University Park, Pa. — A panel of leading scholars has cleared a well-known Penn State climate scientist of research misconduct, following a four-month internal investigation by the University.
Penn State Professor Michael Mann has been cleared of any wrongdoing, according to a report of the investigation that was released today (July 1). Mann was under investigation for allegations of research impropriety that surfaced last year after thousands of stolen e-mails were published online. The e-mails were obtained from computer servers at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England, one of the main repositories of information about climate change.
The panel of leading scholars from various research fields, all tenured professors at Penn State, began its work on March 4 to look at whether Mann had "engaged in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Mann is one of the leading researchers studying climate change.
A full report on the findings of the committee can be viewed at "Final Investigation Report Involving Dr. Michael E. Mann." Letter from Henry C. Foley, Vice President for Research, Penn State to Graham B. Spanier, President, Penn State Letter from Henry C. Foley, Vice President for Research, Penn State to Michael E. Mann, Professor of Meteorology, Penn State Letter from Henry C. Foley, Vice President for Research, Penn State to James Kroll, Head Administrative Investigations, Office of the Inspector General, The National Science Foundation
The background:
Michael Mann is a famous climatologist who has done a lot of research into global warming. He, and everyone else who supports AGW, have been accused of fraud by global warming skeptics. The most notable accusation of fraud was that the "hockey stick" graph was a fraud (which was published in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate chance report, as well as being well-publicized in Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth), because it was an artifact of his processing method, or because he and colleagues outright fabricated the data.
Most recently, he was accused of fraud after a hacker hacked into the email archives of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit and released a huge number of emails, some of which were interpreted as being suggestive of fraud or other forms of professional misconduct. Well-known critics of AGW, skeptical and right-wing organizations, and a ridiculous number of netizens claimed many of these emails as being "smoking guns" indicative of fraud by the CRU, Mann, Jones, and a large number of other climate scientists, and reports of this were widely repeated in the media.
In response, each university initiated formal investigations into allegations of fraud. The CRU was cleared in April and now the results of Penn State's investigation into alleged academic misconduct by Michael Mann have come back clear.
Conclusion of the Investigatory Committee as to whether research misconduct occurred:
The Investigatory Committee, after careful review of all available evidence, determined that there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University.
More specifically, the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.
The decision of the Investigatory Committee was unanimous.
Naturally, the skeptics now claim that this, like the UEA's report, was a whitewash.
Further information in the matter is being reported in climate-related blogs. I recommend RealClimate. Your mileage may vary.
Why does this matter? It totally doesn't fucking matter, it's a huge tempest in a teacup (basically what we are seeing is the negation of allegations, which is mostly a non-story unless you were aware of the previous allegations, in which case you might have heard about this) but it is now being discussed around the climate-blog-related-intersphere-thing.
Penn State has for a long time had a great meteorology department. I think they used to graduate about 800 students per year in that field.
Unfortunately, a "panel of leading scholars" from PSU clearing one of its own is like BP saying the oil spill has had minimal effect on the gulf. It's going to draw skepticism. I think they also have not cleared Mann of violating certain scientific standards. And if the standards were violated, what's the point of the rest of the work?
I suspect Mann was lazy in his work and record keeping; and regardless of whether his conclusions are correct, his work should be discarded.
On July 04 2010 08:17 Romantic wrote: I wonder what Monckton has to say about this. He is the candle in the darkness of the scientist's agenda.
THE CANDLE IN THE DARKNESS, THE RALLYING LIGHT AGAINST THE FORCES OF SCIENTISTS' AGENDA, THE LAST HOPE AGAINST THE MENACING SPECTER OF BIG SCIENCE, THE UNSUNG HERO OF THE CRUSADE AGAINST LOWERED CO2 EMISSIONS LOL
I'm sorry, but regardless of whether or not you believe in anthropogenic global climate change, you have to agree this Manichean view is hilariously overblown and over-dramatic. We can do without your characterization of scientists as minions of the forces of darkness.
Scientific theories are refuted or proved wrong all the time by other scientists. Not every scientist is a genius that is always 100% right. Global Warming is still being substantiated by thousands of documents every year versus the couple of pdfs and emails you see every so often.
On July 04 2010 08:17 Romantic wrote: I wonder what Monckton has to say about this. He is the candle in the darkness of the scientist's agenda.
THE CANDLE IN THE DARKNESS, THE RALLYING LIGHT AGAINST THE FORCES OF SCIENTISTS' AGENDA, THE LAST HOPE AGAINST THE MENACING SPECTER OF BIG SCIENCE, THE UNSUNG HERO OF THE CRUSADE AGAINST LOWERED CO2 EMISSIONS LOL
I'm sorry, but regardless of whether or not you believe in anthropogenic global climate change, you have to agree this Manichean view is hilariously overblown and over-dramatic. We can do without your characterization of scientists as minions of the forces of darkness.
I was just bumping the thread with a comment I thought people would be angry enough at to post.
Besides, we all know the scientists were involved in the moon landing hoax too.
On July 03 2010 13:50 EmeraldSparks wrote: Michael Mann is a famous climatologist who has done a lot of research into global warming.
EmeraldSparks you are thinking of Michael Bailey. Michael Mann is the young actor who starred in Arrested Development and Superbad.
No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
On July 03 2010 13:50 EmeraldSparks wrote: Michael Mann is a famous climatologist who has done a lot of research into global warming.
EmeraldSparks you are thinking of Michael Bailey. Michael Mann is the young actor who starred in Arrested Development and Superbad.
No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
On July 03 2010 13:50 EmeraldSparks wrote: Michael Mann is a famous climatologist who has done a lot of research into global warming.
EmeraldSparks you are thinking of Michael Bailey. Michael Mann is the young actor who starred in Arrested Development and Superbad.
No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
On July 03 2010 13:50 EmeraldSparks wrote: Michael Mann is a famous climatologist who has done a lot of research into global warming.
EmeraldSparks you are thinking of Michael Bailey. Michael Mann is the young actor who starred in Arrested Development and Superbad.
No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
No, you're thinking of Michael Fox. Michael Mann is the late actor from the 50's who played the space visitor Klaatu in the 1951 classic science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still.
On July 03 2010 13:50 EmeraldSparks wrote: Michael Mann is a famous climatologist who has done a lot of research into global warming.
EmeraldSparks you are thinking of Michael Bailey. Michael Mann is the young actor who starred in Arrested Development and Superbad.
No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
Holy Crap. You are Jack McCoy!
No, you're thinking of Jack Johnson. Jack McCoy is a fictional character on NBC's critically acclaimed series, Law & Order.
On July 03 2010 13:50 EmeraldSparks wrote: Michael Mann is a famous climatologist who has done a lot of research into global warming.
EmeraldSparks you are thinking of Michael Bailey. Michael Mann is the young actor who starred in Arrested Development and Superbad.
No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
No, you're thinking of Michael Fox. Michael Mann is the late actor from the 50's who played the space visitor Klaatu in the 1951 classic science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still.
No, you're thinking of Michael Rennie. Michael Mann is the manager of Dunder Mifflin Scranton.
On July 03 2010 13:50 EmeraldSparks wrote: Michael Mann is a famous climatologist who has done a lot of research into global warming.
EmeraldSparks you are thinking of Michael Bailey. Michael Mann is the young actor who starred in Arrested Development and Superbad.
No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
Holy Crap. You are Jack McCoy!
No, you're thinking of Jack Johnson. Jack McCoy is a fictional character on NBC's critically acclaimed series, Law & Order.
No, you're thinking of Jack Mason. Jack McCoy is the serial killer who terrorized London in the late 1800s.
On July 03 2010 13:50 EmeraldSparks wrote: Michael Mann is a famous climatologist who has done a lot of research into global warming.
EmeraldSparks you are thinking of Michael Bailey. Michael Mann is the young actor who starred in Arrested Development and Superbad.
No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
No, you're thinking of Michael Fox. Michael Mann is the late actor from the 50's who played the space visitor Klaatu in the 1951 classic science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still.
No, you're thinking of Michael Rennie. Michael Mann is the manager of Dunder Mifflin Scranton.
No, you're thinking of Michael Scott. Michael Mann played for the Chicago Bulls and is generally considered one of the best basketball players of all time.
On July 03 2010 13:50 EmeraldSparks wrote: Michael Mann is a famous climatologist who has done a lot of research into global warming.
EmeraldSparks you are thinking of Michael Bailey. Michael Mann is the young actor who starred in Arrested Development and Superbad.
No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
Holy Crap. You are Jack McCoy!
No, you're thinking of Jack Johnson. Jack McCoy is a fictional character on NBC's critically acclaimed series, Law & Order.
No, you're thinking of Jack Mason. Jack McCoy is the serial killer who terrorized London in the late 1800s.
No, you're thinking of Jack the Ripper. Jack McCoy is the lead singer of Tenacious D and star of films like School of Rock.
On July 03 2010 13:50 EmeraldSparks wrote: Michael Mann is a famous climatologist who has done a lot of research into global warming.
EmeraldSparks you are thinking of Michael Bailey. Michael Mann is the young actor who starred in Arrested Development and Superbad.
No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
Holy Crap. You are Jack McCoy!
No, you're thinking of Jack Johnson. Jack McCoy is a fictional character on NBC's critically acclaimed series, Law & Order.
No, you're thinking of Jack Mason. Jack McCoy is the serial killer who terrorized London in the late 1800s.
No, you're thinking of Jack the Ripper. Jack McCoy is the lead singer of Tenacious D and star of films like School of Rock.
No, you're thinking of Jack Black. Jack McCoy is a doctor who survived Oceanic Flight 815
On July 03 2010 13:50 EmeraldSparks wrote: Michael Mann is a famous climatologist who has done a lot of research into global warming.
EmeraldSparks you are thinking of Michael Bailey. Michael Mann is the young actor who starred in Arrested Development and Superbad.
No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
Holy Crap. You are Jack McCoy!
No, you're thinking of Jack Johnson. Jack McCoy is a fictional character on NBC's critically acclaimed series, Law & Order.
No, you're thinking of Jack Mason. Jack McCoy is the serial killer who terrorized London in the late 1800s.
No, you're thinking of Jack the Ripper. Jack McCoy is the lead singer of Tenacious D and star of films like School of Rock.
No, you're thinking of Jack Black. Jack McCoy is a doctor who survived Oceanic Flight 815
No, you're thinking of Jack Shepard. Jack McCoy is the star of Five Easy Pieces, the Departed and a huge Lakers fan.
On July 04 2010 11:30 baller wrote: [quote] EmeraldSparks you are thinking of Michael Bailey. Michael Mann is the young actor who starred in Arrested Development and Superbad.
No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
Holy Crap. You are Jack McCoy!
No, you're thinking of Jack Johnson. Jack McCoy is a fictional character on NBC's critically acclaimed series, Law & Order.
No, you're thinking of Jack Mason. Jack McCoy is the serial killer who terrorized London in the late 1800s.
No, you're thinking of Jack the Ripper. Jack McCoy is the lead singer of Tenacious D and star of films like School of Rock.
No, you're thinking of Jack Black. Jack McCoy is a doctor who survived Oceanic Flight 815
No, you're thinking of Jack Shepard. Jack McCoy is the star of Five Easy Pieces, the Departed and a huge Lakers fan.
No, you're thinking of Jack Nicholson, Jack McCoy is a popular west coast fast food chain.
On July 04 2010 11:31 BroOd wrote: [quote] No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
Holy Crap. You are Jack McCoy!
No, you're thinking of Jack Johnson. Jack McCoy is a fictional character on NBC's critically acclaimed series, Law & Order.
No, you're thinking of Jack Mason. Jack McCoy is the serial killer who terrorized London in the late 1800s.
