hilarious that the real problem gets ignored, by you and the author, so that the fantasy problem can dominate the discussion. The clown approached the entire article stupidly, because he was looking to find stuff to support GW, when he should have realized his error, and turned this into a "shameless communism, and it's propensity to treat it's people as merely resources to be consumed, some completely consumed by pollution". I wonder why he didn't do that? Ideology perhaps? The only balancing act that is going on here is how badly can the Chinese treat their people, and how much money can the central committee members make, before they reach a breaking point? Rather than reaching that point, the Chinese back away from it, and "balance" things out by doing stuff like what's in the article.... ...and then inviting useful idiots like this Wired guy to assist them. Wired guy being psychologically committed to AGW, goes right along with it, and never realizes he's being played, because...again: psychologically committed. Any time, anyhere, any place, these clowns will go if it means keeping the lies going. They've spent most, if not the entirity, of their adult lives telling everybody they know that this whole thing is true, but not only that, they've attacked others who don't "believe". They've been immoral about this issue, over and over. Thus, unless they want to do some massive introspection, and then beg forgiveness of the rest of the world, or at least from decent society, they HAVE to keep these lies going. There is no other choice. Think: we are dealing with the same exact people as the professors who refused to apologize in the Duke lacrosse case, and they are doing it for the same reason.
DC Tom Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 You mean like mankind has been adapting to nature's changes since dawn of man? Shocking, I know. Except in as much as mankind becomes much less adaptable the more mankind becomes dependent on technology.
OCinBuffalo Posted March 31, 2014 Author Posted March 31, 2014 Except in as much as mankind becomes much less adaptable the more mankind becomes dependent on technology. AUFKM? You're introducing something thoughtful, and something that represents a real scientific challenge, and should absolutely inform our choices.... ...in the middle of an obvious political issue? Tom: there's no $ to be raised, or power to be gained, or socio-economic agendas to be advanced using your intellectually provocative, philosophical challenge. Thus, nobody wants to hear this, even though it's probably the #1 consideration we face going forward. You know who does want to hear this? The producers of Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_%28TV_series%29, and I imagine the Walking Dead people, as well as the some other shows, but really? They've already heard it. Your best bet is to talk to some other Hollywood types who want to start a new show, because that's the only thing your philosophical challenge is good for, nobody in DC wants to touch it. Also, I will respond in kind: what if we make technology so fail-safe, that over time, it erodes our ability to understand it? What if we forget how to fix things, because the things we create never break? (You could already say that about starting a fire. How many people can actually start a fire with no gasoline/firestarters/lighters?) What if religion and mysticism form around the long-forgotten inner workings of the technology instead, or basically the entire premise of WarHammer 40k? I mean, we've already discussed the possibility of starting a religion amongst Drupal "developers".
GG Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Except in as much as mankind becomes much less adaptable the more mankind becomes dependent on technology. I thought you would say, in as much mankind is much less adaptable the more they watch cable news.
DC Tom Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 Also, I will respond in kind: what if we make technology so fail-safe, that over time, it erodes our ability to understand it? What if we forget how to fix things, because the things we create never break? (You could already say that about starting a fire. How many people can actually start a fire with no gasoline/firestarters/lighters?) I can. Matches and dryer lint. What if religion and mysticism form around the long-forgotten inner workings of the technology instead, or basically the entire premise of WarHammer 40k? I mean, we've already discussed the possibility of starting a religion amongst Drupal "developers". Someday 500 years from now a monk is going to find a printout of 40,000 lines of "You're an idiot" and "You !@#$ing moron," and worship it as a Canticle for DC Tom.
Gary M Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 Those 17 years include some of the hottest on record. A limited record but nevertheless, still those are some hot years. That said, it's a 17 year period...in the history of the earth. Nice sample size. So the point, lost on you, is that concluding a long term climatic trend from any 17 year sample is moronic, and what's more moronic is concluding that GW is wrong based on that particular small sample. It's stoopid^2. And my post had nothing to do with Al Gore but thanks for being a hack and bringing him up. Those 17 years debunk the claims that more CO2 lead to higher global temps, those years that were hot still did not raise the overall temps enough to meet the dire predictions of Al Gore and his worshipers, so not they adjust their faulty models and hope that no on remembers what they said all those years ago.
DC Tom Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 Those 17 years debunk the claims that more CO2 lead to higher global temps, those years that were hot still did not raise the overall temps enough to meet the dire predictions of Al Gore and his worshipers, so not they adjust their faulty models and hope that no on remembers what they said all those years ago. No they don't. They just debunk the alarmist stupidity of Al Gore and his worshipers. Illustrating, again, the problem with this whole area of study. It's impossible to separate the science (the climate trend - whatever it is) from the evangelical religious crusade (Al Gore's and James Hansen's asinine prattle, and the Gospel according to the IPCC.)
3rdnlng Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 Those 17 years include some of the hottest on record. A limited record but nevertheless, still those are some hot years. That said, it's a 17 year period...in the history of the earth. Nice sample size. So the point, lost on you, is that concluding a long term climatic trend from any 17 year sample is moronic, and what's more moronic is concluding that GW is wrong based on that particular small sample. It's stoopid^2. And my post had nothing to do with Al Gore but thanks for being a hack and bringing him up. Watcha think about those fossilized palm trees in Greenland from many thousand years ago?
Koko78 Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) Watcha think about those fossilized palm trees in Greenland from many thousand years ago? Planted under the ice by the ancestors of climate change deniers. Nothing to see there, move along. Edited April 1, 2014 by Koko78
DC Tom Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 Planted under the ice by the ancestors of climate change deniers. Nothing to see there, move along.
Nanker Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 Summer in the northern hemisphere occurs when the earth is further away from the sun than when summer occurs in the southern hemisphere. Those Aussies much be toast by now.
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) Isn't one of the biggest ancient coral reefs located on Lake Champlain. Isn't that a product of global change. Notice I just said: global change. I left out the words "climate", "warming, etc.. Again... Who really cares. Don't humans get themselves into all kinds of trouble when they start thinking that their actions can keep things the same? Humans are part of the equation of change. Let it happen. Sorry, I am just not worried sick what my children and their children will have to endure. They will endure. Don't get me wrong, I am not against conservation and doing the right thing... I just don't need some guy like Al Gore giving me a line of BS on how squiggly bulbs are going to save the planet. Summer in the northern hemisphere occurs when the earth is further away from the sun than when summer occurs in the southern hemisphere. Those Aussies much be toast by now. LoL... Let's not be misleading. ;-) ;-) The difference really is a few million miles and very insignificant. But yeah, where would you rather be when the bulb flares up? ;-) Edited April 1, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois
B-Man Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 Sadly.....................not an April Fools story. It May Take a Global Vegetarian Movement to Combat Climate Change It may be impossible to reach the U.N.'s goals without significant changes in global diet, a new study finds. http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/it-may-take-a-global-vegetarian-movement-to-combat-climate-change-20140331
DC Tom Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 Sadly.....................not an April Fools story. It May Take a Global Vegetarian Movement to Combat Climate Change It may be impossible to reach the U.N.'s goals without significant changes in global diet, a new study finds. http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/it-may-take-a-global-vegetarian-movement-to-combat-climate-change-20140331 Old news. Beef production is environmentally damaging on so many different levels. But oh, so very, very tasty...
Recommended Posts