No, you're thinking of Jack the Ripper. Jack McCoy is the lead singer of Tenacious D and star of films like School of Rock.
No, you're thinking of Jack Black. Jack McCoy is a doctor who survived Oceanic Flight 815
No, you're thinking of Jack Shepard. Jack McCoy is the star of Five Easy Pieces, the Departed and a huge Lakers fan.
No, you're thinking of Jack Nicholson, Jack McCoy is a popular west coast fast food chain.
No, you're thinking of Jack n' the Box. Jack McCoy is the doctor, not a physicist!, from the original Star Trek Series.
On July 03 2010 13:50 EmeraldSparks wrote: Michael Mann is a famous climatologist who has done a lot of research into global warming.
EmeraldSparks you are thinking of Michael Bailey. Michael Mann is the young actor who starred in Arrested Development and Superbad.
No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
No, you're thinking of Michael Fox. Michael Mann is the late actor from the 50's who played the space visitor Klaatu in the 1951 classic science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still.
No, you're thinking of Michael Rennie. Michael Mann is the manager of Dunder Mifflin Scranton.
No, you're thinking of Michael Scott. Michael Mann played for the Chicago Bulls and is generally considered one of the best basketball players of all time.
No, you're thinking of Michael Jordan. Michael Mann is the turtle with the orange headband who uses nunchaku and coined the popular 80's phrase "kawabunga".
On July 03 2010 13:50 EmeraldSparks wrote: Michael Mann is a famous climatologist who has done a lot of research into global warming.
EmeraldSparks you are thinking of Michael Bailey. Michael Mann is the young actor who starred in Arrested Development and Superbad.
No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
No, you're thinking of Michael Fox. Michael Mann is the late actor from the 50's who played the space visitor Klaatu in the 1951 classic science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still.
No, you're thinking of Michael Rennie. Michael Mann is the manager of Dunder Mifflin Scranton.
No, you're thinking of Michael Scott. Michael Mann played for the Chicago Bulls and is generally considered one of the best basketball players of all time.
No, you're thinking of Michael Jordan. Michael Mann is the turtle with the orange headband who uses nunchaku and coined the popular 80's phrase "kawabunga".
No, you're thinking of Michaelangelo. Michael Mann was a famous Italian Rennaisance painter/sculptor.
On July 03 2010 13:50 EmeraldSparks wrote: Michael Mann is a famous climatologist who has done a lot of research into global warming.
EmeraldSparks you are thinking of Michael Bailey. Michael Mann is the young actor who starred in Arrested Development and Superbad.
No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
No, you're thinking of Michael Fox. Michael Mann is the late actor from the 50's who played the space visitor Klaatu in the 1951 classic science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still.
No, you're thinking of Michael Rennie. Michael Mann is the manager of Dunder Mifflin Scranton.
No, you're thinking of Michael Scott. Michael Mann played for the Chicago Bulls and is generally considered one of the best basketball players of all time.
No, you're thinking of Michael Jordan. Michael Mann is the turtle with the orange headband who uses nunchaku and coined the popular 80's phrase "kawabunga".
No, you're thinking of Michaelangelo. Michael Mann was a famous Italian Rennaisance painter/sculptor.
No, you're thinking of Michelangelo. Michael Mann was the 1929 Nobel Prize winning German novelist.
On July 04 2010 11:30 baller wrote: [quote] EmeraldSparks you are thinking of Michael Bailey. Michael Mann is the young actor who starred in Arrested Development and Superbad.
No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
No, you're thinking of Michael Fox. Michael Mann is the late actor from the 50's who played the space visitor Klaatu in the 1951 classic science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still.
No, you're thinking of Michael Rennie. Michael Mann is the manager of Dunder Mifflin Scranton.
No, you're thinking of Michael Scott. Michael Mann played for the Chicago Bulls and is generally considered one of the best basketball players of all time.
No, you're thinking of Michael Jordan. Michael Mann is the turtle with the orange headband who uses nunchaku and coined the popular 80's phrase "kawabunga".
No, you're thinking of Michaelangelo. Michael Mann was a famous Italian Rennaisance painter/sculptor.
No, you're thinking of Michelangelo. Michael Mann was the 1929 Nobel Prize winning German novelist.
No, you're thinking of Thomas Mann. Michael Mann is a vast geographic region in Northeast Asia and is the traditional homeland of the Xianbei.
On July 04 2010 11:31 BroOd wrote: [quote] No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
No, you're thinking of Michael Fox. Michael Mann is the late actor from the 50's who played the space visitor Klaatu in the 1951 classic science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still.
No, you're thinking of Michael Rennie. Michael Mann is the manager of Dunder Mifflin Scranton.
No, you're thinking of Michael Scott. Michael Mann played for the Chicago Bulls and is generally considered one of the best basketball players of all time.
No, you're thinking of Michael Jordan. Michael Mann is the turtle with the orange headband who uses nunchaku and coined the popular 80's phrase "kawabunga".
No, you're thinking of Michaelangelo. Michael Mann was a famous Italian Rennaisance painter/sculptor.
No, you're thinking of Michelangelo. Michael Mann was the 1929 Nobel Prize winning German novelist.
No, you're thinking of Thomas Mann. Michael Mann is a vast geographic region in Northeast Asia and is the traditional homeland of the Xianbei.
No, you're thinking of Manchuria. Michael Mann is the TL user who is supposed to danced to Bo Peep a long time ago.
On July 04 2010 11:35 Kennigit wrote: [quote] No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
No, you're thinking of Michael Fox. Michael Mann is the late actor from the 50's who played the space visitor Klaatu in the 1951 classic science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still.
No, you're thinking of Michael Rennie. Michael Mann is the manager of Dunder Mifflin Scranton.
No, you're thinking of Michael Scott. Michael Mann played for the Chicago Bulls and is generally considered one of the best basketball players of all time.
No, you're thinking of Michael Jordan. Michael Mann is the turtle with the orange headband who uses nunchaku and coined the popular 80's phrase "kawabunga".
No, you're thinking of Michaelangelo. Michael Mann was a famous Italian Rennaisance painter/sculptor.
No, you're thinking of Michelangelo. Michael Mann was the 1929 Nobel Prize winning German novelist.
No, you're thinking of Thomas Mann. Michael Mann is a vast geographic region in Northeast Asia and is the traditional homeland of the Xianbei.
No, you're thinking of Manchuria. Michael Mann is the TL user who is supposed to danced to Bo Peep a long time ago.
No, you're thinking of Michael Yu. Michael Mann molested little boys.
On July 04 2010 11:37 JackMcCoy wrote: [quote] No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
No, you're thinking of Michael Fox. Michael Mann is the late actor from the 50's who played the space visitor Klaatu in the 1951 classic science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still.
No, you're thinking of Michael Rennie. Michael Mann is the manager of Dunder Mifflin Scranton.
No, you're thinking of Michael Scott. Michael Mann played for the Chicago Bulls and is generally considered one of the best basketball players of all time.
No, you're thinking of Michael Jordan. Michael Mann is the turtle with the orange headband who uses nunchaku and coined the popular 80's phrase "kawabunga".
No, you're thinking of Michaelangelo. Michael Mann was a famous Italian Rennaisance painter/sculptor.
No, you're thinking of Michelangelo. Michael Mann was the 1929 Nobel Prize winning German novelist.
No, you're thinking of Thomas Mann. Michael Mann is a vast geographic region in Northeast Asia and is the traditional homeland of the Xianbei.
No, you're thinking of Manchuria. Michael Mann is the TL user who is supposed to danced to Bo Peep a long time ago.
No, you're thinking of Michael Yu. Michael Mann molested little boys.
No, you're thinking of Michael Jackson. Michael Mann was the oldest brother of Lucifer, Gabriel and Raphael.
No, you're thinking of Michael Fox. Michael Mann is the late actor from the 50's who played the space visitor Klaatu in the 1951 classic science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still.
No, you're thinking of Michael Rennie. Michael Mann is the manager of Dunder Mifflin Scranton.
No, you're thinking of Michael Scott. Michael Mann played for the Chicago Bulls and is generally considered one of the best basketball players of all time.
No, you're thinking of Michael Jordan. Michael Mann is the turtle with the orange headband who uses nunchaku and coined the popular 80's phrase "kawabunga".
No, you're thinking of Michaelangelo. Michael Mann was a famous Italian Rennaisance painter/sculptor.
No, you're thinking of Michelangelo. Michael Mann was the 1929 Nobel Prize winning German novelist.
No, you're thinking of Thomas Mann. Michael Mann is a vast geographic region in Northeast Asia and is the traditional homeland of the Xianbei.
No, you're thinking of Manchuria. Michael Mann is the TL user who is supposed to danced to Bo Peep a long time ago.
No, you're thinking of Michael Yu. Michael Mann molested little boys.
No, you're thinking of Michael Jackson. Michael Mann was the oldest brother of Lucifer, Gabriel and Raphael.
No, you're thinking of Michael the Archangel. Michael Mann is the guy who deserves #1 on the Power Rank. (I guess i did it wrong but so did someone else -_-) the world's most famous dog-fighter.
People pushing the AGW agenda claim that frauds caught red-handed weren't in the wrong? Well I'll be damned. Next thing you know, cops will be covering for one another and corporations "investigating" wrongdoing by their own employees will start being dishonest! What is the world coming to?
AGW is a wild claim based on easily-confused truths. The world's climate changes all the time, and greenhouse gas levels swing correspondingly as part of the natural cycles. Many people would have you believe that the levels of greenhouse gases are fixed, and only humans contribute to changes... Not the case. The Earth's angle and position in space also changes along cycles of tens and hundreds of thousands of years, which influences the climate.
I'm also suspicious of AGW advocates for a number of reasons:
1) They're almost always making money or keeping their jobs by spouting off about AGW. Al Gore has made millions. A lot of the scientists are pressured by their peers and superiors to tow the line. My uncle works for NOAH and has been forced to do a 180 over the last decade - he went from disagreeing with AGW, and leading research teams to disprove it, to categorically agreeing with whatever the latest unreviewed propaganda piece is... Based on no "new" evidence. If he hadn't done so, he'd have lost his job and his credibility. 2) They never address criticism- they just scream and call critics "deniers", compare them to holocaust deniers, etc etc. Scientific dissent towards AGW (which is widespread) is suppressed. 3) The governments of the west, the scientific councils, education systems, and the media are all trying to sell this to us. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but when the entire world is trying to feed you something non-self-evident, it should raise eyebrows.
Here's something to keep in mind: say AGW is completely true, and we can "stop" it by cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and we do so. This is totally implausible on a number of levels - first off, we're living inbetween ice ages. Ice ages have been cycling on and off for millions of years, and the last one only ended 10,000 years ago... Humans were fully evolved back then. Then consider the long term... The Earth has changed radically over geological time frames - once the entire Earth was covered in ice! Other times it has been very hot (the Earth's early days excluded) and reactive. Human existence is a pinprick on the vast pattern of geology and meteorology.
The thought that we can drive hybrids and thereby keep the Earth in stasis is a prime example of human arrogance.
Gobal Warming as it is presented by the media governments and scientists is untrue however climate change in itself is a cyclear event in which has occured many times in history, the causes of such are to do with both cosmic events and planetary.
Example I can give you is if a object 1/4 size of Sol entered solar system through Oort cloud and this object was charged in opposite polarization to Sol in itself a brown dwarf a long dead sun 'lost fusion capability due to loss of mass' it would affect our sun causing increases in solar activity in turn affecting the earth climate in which once in it orbit at a specific point would cause and polar reversal at a acelerate rate as well as a cometary bombarbment all of which history shows has occured before and who says humanity owns the planet perhaps these events occur to renew the earth so she can survive.
Infact looking at humanity now how they live how they respond to one another how they think and interact to each other do you blame nature for bringing change through destruction, you are out of harmony with your own planet you are like a virus to her just as you have your immune system so does she and this process has began and will not be prevented.
Your main concern should be your coming vistors and if you should trust them or not, read your bible prophercys in which the wise can see the meaning of the parables and fools will see nothing.
On July 04 2010 20:20 Maji wrote: Gobal Warming as it is presented by .... scientists is untrue however . ....
Really? Do you have actual proof for that? Of course you don't but if you did you'd have a couple of 1000 of citations within the year and most likely a proffesorship at Harvard to boot, just saying.
Yeah there are scientists who don't believe in the current theory of global warming. There are also highly respected matemathicians arguing for the existance of a biggest natural number. Point being that there will always be guys on the fringe, guys who disagree (And that's a very good thing) In 99.9% of cases they are wrong and either forgotten or ridiculed. In the remaing cases they get to name a new era.
It is very likely that humans burning hydrocarbons on a large scale has increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmoshpere. It is also very likely that this has lead to and will lead to an increase in the average temperature on earth.
It is a fact that _if_ the temperature rises to levels were the ice caps start melting enough for the oceans to rise appcreciably our civalization will be in huge trouble. Imagine cities like New York, Shanghai, all of the Netherlands etc under water. Not to mention that melting glaciers could lead to a huge shortage of drinking water in China (That's a pretty good reason to start a desperation war if there ever was one)
If the current theories are completly wrong what's the worst case scenario? We find ourselves having invested billions in energy sources not based on hydrocarbons? Well that's not a particularly bad scenario anyway since we need them for tons of other stuff and just burning them is a huge waste of resources. Not to mention all the other forms of pollution (proven and beyond a doubt real) that comes from running an economy based on burning oil and coal that we will suddenly be rid of.
As I see it the choice is pretty clear cut, act as if the threat of global warming was real and in the extremely unlikely event that it's not then we will have invested tons of money in shit that's extremely useful anyways.
No, you're thinking of Michael Rennie. Michael Mann is the manager of Dunder Mifflin Scranton.
No, you're thinking of Michael Scott. Michael Mann played for the Chicago Bulls and is generally considered one of the best basketball players of all time.
No, you're thinking of Michael Jordan. Michael Mann is the turtle with the orange headband who uses nunchaku and coined the popular 80's phrase "kawabunga".
No, you're thinking of Michaelangelo. Michael Mann was a famous Italian Rennaisance painter/sculptor.
No, you're thinking of Michelangelo. Michael Mann was the 1929 Nobel Prize winning German novelist.
No, you're thinking of Thomas Mann. Michael Mann is a vast geographic region in Northeast Asia and is the traditional homeland of the Xianbei.
No, you're thinking of Manchuria. Michael Mann is the TL user who is supposed to danced to Bo Peep a long time ago.
No, you're thinking of Michael Yu. Michael Mann molested little boys.
No, you're thinking of Michael Jackson. Michael Mann was the oldest brother of Lucifer, Gabriel and Raphael.
No, you're thinking of Michael the Archangel. Michael Mann is the guy who deserves #1 on the Power Rank. (I guess i did it wrong but so did someone else -_-) the world's most famous dog-fighter.
No, you're thinking of May KeeL Lee, Michael Mann is the guy who was a judged that died in 1998.
Here is the first video in a series which discusses the science of AGW rather that the hysteria:
In a discussion of science, the only thing we should focus on is the science itself, all other factors are irrelevant. It doesn't matter who proposes what, or who is paid to do the research, what matters whether the hypothesis fits the evidence. Don't let yourself be fooled into listening to Lord Mockton OR Al Gore, listen to the science as conducted by scientists.
On July 04 2010 11:49 rich- wrote: [quote] No, you're thinking of Michael Scott. Michael Mann played for the Chicago Bulls and is generally considered one of the best basketball players of all time.
No, you're thinking of Michael Jordan. Michael Mann is the turtle with the orange headband who uses nunchaku and coined the popular 80's phrase "kawabunga".
No, you're thinking of Michaelangelo. Michael Mann was a famous Italian Rennaisance painter/sculptor.
No, you're thinking of Michelangelo. Michael Mann was the 1929 Nobel Prize winning German novelist.
No, you're thinking of Thomas Mann. Michael Mann is a vast geographic region in Northeast Asia and is the traditional homeland of the Xianbei.
No, you're thinking of Manchuria. Michael Mann is the TL user who is supposed to danced to Bo Peep a long time ago.
No, you're thinking of Michael Yu. Michael Mann molested little boys.
No, you're thinking of Michael Jackson. Michael Mann was the oldest brother of Lucifer, Gabriel and Raphael.
No, you're thinking of Michael the Archangel. Michael Mann is the guy who deserves #1 on the Power Rank. (I guess i did it wrong but so did someone else -_-) the world's most famous dog-fighter.
No, you're thinking of May KeeL Lee, Michael Mann is the guy who was a judged that died in 1998.
No, you're thinking of Michael Torphy. Michael Mann is the guy who was the last head of state in the USSR.
On July 04 2010 20:20 Maji wrote: Gobal Warming as it is presented by .... scientists is untrue however . ....
As I see it the choice is pretty clear cut, act as if the threat of global warming was real and in the extremely unlikely event that it's not then we will have invested tons of money in shit that's extremely useful anyways.
Then if you are against the Iraq war DO NOT make a deal out of it. You cannot say it was wrong if everything turns out right. (point to take into account)
We have also investment more money into things that would be useless. People like Al Gore would of gotten rich off of fear mongering and lies.
A whole industry which happens to want control of counties and the way they do things (to the extent of hampering other developing countries) would of existing because of lie.
The scientific community will take a huge hit to credibility also in the eyes of a lot of people.
On July 04 2010 20:20 Maji wrote: Gobal Warming as it is presented by .... scientists is untrue however . ....
As I see it the choice is pretty clear cut, act as if the threat of global warming was real and in the extremely unlikely event that it's not then we will have invested tons of money in shit that's extremely useful anyways.
Then if you are against the Iraq war DO NOT make a deal out of it. You cannot say it was wrong if everything turns out right. (point to take into account)
We have also investment more money into things that would be useless. People like Al Gore would of gotten rich off of fear mongering and lies.
A whole industry which happens to want control of counties and the way they do things (to the extent of hampering other developing countries) would of existing because of lie.
The scientific community will take a huge hit to credibility also in the eyes of a lot of people.
It is not a no-loss situation.
And the consequences if it is true and we do nothing will be many, many times worse. political decisions needs to be made now (well they needed to be made 20 years ago). Gambling the future of our civilization on the off chance that the guys on the fringe are right for once would be criminally stupid.
And the consequences if it is true and we do nothing will be many, many times worse. political decisions needs to be made now (well they needed to be made 20 years ago). Gambling the future of our civilization on the off chance that the guys on the fringe are right for once would be criminally stupid.
Which one would be worse? Man-made or normal nature?
So you want political decisions to made in the heart of the moment instead of considering everything like whats happening now? Didn't such fervor get us into Iraq?
Climate gate, has a problem with this.
Go after the information not the person. It doesn't work to marginalize somebody by calling them fringe, when one the information may very well be correct, and two credibility has already been questioned by one side.
On July 04 2010 20:20 Maji wrote: Gobal Warming as it is presented by .... scientists is untrue however . ....
Really? Do you have actual proof for that? Of course you don't but if you did you'd have a couple of 1000 of citations within the year and most likely a proffesorship at Harvard to boot, just saying.
Yeah there are scientists who don't believe in the current theory of global warming. There are also highly respected matemathicians arguing for the existance of a biggest natural number. Point being that there will always be guys on the fringe, guys who disagree (And that's a very good thing) In 99.9% of cases they are wrong and either forgotten or ridiculed. In the remaing cases they get to name a new era.
It is very likely that humans burning hydrocarbons on a large scale has increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmoshpere. It is also very likely that this has lead to and will lead to an increase in the average temperature on earth.
It is a fact that _if_ the temperature rises to levels were the ice caps start melting enough for the oceans to rise appcreciably our civalization will be in huge trouble. Imagine cities like New York, Shanghai, all of the Netherlands etc under water. Not to mention that melting glaciers could lead to a huge shortage of drinking water in China (That's a pretty good reason to start a desperation war if there ever was one)
If the current theories are completly wrong what's the worst case scenario? We find ourselves having invested billions in energy sources not based on hydrocarbons? Well that's not a particularly bad scenario anyway since we need them for tons of other stuff and just burning them is a huge waste of resources. Not to mention all the other forms of pollution (proven and beyond a doubt real) that comes from running an economy based on burning oil and coal that we will suddenly be rid of.
As I see it the choice is pretty clear cut, act as if the threat of global warming was real and in the extremely unlikely event that it's not then we will have invested tons of money in shit that's extremely useful anyways.
I said as it been presented which is now also being exposed with the climategate scandal... I will clarify I am not saying that CO2 does not affect atmosphere but what I am saying is that there is more to this than what people being told, the actually statistics for human impact on the gobal warming impact 'climate changing' is actually 14% that leaves a uncounted for 86% in which there is people aware of what the other 86% is and we cant stop it there is nothing we can do to prevent it.
Wars will be part of it but so will vistors take opportunitys to preserve life as well as take control themself, bio-organic technology what you call biology is a precious resource it will be harvested before the end that is certain you will see a massive amount of ufo activity in following years in which may be also a contact, I will give you a warning thou the ones who come to make contact do so for their own gain the belevonant races are on a non interference agreement in which does allow preservance of dna 'hence the Ark in your bible storys' what humanity doesnt known is their is greater communitys in which when a civilisation reachs a specific point that if it doesnt destroy itself they can be welcomed into, other wise the planet itself immune system kicks into effect and cleanses herself I do know the events which are to occur and reasons why in which reasons I know these things you would not understand so no point explaining it too you.
There is plans against you in which I will not speak about now as it is off topic, but those responsible are as you view the concept 'Evil'.
You are killing your world and because of this she is about to elimate your species, you have less time than you think and these cycles and effect of them will be determined by your worlds state of consciousness as it approaches the moment of transition. The creator has sent embassitors of light to try to awaken your world they are incarnated amongst your species known as 'starseeds' your state of mind as a gobal consciousness is what is most important for you because the dimensions barriors will lift for a short period which can allow for a crossing into a higher dimension of the earth in which the earth herself is going to move and leave behind the corspe to be reborn like the phoenix.
Your evidence is all through your history in your ancient cultures all prophercys and information contained and past on by all cultures of your world is refering to a specific moment, in bible you call this time the 'Harvest' the return of Christ they are one and the same but as it spoke when Christ came second time it would be as a lion that the fury of the creator would be unleashed on the wicked 'this translations represents what the earth is about to do to you and the opportunity of ascension approaching' Rapture represents a moment in which those ready in correct frequecy 'vibration' can untilize a rare quantum event in which a kinetic wave allows for transferance of consciousness to new vesels waiting in parrarel dimension at higher octave of density dimensions, those left behind will experience as expected the apocalyse which will indeed include war famine desease in which preparations have been occuring hence the growing troubles, those left behind deserve it, it the collection of their multidimensional karma in which was not absolved and must play out in a acelerated experience hence a catalyst is a opportunity of growth.
How many make it is open most of your species is distracted, has no ideas of your own reality origin of your being or destination at death, nor do you understand truely what your reality is you have a basis but it is flawed in many ways.
Point in revealing this to you now is to show you the issues occuring like gobal warming is part of something bigger it is signs that those with the wisdom will figure out.
And the consequences if it is true and we do nothing will be many, many times worse. political decisions needs to be made now (well they needed to be made 20 years ago). Gambling the future of our civilization on the off chance that the guys on the fringe are right for once would be criminally stupid.[/QUOTE]
Which one would be worse? Man-made or normal nature?
So you want political decisions to made in the heart of the moment instead of considering everything like whats happening now? Didn't such fervor get us into Iraq?
Climate gate, has a problem with this.
Go after the information not the person. It doesn't work to marginalize somebody by calling them fringe, when one the information may very well be correct, and two credibility has already been questioned by one side.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone knows why exactly the US comanders choose to invade Iraq so whether or not they achieved their goals is equally unknown. I also don't see what this has got to do with anything.
Honestly I don't really understand the point of your post at all, what exactly are you trying to say?
On July 04 2010 20:20 Maji wrote: Gobal Warming as it is presented by .... scientists is untrue however . ....
Really? Do you have actual proof for that? Of course you don't but if you did you'd have a couple of 1000 of citations within the year and most likely a proffesorship at Harvard to boot, just saying.
Yeah there are scientists who don't believe in the current theory of global warming. There are also highly respected matemathicians arguing for the existance of a biggest natural number. Point being that there will always be guys on the fringe, guys who disagree (And that's a very good thing) In 99.9% of cases they are wrong and either forgotten or ridiculed. In the remaing cases they get to name a new era.
It is very likely that humans burning hydrocarbons on a large scale has increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmoshpere. It is also very likely that this has lead to and will lead to an increase in the average temperature on earth.
It is a fact that _if_ the temperature rises to levels were the ice caps start melting enough for the oceans to rise appcreciably our civalization will be in huge trouble. Imagine cities like New York, Shanghai, all of the Netherlands etc under water. Not to mention that melting glaciers could lead to a huge shortage of drinking water in China (That's a pretty good reason to start a desperation war if there ever was one)
If the current theories are completly wrong what's the worst case scenario? We find ourselves having invested billions in energy sources not based on hydrocarbons? Well that's not a particularly bad scenario anyway since we need them for tons of other stuff and just burning them is a huge waste of resources. Not to mention all the other forms of pollution (proven and beyond a doubt real) that comes from running an economy based on burning oil and coal that we will suddenly be rid of.
As I see it the choice is pretty clear cut, act as if the threat of global warming was real and in the extremely unlikely event that it's not then we will have invested tons of money in shit that's extremely useful anyways.
I said as it been presented which is now also being exposed with the climategate scandal... I will clarify I am not saying that CO2 does not affect atmosphere but what I am saying is that there is more to this than what people being told, the actually statistics for human impact on the gobal warming impact 'climate changing' is actually 14% that leaves a uncounted for 86% in which there is people aware of what the other 86% is and we cant stop it there is nothing we can do to prevent it. .... .
Source please. (peer reviewed journal) I honestly don't think there is a consensus of just _how_ much the earth is warming for there to be percentages that specific about anything.
I do think there's a real deficiency in public understanding of climate change. Take for example the fact that although CO2 is produced in larger quantities than other gases, it isn't a spectacular greenhouse gas. Methane, on the other hand, is produced in lesser (but still significant) amounts and turns out to be about 50 times better at trapping heat. On the whole, it contributes about the same amount as CO2. And there are others.
do your own homework or you never learn, that is the point... perhaps we revealed more to it than you realize let wait and see how many look up all archives later once 'proof' is there reality...It now logged on this forum isnt it... I am not saying that changing to be more greener is a bad thing what I am telling you is it is to late, humanity is about to be tested in a karmatic experience in which nature, alien and humanity will all play a part in.
On July 05 2010 00:39 Maji wrote: do your own homework or you never learn, that is the point... perhaps we revealed more to it than you realize let wait and see how many look up all archives later once 'proof' is there reality...It now logged on this forum isnt it... I am not saying that changing to be more greener is a bad thing what I am telling you is it is to late, humanity is about to be tested in a karmatic experience in which nature, alien and humanity will all play a part in.
Aka you are just posting random semi religious crap? Good to know.
Dude, didn't you get it when he started talking about alien visitors and a female deity that will destroy mankind because we aren't taking care of the planet?
No your response just then is your conditioning this is more than any religion this is to do with the purpose of your creation, you dont think that higher intelligences couldnt help terraform a planet and create life through assisting natural order of development, perhaps some who came and are to come are protecting their assets but perhaps others seek to enslave you further than you already have been.
I ask you this question why is it that certain familys in your world have all the wealth and power while rest of you struggle to makes a living in a system which creates debt constantly so much that you cant ever pay back physically in money what it is writen in electronic debt.
You not considered why their is actually only certain familys and groups and a hierachy structure like a pyramind running your world and who is really pulling the strings of the governments cooperations and religions of this world?
I will also give you a higher understanding of knowledge just as a gift, matter is formed based on the specific magnetic conditions of its enviroment, certain matter can only be formed under specific magnetic conditions the most powerful conditions are at centre of your planet your core in which their is combinations of matter which is not possible to be generated without those same conditions 'Her Heart'.
Hence what we are telling you is this as well magnetic fields are very important to all forms of matter and are also adjusted via infuelences which affect such fields, example is your scientists are curious how evolution functions but do not understand what causes it to occur I do know answer to this as well but that is enough for now.
On July 03 2010 13:50 EmeraldSparks wrote: Michael Mann is a famous climatologist who has done a lot of research into global warming.
EmeraldSparks you are thinking of Michael Bailey. Michael Mann is the young actor who starred in Arrested Development and Superbad.
No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
No, you're thinking of Michael Fox. Michael Mann is the late actor from the 50's who played the space visitor Klaatu in the 1951 classic science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still.
No, you're thinking of Michael Rennie. Michael Mann is the manager of Dunder Mifflin Scranton.
No, you're thinking of Michael Scott. Michael Mann played for the Chicago Bulls and is generally considered one of the best basketball players of all time.
No you are thinking of Michael Jordan. Michael Mann was a nun-chuck wielding Ninja Turtle.
On July 03 2010 13:50 EmeraldSparks wrote: Michael Mann is a famous climatologist who has done a lot of research into global warming.
EmeraldSparks you are thinking of Michael Bailey. Michael Mann is the young actor who starred in Arrested Development and Superbad.
No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
No, you're thinking of Michael Fox. Michael Mann is the late actor from the 50's who played the space visitor Klaatu in the 1951 classic science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still.
No, you're thinking of Michael Rennie. Michael Mann is the manager of Dunder Mifflin Scranton.
No, you're thinking of Michael Scott. Michael Mann played for the Chicago Bulls and is generally considered one of the best basketball players of all time.
No you are thinking of Michael Jordan. Michael Mann was a nun-chuck wielding Ninja Turtle.
No, you are thinking of Michelangelo, Michael Mann is one of the world's best selling musician. Now deceased, his claims to fame include albums "Thriller" and "Bad".
I don't think anyone knows why exactly the US comanders choose to invade Iraq so whether or not they achieved their goals is equally unknown. I also don't see what this has got to do with anything.
Honestly I don't really understand the point of your post at all, what exactly are you trying to say?
Which part don't you understand?
I'm taking it being about the similarity of doing something under false pretense. We went into Iraq because of WMDs, turns out the intelligence was wrong. Now the question because of the war being started over something that was wrong to begin with, does that make it right? Since you made the statment "the end justifies the means" you could not have a double standard for other such events.
This also includes whatever reason you think the Us went to war with Iraq. Because the official reason was WMDs. Note also the "commanders" which I'm guessing your referring to the military leadership and not the President, do not have the power to "go to war".
About calling someone "fringe", ever hear of the boy who cried wolf? Know how it ends?
Congress should NOT act like this is impending doom, doing so does more harm then good, and same lesson applies here, with what happen when we went to war with Iraq, fear and vengeance got the best after 9/11 and clouded judgement.
On July 03 2010 13:50 EmeraldSparks wrote: Michael Mann is a famous climatologist who has done a lot of research into global warming.
EmeraldSparks you are thinking of Michael Bailey. Michael Mann is the young actor who starred in Arrested Development and Superbad.
No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
No, you're thinking of Michael Fox. Michael Mann is the late actor from the 50's who played the space visitor Klaatu in the 1951 classic science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still.
No, you're thinking of Michael Rennie. Michael Mann is the manager of Dunder Mifflin Scranton.
No, you're thinking of Michael Scott. Michael Mann played for the Chicago Bulls and is generally considered one of the best basketball players of all time.
No you are thinking of Michael Jordan. Michael Mann was a nun-chuck wielding Ninja Turtle.
No, you are thinking of Michelangelo, Michael Mann is one of the world's best selling musician. Now deceased, his claims to fame include albums "Thriller" and "Bad".
No, you're thinking of Michael Jackson. Michael Mann was the infamous heavyweight champion who had a habit of biting people's ears off
On July 04 2010 11:30 baller wrote: [quote] EmeraldSparks you are thinking of Michael Bailey. Michael Mann is the young actor who starred in Arrested Development and Superbad.
No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
No, you're thinking of Michael Fox. Michael Mann is the late actor from the 50's who played the space visitor Klaatu in the 1951 classic science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still.
No, you're thinking of Michael Rennie. Michael Mann is the manager of Dunder Mifflin Scranton.
No, you're thinking of Michael Scott. Michael Mann played for the Chicago Bulls and is generally considered one of the best basketball players of all time.
No you are thinking of Michael Jordan. Michael Mann was a nun-chuck wielding Ninja Turtle.
No, you are thinking of Michelangelo, Michael Mann is one of the world's best selling musician. Now deceased, his claims to fame include albums "Thriller" and "Bad".
No, you're thinking of Michael Jackson. Michael Mann was the infamous heavyweight champion who had a habit of biting people's ears off
No, youre thinking of Mike Tyson. Michael Mann are those little oranges you buy in crates like 4 dozen at a time.
On July 04 2010 11:31 BroOd wrote: [quote] No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
No, you're thinking of Michael Fox. Michael Mann is the late actor from the 50's who played the space visitor Klaatu in the 1951 classic science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still.
No, you're thinking of Michael Rennie. Michael Mann is the manager of Dunder Mifflin Scranton.
No, you're thinking of Michael Scott. Michael Mann played for the Chicago Bulls and is generally considered one of the best basketball players of all time.
No you are thinking of Michael Jordan. Michael Mann was a nun-chuck wielding Ninja Turtle.
No, you are thinking of Michelangelo, Michael Mann is one of the world's best selling musician. Now deceased, his claims to fame include albums "Thriller" and "Bad".
No, you're thinking of Michael Jackson. Michael Mann was the infamous heavyweight champion who had a habit of biting people's ears off
No, youre thinking of Mike Tyson. Michael Mann are those little oranges you buy in crates like 4 dozen at a time.
No, you're thinking of mandarins. Michael Mann is the quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts. Oh wait, or was it the New York Giants?
On July 04 2010 11:35 Kennigit wrote: [quote] No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
No, you're thinking of Michael Fox. Michael Mann is the late actor from the 50's who played the space visitor Klaatu in the 1951 classic science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still.
No, you're thinking of Michael Rennie. Michael Mann is the manager of Dunder Mifflin Scranton.
No, you're thinking of Michael Scott. Michael Mann played for the Chicago Bulls and is generally considered one of the best basketball players of all time.
No you are thinking of Michael Jordan. Michael Mann was a nun-chuck wielding Ninja Turtle.
No, you are thinking of Michelangelo, Michael Mann is one of the world's best selling musician. Now deceased, his claims to fame include albums "Thriller" and "Bad".
No, you're thinking of Michael Jackson. Michael Mann was the infamous heavyweight champion who had a habit of biting people's ears off
No, youre thinking of Mike Tyson. Michael Mann are those little oranges you buy in crates like 4 dozen at a time.
No, you're thinking of mandarins. Michael Mann is the quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts. Oh wait, or was it the New York Giants?
No, you're thinking of Payton and Eli Manning. Michael Mann was one of the names Mick Foley used to wrestle under.
On July 04 2010 11:37 JackMcCoy wrote: [quote] No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
No, you're thinking of Michael Fox. Michael Mann is the late actor from the 50's who played the space visitor Klaatu in the 1951 classic science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still.
No, you're thinking of Michael Rennie. Michael Mann is the manager of Dunder Mifflin Scranton.
No, you're thinking of Michael Scott. Michael Mann played for the Chicago Bulls and is generally considered one of the best basketball players of all time.
No you are thinking of Michael Jordan. Michael Mann was a nun-chuck wielding Ninja Turtle.
No, you are thinking of Michelangelo, Michael Mann is one of the world's best selling musician. Now deceased, his claims to fame include albums "Thriller" and "Bad".
No, you're thinking of Michael Jackson. Michael Mann was the infamous heavyweight champion who had a habit of biting people's ears off
No, youre thinking of Mike Tyson. Michael Mann are those little oranges you buy in crates like 4 dozen at a time.
No, you're thinking of mandarins. Michael Mann is the quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts. Oh wait, or was it the New York Giants?
No, you're thinking of Payton and Eli Manning. Michael Mann was one of the names Mick Foley used to wrestle under.
No, you're thinking of Mankind. Michael Mann is the protagonist of the video game, Grim Fandango.
No, you're thinking of Michael Fox. Michael Mann is the late actor from the 50's who played the space visitor Klaatu in the 1951 classic science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still.
No, you're thinking of Michael Rennie. Michael Mann is the manager of Dunder Mifflin Scranton.
No, you're thinking of Michael Scott. Michael Mann played for the Chicago Bulls and is generally considered one of the best basketball players of all time.
No you are thinking of Michael Jordan. Michael Mann was a nun-chuck wielding Ninja Turtle.
No, you are thinking of Michelangelo, Michael Mann is one of the world's best selling musician. Now deceased, his claims to fame include albums "Thriller" and "Bad".
No, you're thinking of Michael Jackson. Michael Mann was the infamous heavyweight champion who had a habit of biting people's ears off
No, youre thinking of Mike Tyson. Michael Mann are those little oranges you buy in crates like 4 dozen at a time.
No, you're thinking of mandarins. Michael Mann is the quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts. Oh wait, or was it the New York Giants?
No, you're thinking of Payton and Eli Manning. Michael Mann was one of the names Mick Foley used to wrestle under.
No, you're thinking of Mankind. Michael Mann is the protagonist of the video game, Grim Fandango.
No, you're thinking of Manny Calavera. Michael Mann is a comic book superhero.
personal opinion : idc if global warming is real or not. i just care that if you really are ignorant enough to believe all the shit you're spewing into the air doesn't hurt the environment then keep thinking that.
did we have factories/cars/etc a long time ago? no. i'm seen al gore's stuff, read arguments against global warming and at this point im more worried about just shit going in our environment.
On July 04 2010 19:33 brain_ wrote: The thought that we can drive hybrids and thereby keep the Earth in stasis is a prime example of human arrogance.
Wait, wait, wait, wait... and the thought that we can emit literally billions of tons of pollutants into the environment per year for decades and thereby not do any harm to the Earth is NOT a prime example of human arrogance? Whether they are contaminants like organophosphates or polychlorinated biphenyls, greenhouse gases like methane or carbon dioxide, or metallotoxics like mercury and lead far in excess of their natural quantities, these industrial and commercial effluents are very abundantly clearly negatively impacting different parts of the world, be it water quality or air quality or habitat quality. That's not "fear-mongering," that's common sense.
Oh, and where does your uncle work? NOAH? Do you happen to mean the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA? Do you actually have any cognizance of the scientific community, beyond mere hear-say? Because just hearing your opinions from others instead of actually looking things up in, say, scientific literature and journals would explain why you thought your uncle worked at a place called "NOAH."
On July 05 2010 04:18 De4ngus wrote: Lol, what's the worst case scenario if global warming is false anyway?
Oh no, we spent some money cleaning up and making the world a better place!
lol
how about raising the fear of millions by creating a new satan out of CO2, and trying to dictate people's lifes just like an abused religion?
How about all those so called "scientists" who made a shitload of money spreading this bullshit and claiming that they are the only ones who know how to prevent the world from ending...just like the church around 14th century..
The "so called scientists" are actually scientists.
Also there is a big difference between how science is substantiated and how religion is substantiated, the main one being that if science was done in a religious fashion, every single scientist would be a heretic.
On July 05 2010 07:24 sluggaslamoo wrote: The "so called scientists" are actually scientists.
Also there is a big difference between how science is substantiated and how religion is substantiated, the main one being that if science was done in a religious fashion, every single scientist would be a heretic.
On July 04 2010 19:33 brain_ wrote: The thought that we can drive hybrids and thereby keep the Earth in stasis is a prime example of human arrogance.
Wait, wait, wait, wait... and the thought that we can emit literally billions of tons of pollutants into the environment per year for decades and thereby not do any harm to the Earth is NOT a prime example of human arrogance? Whether they are contaminants like organophosphates or polychlorinated biphenyls, greenhouse gases like methane or carbon dioxide, or metallotoxics like mercury and lead far in excess of their natural quantities, these industrial and commercial effluents are very abundantly clearly negatively impacting different parts of the world, be it water quality or air quality or habitat quality. That's not "fear-mongering," that's common sense.
Oh, and where does your uncle work? NOAH? Do you happen to mean the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA? Do you actually have any cognizance of the scientific community, beyond mere hear-say? Because just hearing your opinions from others instead of actually looking things up in, say, scientific literature and journals would explain why you thought your uncle worked at a place called "NOAH."
Mild greenhouse gasses like CO2 aren't "pollutants". They are a natural part of the environment. Hell, ANIMAL FARTS RELEASE AS MUCH GREENHOUSE GASSES ANNUALLY (in the form of methane) AS EVERY CAR IN THE WORLD. Volcanic eruptions can spew billions of tons into the atmosphere. All of this has been going on for millennia, loooooooong before humans were around.
And what do you have to say about my other points? Like the fact that we are utterly powerless in the face of natural forces? The climate will swing back and forth- it is inevitable.
Luckily people are skeptical enough that we won't pass onerous regulations (which, by the way, is just a gigantic scheme to empower the government and redistribute wealth). That way we won't all look like idiots in a few decades when the fad dies down and all of the hysteria and nonsense is disproved and discredited.
LOL, a pollutant can be anything that causes problems. Pollutants in small quantities don't cause problems(most anyways) and a lot are actually required in nature - but they cause problems in the concentrations we put out.
I'm not sold on increased CO2 causing incredible climate change, but it's not a good thing to swing the balance in nature so rapidly. Of course some of the stuff proposed is foolish, but getting off fossil fuels as primary sources of energy necessary in the long run anyways. We just need a smooth and cost-effective transition out of them.
On July 05 2010 10:03 Myles wrote: LOL, a pollutant can be anything that causes problems. Pollutants in small quantities don't cause problems(most anyways) and a lot are actually required in nature - but they cause problems in the concentrations we put out.
I'm not sold on increased CO2 causing incredible climate change, but it's not a good thing to swing the balance in nature so rapidly. Of course some of the stuff proposed is foolish, but getting off fossil fuels as primary sources of energy necessary in the long run anyways. We just need a smooth and cost-effective transition out of them.
I agree completely. Fossil fuels won't be around forever, anyway, so we need to plan ahead. But AGW advocates aren't advocating a "smooth and cost-effective transition", they're advocating government repression and economic suicide for little-to-no gain.
Another funny part of the entire proposal... Does anyone really believe China is going to go along with this? Lol. So the West is going to lock up its economies while China keeps spewing.
On July 05 2010 brain_ wrote: ANIMAL FARTS RELEASE AS MUCH GREENHOUSE GASSES ANNUALLY (in the form of methane) AS EVERY CAR IN THE WORLD.
That's not true. What is true is that an agricultural cow will produce as much climate damage in one day as one car during the same time period. There are two reasons the distinction I'm making is important: 1) There are fewer cows in the US than there are cars (~100 million cows, ~250 million cars). 2) Agricultural cows are still a human-cause-- they would not exist if not for our care/needs.
On July 05 2010 brain_ wrote: ANIMAL FARTS RELEASE AS MUCH GREENHOUSE GASSES ANNUALLY (in the form of methane) AS EVERY CAR IN THE WORLD.
That's not true. What is true is that an agricultural cow will produce as much climate damage in one day as one car during the same time period. There are two reasons the distinction I'm making is important: 1) There are fewer cows in the US than there are cars (~100 million cows, ~250 million cars). 2) Agricultural cows are still a human-cause-- they would not exist if not for our care/needs.
Turn off your capslock, btw.
Worldwide, not just in the US. Worldwide there are ~1.5 billion cows and billions of other grazing animals. America's car-to-person ratio is probably the highest in the world, though I'm just guessing.
And if you consider them a "human cause"... Does that mean we can't eat meat? And what about the billions of herd animals that would exist if human populations were much smaller? Think about the buffalo - at least 50 million existed before humans wiped them out. The same story repeats all over the world. Should we cut down the human population and then slaughter wild grazing animals to keep emissions at a minimum?
I lose a little faith in humanity every time Brain_ posts. Although, on the other hand, the fact people are unironically ignant yet still choose to blabber on is entertaining.
Hack into email accounts to find evidence of conspiracy. Claim to find evidence, except I just have poor reading comprehension and it isn't really a conspiracy. Still claim it is a global scam done up by 97% of the active climate scientists to take money from rich people. Cows fart. Deny all existence of experiments which show an increase in temperature when CO2 rises in a controlled environment consistent with the rate at which the Earth is warming. Spout drivel on forum.
On July 05 2010 brain_ wrote: ANIMAL FARTS RELEASE AS MUCH GREENHOUSE GASSES ANNUALLY (in the form of methane) AS EVERY CAR IN THE WORLD.
That's not true. What is true is that an agricultural cow will produce as much climate damage in one day as one car during the same time period. There are two reasons the distinction I'm making is important: 1) There are fewer cows in the US than there are cars (~100 million cows, ~250 million cars). 2) Agricultural cows are still a human-cause-- they would not exist if not for our care/needs.
Turn off your capslock, btw.
Worldwide, not just in the US. Worldwide there are ~1.5 billion cows and billions of other grazing animals. America's car-to-person ratio is probably the highest in the world, though I'm just guessing.
And if you consider them a "human cause"... Does that mean we can't eat meat? And what about the billions of herd animals that would exist if human populations were much smaller? Think about the buffalo - at least 50 million existed before humans wiped them out. The same story repeats all over the world. Should we cut down the human population and then slaughter wild grazing animals to keep emissions at a minimum?
That's a terrible argument. Nobody talked about killing them off. Things like reducing vehicle emissions and banning CFCs is something everyone can get behind.
Not eating meat is too drastic in a world with so much poverty. But just because that suggestion that you made up is ridiculous doesn't mean that all other forms of reducing emissions are.
Mild greenhouse gasses like CO2 aren't "pollutants". They are a natural part of the environment. Hell, ANIMAL FARTS RELEASE AS MUCH GREENHOUSE GASSES ANNUALLY (in the form of methane) AS EVERY CAR IN THE WORLD.
Greenhouse gases are a natural part of the environment. Greenhouse gases are also unnatural, coming from things like CFCs and absorb infrared light between 8 to 13um which is the window where infrared light can escape, allowing our planet to cool. Since the year zero, temperatures have done nothing but decrease annually until the Industrial Revolution. In the span of a century, there has been an abrupt change from decrease in annual temperature to increase in annual temperature. Nature is in relative equilibrium and it's unlikely it's the cause of this sudden change. The onset of burning coal and using fossil fuels is.
Volcanic eruptions can spew billions of tons into the atmosphere. All of this has been going on for millennia, loooooooong before humans were around.
And temperatures have remained constant throughout the millennia, with so many volcanic eruptions, until recently.
And what do you have to say about my other points? Like the fact that we are utterly powerless in the face of natural forces? The climate will swing back and forth- it is inevitable.
The fluctuations of the past 2000 years has suddenly changed within the span of 100 years, coinciding with industrialization. It seems that nature is utterly powerless against us except until we burn a big enough hole that we all get fried to death.
Luckily people are skeptical enough that we won't pass onerous regulations (which, by the way, is just a gigantic scheme to empower the government and redistribute wealth). That way we won't all look like idiots in a few decades when the fad dies down and all of the hysteria and nonsense is disproved and discredited.
What is more likely? A major government conspiracy to centralize authority and pass environmental regulations so they can one day rule the world or people who would rather not spend money on something that will not affect them, just their children?
Brain_, even if methane were a bigger greenhouse gas problem than carbon dioxide (and EPA's GWP counts a CH4 molecule as 21x the infrared absorption of a CO2 molecule), there is a big difference: it isn't feasible for people to give up landfills or ruminants, but it shouldn't be that terribly awful for someone to trade in their Hummer for a hybrid. As for your quote, "But AGW advocates aren't advocating a "smooth and cost-effective transition", they're advocating government repression and economic suicide for little-to-no gain," I'm sure even you know this is ridiculous. Nobody has the stance that they are "pro-government repression." Nobody feels as though we should commit "economic suicide." If you truly believe that, which I hope you don't, then that's just pathetic. The whole point of ameliorating climate change is to help humanity, not hurt it. Considering volcanoes, you have an interesting point. Unfortunately, it is a point that is very, very easily disproved. Observe any of the many international carbon dioxide historical measurement data from the past century. Take your pick--not all of the world's governments can be in on your conspiracy. If volcanic eruptions are as considerable as you say, then you should see a spike in the measurement data for every major eruption in the past 100 years. Check your own facts--the data trend is smooth and regular. Anyway, natural cycles will always occur. It depends on whether or not you choose to believe that it is unusual that these cycles, which usually are completed over the course of millenia, are being exceeded in the course of literally two centuries. If you don't find that strange, well, I don't really have much more to say. Regarding your China point--just because China does something, doesn't mean we should do it. That's extremely childish thinking. An extreme analogy would be: well, if a few other people in the world are murderers or thieves, then it should be okay for me to be a murderer and a thief. Obviously poor logic. Your buffalo/not eating meat argument is both absurd and hilarious and isn't worth commenting on. I think we can both recognize that this is a poor point in the overall scheme of things. You seem like a fairly logical person. Hopefully, you'll begin to do your own research and be true to yourself and realize that there isn't some sort of weird, world-wide conspiracy to "redistribute wealth." I mean, seriously. How crazy does that sound when said by somebody else?
I could post lots of things about statistical accuracy. But I'll just leave it at Global Warming hasn't met the scientifically significant statistical relevance to be considered "true". So if you're saying it's true, you're wrong.
On July 05 2010 06:57 Gregsen wrote: How about all those so called "scientists" who made a shitload of money spreading this bullshit and claiming that they are the only ones who know how to prevent the world from ending...just like the church around 14th century..
how come scientists are accused of having conflicts of interest but industrialists are spared from this criticism
"In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades."
this is not a statement about "CO2 levels", this is a statement about the percentage of CO2 we emit being absorbed
in other words, the earth absorbed ~45% of our carbon emissions in 1850 and it absorbed ~45% of our carbon emissions in 2009.
this means that annually the same piece of the pie is absorbed, but the pie has been getting progressively larger (because no one can argue against the fact that our CO2 emissions have increased as population, agriculture, and industrial activity have grown tremendously)
this means that there is necessarily more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was at the onset of the industrial revolution
so congratulations, the evidence you have cited as proof of your claim actually refuted it
this is the same back of the envelope lack of even superficial understanding of the scientific method that is gradually making america into an international laughingstock so congratulations on upholding that fine tradition
The best part is how in 20 years all these people will have blotted "global warming" from their memory so they don't feel like idiots. By then you'll be laughing at some crazy kids who believe a meteor is going to hit, or an ice age is going to hit overnight, or global flooding is going to kill everyone.
Ask an old person. These fads come and go, and none of them are ever scientifically proven. The only thing they have in common is that somebody stands to gain from people believing in them.
On July 05 2010 14:13 brain_ wrote: The best part is how in 20 years all these people will have blotted "global warming" from their memory so they don't feel like idiots. By then you'll be laughing at some crazy kids who believe a meteor is going to hit, or an ice age is going to hit overnight, or global flooding is going to kill everyone.
Ask an old person. These fads come and go, and none of them are ever scientifically proven. The only thing they have in common is that somebody stands to gain from people believing in them.
This is a terribly poor argument. Anthropogenic Global warming has been in the mind of scientists for over 60 years and has risen to prominence as the gathered evidence has continued to support the hypothesis. And before anyone mentions anything about the "global cooling scare", that pales in significance to the amount of papers being published on a potential global warming scenario, the figure was something like 3:1 in the early 50s. Again I implore anyone with even the slightest interest on the subject of AGW to watch the series on youtube by Potholer54, the first installment of which is on page 2 of this thread. It is a enjoyable and concise look at the science behind the theory, and presents the views of scientists, both proponents and dissenters, and if their proposals are valid.
The concept of AGW is one that will forever be entrenched in the scientific world. It is one that has produced many peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals. There is a very high consensus amongst scientist, especially climatologists. Here is an article detailing this consensus:
On July 03 2010 13:50 EmeraldSparks wrote: Michael Mann is a famous climatologist who has done a lot of research into global warming.
EmeraldSparks you are thinking of Michael Bailey. Michael Mann is the young actor who starred in Arrested Development and Superbad.
No, you are thinking of Michael Cera, Michael Mann is the director of Fahrenheit 911 and Roger & Me.
No, you're thinking of Michael Moore, Michael Mann is Director of Transformers/Bad Boys Series and is a huge fan of slow motion, large explosions and riveting plots.
No, you're thinking of Michael Bay. Michael Mann is the star of Teen Wolf and Back to the Future.
Holy Crap. You are Jack McCoy!
No, you're thinking of Jack Johnson. Jack McCoy is a fictional character on NBC's critically acclaimed series, Law & Order.
Iceage will begin in europe firstly, heatwaves will affect other side of world as has been occuring now, earth quakes will be occuring in increasing numbers closer the pole shift gets, once pole shift occurs the entire gobal map will be changed because the ocean will shift as well 'expect tidal waves', volcanic eruptions will be on the increase including the explosion of yellowstone park and the africian supervolcano, smaller volcanos will also become active after yellowstone park all volcanos linked to ring of fire will become activite.
Amount of gas spewed into atmosphere will cause the sky to darken and go red, you will see problems such as acid rain, waters becoming toxic as underground oil is spewed into oceans as well as volcanic gas from underground volcanos this will kill of alot of the ocean life in turn affecting stability of the food chain leading to problems of food resources 'expect at some point food shortages' some people will starv to death others will become cabals it wont be a pleasant time at all.
War will be occuring as countrys try to take advantage of their enermys situations and struggle to obtain resources to survive, meteorites will be on higher impact than seen before as the magnetic fields surrounding the earth will be at their weakness they will be easier to pentrate the atmosphere, comets will cause impacts sending dust into the air affecting the atmosphere, as lifeforms die of new ones will become dominate new deseases will arises mutations of current ones which will also be deliberately assisted by human groups.
There will come a point all money will be electronic a number will be given as a indentification for the person which will contain all details this number will be a encrpyted 666, prototyping of it will be the switching from physical money to debt and credit system 'electronic'. Eventually it will come to point that barcoding of skin occurs or insertion of chips this will be to increase security is what you will be told and to protct you but this is the mark/number of beast of prophercy.
That is your future change it if you can, I highly doubt you can...
On July 05 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Yeah, in the last 100 years temperatures have gone up.... when you look at adjusted data rather than actual temperatures. [...images omitted...] I could post lots of things about statistical accuracy. But I'll just leave it at Global Warming hasn't met the scientifically significant statistical relevance to be considered "true". So if you're saying it's true, you're wrong.
You're using yearly measurements. If you use the daily measurements, your confidence interval shrinks by a factor of sqrt(~365) and it is then statistically significant.
On July 05 2010 07:24 sluggaslamoo wrote: The "so called scientists" are actually scientists.
Also there is a big difference between how science is substantiated and how religion is substantiated, the main one being that if science was done in a religious fashion, every single scientist would be a heretic.
You seem to miss the point that every scientist who questioned CO2 to be a "climate killer" like a year ago was actually called a liar by the media and the CRU, and they tried everything to get them out of any recognized media attention.
You are right that there is a big difference between science and religion, but those "scientists" who willingly hid the decline of global temperature and called everybody a liar and "climate change denier" who thought otherwise, are no actual scientists, they are just trying to manipulate.
I find it hard to believe people are so naive as to not see the immense commercial interests being served by denying global warming/cc.
Does anyone else remember the hole in the Ozone layer? Cigarettes being ''good'' for your health. I guess those were just conspiracies invented by scientists too, so they could get a worldwide salary augmentation.
The decision of the Investigatory Committee was unanimous.
Naturally, the skeptics now claim that this, like the UEA's report, was a whitewash.
[/QUOTE]
Obviously the skeptics would say it was as you say whitewash, if they read the emails and determined them to be fradulent. You anticipating their decision in ridicule does not make it any less credible if the email were indeed indictive of fradulent activity.
On July 06 2010 00:48 Ineluctable wrote: I find it hard to believe people are so naive as to not see the immense commercial interests being served by denying global warming/cc.
Does anyone else remember the hole in the Ozone layer? Cigarettes being ''good'' for your health. I guess those were just conspiracies invented by scientists too, so they could get a worldwide salary augmentation.
Cigarettes being healthy for you is a product of lobbying.
My major issue is that people treat scientists as contiguous universal body on so many issues, when there are actually only a few idiots out there in the scientific community who claim that cigarettes are good for you, that MMR causes autism and that AIDs doesn't exist.
What happens is the press report "Scientists now say that there is a link between the MMR vaccine and autism", when really they should say, Dr Andrew Wakefield, whose research doesn't live up to scientific standards reports that there link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
No, you're thinking of Michael Rennie. Michael Mann is the manager of Dunder Mifflin Scranton.
No, you're thinking of Michael Scott. Michael Mann played for the Chicago Bulls and is generally considered one of the best basketball players of all time.
No you are thinking of Michael Jordan. Michael Mann was a nun-chuck wielding Ninja Turtle.
No, you are thinking of Michelangelo, Michael Mann is one of the world's best selling musician. Now deceased, his claims to fame include albums "Thriller" and "Bad".
No, you're thinking of Michael Jackson. Michael Mann was the infamous heavyweight champion who had a habit of biting people's ears off
No, youre thinking of Mike Tyson. Michael Mann are those little oranges you buy in crates like 4 dozen at a time.
No, you're thinking of mandarins. Michael Mann is the quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts. Oh wait, or was it the New York Giants?
No, you're thinking of Payton and Eli Manning. Michael Mann was one of the names Mick Foley used to wrestle under.
No, you're thinking of Mankind. Michael Mann is the protagonist of the video game, Grim Fandango.
No, you're thinking of Manny Calavera. Michael Mann is a comic book superhero.
No, you're thinking of Batman. Michael Mann is a Filipino boxer who is the Welterweight Champion, and considered to be one of the best ever.
On July 06 2010 01:41 Kerotan wrote: My major issue is that people treat scientists as contiguous universal body on so many issues, when there are actually only a few idiots out there in the scientific community who claim that cigarettes are good for you, that MMR causes autism and that AIDs doesn't exist.
What happens is the press report "Scientists now say that there is a link between the MMR vaccine and autism", when really they should say, Dr Andrew Wakefield, whose research doesn't live up to scientific standards reports that there link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
Or "Researchers report," "A new study suggests" etc. Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly.
Fantastic point, Kerotan. As someone with experience in the field of science, I often find it very alarming that such a contentious field is often clumped together as representative of one perspective. It's absolutely true that there are always people on the fringe of both extremes, which will almost always be the case. This makes it easy to point to one or two dissenters and claim that "scientists" back up some crazy point, exactly like Wakefield's horrible autism study. The concept equally as much applies to anthropogenic climate change.
On July 06 2010 00:48 Ineluctable wrote: I find it hard to believe people are so naive as to not see the immense commercial interests being served by denying global warming/cc.
What about the immense commercial interests being served by saying global warming/cc is an undisputeable fact without having any empiric studies to prove this? Just think about all the companies in the world manufactioring solar and wind energy solutions, electric cars, biofuel, or green lobbyists who try to gain more power..
look at the immense amounts of money invested to reduce CO2, while we don't even know how it affects cc yet. All this money would've been way better invested strengthening animal rights, saving the rainforest, etc.
I mean, now that there is so much money involved in this, we can't even use it to do something really helpful, and rather try to tell people they are criminals because they are driving a car that put out 10 mg too much CO2...
On July 04 2010 11:49 rich- wrote: [quote] No, you're thinking of Michael Scott. Michael Mann played for the Chicago Bulls and is generally considered one of the best basketball players of all time.
No you are thinking of Michael Jordan. Michael Mann was a nun-chuck wielding Ninja Turtle.
No, you are thinking of Michelangelo, Michael Mann is one of the world's best selling musician. Now deceased, his claims to fame include albums "Thriller" and "Bad".
No, you're thinking of Michael Jackson. Michael Mann was the infamous heavyweight champion who had a habit of biting people's ears off
No, youre thinking of Mike Tyson. Michael Mann are those little oranges you buy in crates like 4 dozen at a time.
No, you're thinking of mandarins. Michael Mann is the quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts. Oh wait, or was it the New York Giants?
No, you're thinking of Payton and Eli Manning. Michael Mann was one of the names Mick Foley used to wrestle under.
No, you're thinking of Mankind. Michael Mann is the protagonist of the video game, Grim Fandango.
No, you're thinking of Manny Calavera. Michael Mann is a comic book superhero.
No, you're thinking of Batman. Michael Mann is a Filipino boxer who is the Welterweight Champion, and considered to be one of the best ever.
No, You're thinking of Manny Pacquiao. Michael Mann is the WWI German flying Ace credited with 80 flying combat victories.
No you are thinking of Michael Jordan. Michael Mann was a nun-chuck wielding Ninja Turtle.
No, you are thinking of Michelangelo, Michael Mann is one of the world's best selling musician. Now deceased, his claims to fame include albums "Thriller" and "Bad".
No, you're thinking of Michael Jackson. Michael Mann was the infamous heavyweight champion who had a habit of biting people's ears off
No, youre thinking of Mike Tyson. Michael Mann are those little oranges you buy in crates like 4 dozen at a time.
No, you're thinking of mandarins. Michael Mann is the quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts. Oh wait, or was it the New York Giants?
No, you're thinking of Payton and Eli Manning. Michael Mann was one of the names Mick Foley used to wrestle under.
No, you're thinking of Mankind. Michael Mann is the protagonist of the video game, Grim Fandango.
No, you're thinking of Manny Calavera. Michael Mann is a comic book superhero.
No, you're thinking of Batman. Michael Mann is a Filipino boxer who is the Welterweight Champion, and considered to be one of the best ever.
No, You're thinking of Manny Pacquiao. Michael Mann is the WWI German flying Ace credited with 80 flying combat victories.
No, you're thinking of Manfred Albrecht 'Freiherr' von Richthofen. Michael Mann is the South African keyboardist who, along with his Earth Band, was blinded by the light, and subsequently revved up like a deuce.
I wish people would accept that even between scientists there are different opinions and that there have to be. Discrediting every single scientist that does not agree with manmade global warming reminds me of what the catholic church has done some time ago...the inquisition. If the claims are right is another story.
Except for the fact that people from both sides are discrediting each other, which is entirely natural. Has it ever occurred to you that the reason it seems scientists come down on sceptics like a ton of bricks is because there are so many more of them? The ratio of scientists that do not believe in man-made climate change is something like 1 in 1,000 if not 10,000?
There is much much much more money to be saved in the short term, by preventing action on global warming, than there is on selling carbon credits and solar panels, etc.
On July 06 2010 00:48 Ineluctable wrote: I find it hard to believe people are so naive as to not see the immense commercial interests being served by denying global warming/cc.
What about the immense commercial interests being served by saying global warming/cc is an undisputeable fact without having any empiric studies to prove this? Just think about all the companies in the world manufactioring solar and wind energy solutions, electric cars, biofuel, or green lobbyists who try to gain more power..
look at the immense amounts of money invested to reduce CO2, while we don't even know how it affects cc yet. All this money would've been way better invested strengthening animal rights, saving the rainforest, etc.
I mean, now that there is so much money involved in this, we can't even use it to do something really helpful, and rather try to tell people they are criminals because they are driving a car that put out 10 mg too much CO2...
No empirical evidence? What? That is what 99% of science is based around, the systematic gathering of empirical evidence, of which an IMMENSE, IMMENSE amount has been compiled. We're talking 50 years of research and experiments all recorded in journals and then peer reviewed (though I don't think you really understand that concept.)
Yes there is money to be made in solving this issue and in all the areas you identified, wind energy, eletric cars, biofuels etcs. But how is that a bad thing? Its good for two reasons.
1. All those technologies work towards solving the problem of global warming, which is real and has been substantiated by the work of thousands of scienticts. Additionally, humanity needs to learn to live sustainably and technology is the key to doing that. So these technologies are an investment in the survivability and well being of the whole race not just a ploy to make money. That type of thinking is dangerous and counterproductive.
2. I hope you understand on a basic level how and economy works. Producing such technologies requires huge industrial investment, that includes money, materials, and people. Producing these technologies gives jobs and increases wealth to many people (not just some fictional tyrant who is 'king of wind power'
People need to get the idea of corporate tyranny out of their minds, its silly.
On July 06 2010 00:48 Ineluctable wrote: I find it hard to believe people are so naive as to not see the immense commercial interests being served by denying global warming/cc.
What about the immense commercial interests being served by saying global warming/cc is an undisputeable fact without having any empiric studies to prove this? Just think about all the companies in the world manufactioring solar and wind energy solutions, electric cars, biofuel, or green lobbyists who try to gain more power..
look at the immense amounts of money invested to reduce CO2, while we don't even know how it affects cc yet. All this money would've been way better invested strengthening animal rights, saving the rainforest, etc.
I mean, now that there is so much money involved in this, we can't even use it to do something really helpful, and rather try to tell people they are criminals because they are driving a car that put out 10 mg too much CO2...
Do you seriously think the green lobby/industry has close to as much power as the non-renewable etc energy lobby? You have got to be kidding me. There have been plenty of studies proving the effect of CO2 etc on the climate but those are absolutely irrelevent because no matter what, like conspiracy theorists, you can claim that ''THEY'RE IN LEAGUE WITH THE X'', etc.
Good post, Kerotan. However, the way media reports on science depends greatly on which media is reporting. Not all lump all scientists together like in your example.
On July 06 2010 00:48 Ineluctable wrote: I find it hard to believe people are so naive as to not see the immense commercial interests being served by denying global warming/cc.
What about the immense commercial interests being served by saying global warming/cc is an undisputeable fact without having any empiric studies to prove this? Just think about all the companies in the world manufactioring solar and wind energy solutions, electric cars, biofuel, or green lobbyists who try to gain more power..
look at the immense amounts of money invested to reduce CO2, while we don't even know how it affects cc yet. All this money would've been way better invested strengthening animal rights, saving the rainforest, etc.
I mean, now that there is so much money involved in this, we can't even use it to do something really helpful, and rather try to tell people they are criminals because they are driving a car that put out 10 mg too much CO2...
No empirical evidence? What? That is what 99% of science is based around, the systematic gathering of empirical evidence, of which an IMMENSE, IMMENSE amount has been compiled. We're talking 50 years of research and experiments all recorded in journals and then peer reviewed (though I don't think you really understand that concept.)
Yes there is money to be made in solving this issue and in all the areas you identified, wind energy, eletric cars, biofuels etcs. But how is that a bad thing? Its good for two reasons.
1. All those technologies work towards solving the problem of global warming, which is real and has been substantiated by the work of thousands of scienticts. Additionally, humanity needs to learn to live sustainably and technology is the key to doing that. So these technologies are an investment in the survivability and well being of the whole race not just a ploy to make money. That type of thinking is dangerous and counterproductive.
2. I hope you understand on a basic level how and economy works. Producing such technologies requires huge industrial investment, that includes money, materials, and people. Producing these technologies gives jobs and increases wealth to many people (not just some fictional tyrant who is 'king of wind power'
People need to get the idea of corporate tyranny out of their minds, its silly.
There is NO evidence that those technologies work towards solving the problem of global warming, because we don't even know how CO2 affects it! We are just ASSUMING that mankind has huge impact on climate change, but we don't even know if that's true, the sun could also have an enormous effect on climate change. There is no explanation for the decline of global warmth since the last 10 years either. This is just like claiming that there is a God with no evidence to prove it. ^^
Nobody cares about how fucked up the food is that we eat, or how we can save animal races from extinction. All we can think of is that the world is gonna end within 60 years if we don't build up some solar energy solutions RIGHT NOW - what a ridiculous claim. Just think of Copenhagen - "OMFG ITS THE END OF THE WORLD IF COPENHAGEN IS GONNA FAIL"...and nobody talks about it anymore.
Discrediting every single scientist that does not agree with manmade global warming reminds me of what the catholic church has done some time ago...the inquisition. If the claims are right is another story.
On July 06 2010 00:48 Ineluctable wrote: I find it hard to believe people are so naive as to not see the immense commercial interests being served by denying global warming/cc.
What about the immense commercial interests being served by saying global warming/cc is an undisputeable fact without having any empiric studies to prove this? Just think about all the companies in the world manufactioring solar and wind energy solutions, electric cars, biofuel, or green lobbyists who try to gain more power..
look at the immense amounts of money invested to reduce CO2, while we don't even know how it affects cc yet. All this money would've been way better invested strengthening animal rights, saving the rainforest, etc.
I mean, now that there is so much money involved in this, we can't even use it to do something really helpful, and rather try to tell people they are criminals because they are driving a car that put out 10 mg too much CO2...
No empirical evidence? What? That is what 99% of science is based around, the systematic gathering of empirical evidence, of which an IMMENSE, IMMENSE amount has been compiled. We're talking 50 years of research and experiments all recorded in journals and then peer reviewed (though I don't think you really understand that concept.)
Yes there is money to be made in solving this issue and in all the areas you identified, wind energy, eletric cars, biofuels etcs. But how is that a bad thing? Its good for two reasons.
1. All those technologies work towards solving the problem of global warming, which is real and has been substantiated by the work of thousands of scienticts. Additionally, humanity needs to learn to live sustainably and technology is the key to doing that. So these technologies are an investment in the survivability and well being of the whole race not just a ploy to make money. That type of thinking is dangerous and counterproductive.
2. I hope you understand on a basic level how and economy works. Producing such technologies requires huge industrial investment, that includes money, materials, and people. Producing these technologies gives jobs and increases wealth to many people (not just some fictional tyrant who is 'king of wind power'
People need to get the idea of corporate tyranny out of their minds, its silly.
There is NO evidence that those technologies work towards solving the problem of global warming, because we don't even know how CO2 affects it! We are just ASSUMING that mankind has huge impact on climate change, but we don't even know if that's true, the sun could also have an enormous effect on climate change. There is no explanation for the decline of global warmth since the last 10 years either. This is just like claiming that there is a God with no evidence to prove it. ^^
Nobody cares about how fucked up the food is that we eat, or how we can save animal races from extinction. All we can think of is that the world is gonna end within 60 years if we don't build up some solar energy solutions RIGHT NOW - what a ridiculous claim. Just think of Copenhagen - "OMFG ITS THE END OF THE WORLD IF COPENHAGEN IS GONNA FAIL"...and nobody talks about it anymore.
Discrediting every single scientist that does not agree with manmade global warming reminds me of what the catholic church has done some time ago...the inquisition. If the claims are right is another story.
This.
Damn, I thought the pro-nonrenewable anti-science lobby only had influence in the USA. Guess not.
I'm still surprised people who know so little can be the most vocal about their... uneducated opinions? At least I know well enough not to comment on the programming threads when I know nothing about programming.
On July 06 2010 00:48 Ineluctable wrote: I find it hard to believe people are so naive as to not see the immense commercial interests being served by denying global warming/cc.
What about the immense commercial interests being served by saying global warming/cc is an undisputeable fact without having any empiric studies to prove this? Just think about all the companies in the world manufactioring solar and wind energy solutions, electric cars, biofuel, or green lobbyists who try to gain more power..
look at the immense amounts of money invested to reduce CO2, while we don't even know how it affects cc yet. All this money would've been way better invested strengthening animal rights, saving the rainforest, etc.
I mean, now that there is so much money involved in this, we can't even use it to do something really helpful, and rather try to tell people they are criminals because they are driving a car that put out 10 mg too much CO2...
No empirical evidence? What? That is what 99% of science is based around, the systematic gathering of empirical evidence, of which an IMMENSE, IMMENSE amount has been compiled. We're talking 50 years of research and experiments all recorded in journals and then peer reviewed (though I don't think you really understand that concept.)
Yes there is money to be made in solving this issue and in all the areas you identified, wind energy, eletric cars, biofuels etcs. But how is that a bad thing? Its good for two reasons.
1. All those technologies work towards solving the problem of global warming, which is real and has been substantiated by the work of thousands of scienticts. Additionally, humanity needs to learn to live sustainably and technology is the key to doing that. So these technologies are an investment in the survivability and well being of the whole race not just a ploy to make money. That type of thinking is dangerous and counterproductive.
2. I hope you understand on a basic level how and economy works. Producing such technologies requires huge industrial investment, that includes money, materials, and people. Producing these technologies gives jobs and increases wealth to many people (not just some fictional tyrant who is 'king of wind power'
People need to get the idea of corporate tyranny out of their minds, its silly.
There is NO evidence that those technologies work towards solving the problem of global warming, because we don't even know how CO2 affects it! We are just ASSUMING that mankind has huge impact on climate change, but we don't even know if that's true, the sun could also have an enormous effect on climate change. There is no explanation for the decline of global warmth since the last 10 years either. This is just like claiming that there is a God with no evidence to prove it. ^^
Nobody cares about how fucked up the food is that we eat, or how we can save animal races from extinction. All we can think of is that the world is gonna end within 60 years if we don't build up some solar energy solutions RIGHT NOW - what a ridiculous claim. Just think of Copenhagen - "OMFG ITS THE END OF THE WORLD IF COPENHAGEN IS GONNA FAIL"...and nobody talks about it anymore.
Discrediting every single scientist that does not agree with manmade global warming reminds me of what the catholic church has done some time ago...the inquisition. If the claims are right is another story.
This.
Damn, I thought the pro-nonrenewable anti-science lobby only had influence in the USA. Guess not.
I'm still surprised people who know so little can be the most vocal about their... uneducated opinions? At least I know well enough not to comment on the programming threads when I know nothing about programming.
At least I am the only one debating without insults so far
As I said many times, I am not "anti-science" or anything lol (that obviously proves that you didn't even read what I wrote), I just demand that science lives up to its own claim - "no truth without evidence, it's easy to lie". I'm doing research on this topic for quite a long time now and there is no prove for CO2 to be responsible for the rapid global warming in the last 60 years. That is a fact. Hell, do you even know what your air consists of, and how much CO2 you can fit into it? :D
No, you are thinking of Michelangelo, Michael Mann is one of the world's best selling musician. Now deceased, his claims to fame include albums "Thriller" and "Bad".
No, you're thinking of Michael Jackson. Michael Mann was the infamous heavyweight champion who had a habit of biting people's ears off
No, youre thinking of Mike Tyson. Michael Mann are those little oranges you buy in crates like 4 dozen at a time.
No, you're thinking of mandarins. Michael Mann is the quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts. Oh wait, or was it the New York Giants?
No, you're thinking of Payton and Eli Manning. Michael Mann was one of the names Mick Foley used to wrestle under.
No, you're thinking of Mankind. Michael Mann is the protagonist of the video game, Grim Fandango.
No, you're thinking of Manny Calavera. Michael Mann is a comic book superhero.
No, you're thinking of Batman. Michael Mann is a Filipino boxer who is the Welterweight Champion, and considered to be one of the best ever.
No, You're thinking of Manny Pacquiao. Michael Mann is the WWI German flying Ace credited with 80 flying combat victories.
No, you're thinking of Manfred Albrecht 'Freiherr' von Richthofen. Michael Mann is the South African keyboardist who, along with his Earth Band, was blinded by the light, and subsequently revved up like a deuce.
No, you're thinking of Manfred Mann. Micheal Mann is a character featured in the Masters of the Universe franchise, who is also the twin brother of She-Ra, as well as defending Eternia and the secrets of Castle Grayskull from the evil forces of Skeletor.
On July 06 2010 07:55 Gregsen wrote: I'm doing research on this topic for quite a long time now and there is no prove for CO2 to be responsible for the rapid global warming in the last 60 years. That is a fact. Hell, do you even know what your air consists of, and how much CO2 you can fit into it? :D
Gregsen, it's certainly good that you're doing your own studying on the topic, but if your research didn't cover the basic climatological definition of greenhouse gases, then I question how extensive it was.
If your research did cover greenhouse gases, which it should have, and why carbon dioxide--like many other molecules--is labeled a greenhouse gas, and you are still making this argument, then I question your ability to comprehend the material.
I am not being sarcastic when I ask: do you understand how greenhouse gases work? And do you understand why carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? Assuming the answer to both of these is "yes," then I don't understand your argument when you state that there is no proof for carbon dioxide to be responsible for climate change.
Yes, we all know that you can "fit" plenty of CO2 into the air. However, most of us are also cognizant that we should be considering rate of release of CO2, not total carrying capacity of the atmosphere.
No, you're thinking of Michael Jackson. Michael Mann was the infamous heavyweight champion who had a habit of biting people's ears off
No, youre thinking of Mike Tyson. Michael Mann are those little oranges you buy in crates like 4 dozen at a time.
No, you're thinking of mandarins. Michael Mann is the quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts. Oh wait, or was it the New York Giants?
No, you're thinking of Payton and Eli Manning. Michael Mann was one of the names Mick Foley used to wrestle under.
No, you're thinking of Mankind. Michael Mann is the protagonist of the video game, Grim Fandango.
No, you're thinking of Manny Calavera. Michael Mann is a comic book superhero.
No, you're thinking of Batman. Michael Mann is a Filipino boxer who is the Welterweight Champion, and considered to be one of the best ever.
No, You're thinking of Manny Pacquiao. Michael Mann is the WWI German flying Ace credited with 80 flying combat victories.
No, you're thinking of Manfred Albrecht 'Freiherr' von Richthofen. Michael Mann is the South African keyboardist who, along with his Earth Band, was blinded by the light, and subsequently revved up like a deuce.
No, you're thinking of Manfred Mann. Micheal Mann is a character featured in the Masters of the Universe franchise, who is also the twin brother of She-Ra, as well as defending Eternia and the secrets of Castle Grayskull from the evil forces of Skeletor.
No, you're thinking of He-Man. Michael Mann is an actor. He cut that guys ear off in Reservoir Dogs and got bit by the black mamba in Kill Bill Vol. 2.
I don't doubt that there is a rising global temperature! I never did. I just doubt the EXPLANATION for this! There is and there has always been climate change - global warming and global cooling, in bigger or smaller dimensions (like the "mini iceage" between 1450 and 1850). This is an incredible natural process, and especially the speed of this process is affected a lot by weather and sun. The claim that man can dictate the global temperature, meaning that man can control air pressure, cyclone and anti cyclone, is an outright fabrication. "We need to lower the global temperature by 2 degrees celsius as soon as possible" - just wait for the weather to do it, and if it doesn't, there's nothing we can do.
I see I need to explain myself a little bit more here. Somebody asked me if I even understand the basics of greenhouse effect and greenhouse gas. I'd like to ask if this person knows that the amount of CO2 and methane gases in the atmosphere has been CONSTANT since the last 8000 years (this has been PROVEN by the Max-Planck-Institute in Hamburg, Germany, look it up). The thing that hasn't been constant is the weather, and that's why the global temperature hasn't been constant as well. Jesus, sience is not a democratic thing! If 1000 scientists have a different oppinion towards the constant amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it doesn't count one bit, evidence is what science is made of, and nothing else. And that is the good thing about it.
Do you even know that climate is a statistical construction diverted from weather?
On July 06 2010 00:48 Ineluctable wrote: I find it hard to believe people are so naive as to not see the immense commercial interests being served by denying global warming/cc.
What about the immense commercial interests being served by saying global warming/cc is an undisputeable fact without having any empiric studies to prove this? Just think about all the companies in the world manufactioring solar and wind energy solutions, electric cars, biofuel, or green lobbyists who try to gain more power..
look at the immense amounts of money invested to reduce CO2, while we don't even know how it affects cc yet. All this money would've been way better invested strengthening animal rights, saving the rainforest, etc.
I mean, now that there is so much money involved in this, we can't even use it to do something really helpful, and rather try to tell people they are criminals because they are driving a car that put out 10 mg too much CO2...
No empirical evidence? What? That is what 99% of science is based around, the systematic gathering of empirical evidence, of which an IMMENSE, IMMENSE amount has been compiled. We're talking 50 years of research and experiments all recorded in journals and then peer reviewed (though I don't think you really understand that concept.)
Yes there is money to be made in solving this issue and in all the areas you identified, wind energy, eletric cars, biofuels etcs. But how is that a bad thing? Its good for two reasons.
1. All those technologies work towards solving the problem of global warming, which is real and has been substantiated by the work of thousands of scienticts. Additionally, humanity needs to learn to live sustainably and technology is the key to doing that. So these technologies are an investment in the survivability and well being of the whole race not just a ploy to make money. That type of thinking is dangerous and counterproductive.
2. I hope you understand on a basic level how and economy works. Producing such technologies requires huge industrial investment, that includes money, materials, and people. Producing these technologies gives jobs and increases wealth to many people (not just some fictional tyrant who is 'king of wind power'
People need to get the idea of corporate tyranny out of their minds, its silly.
There is NO evidence that those technologies work towards solving the problem of global warming, because we don't even know how CO2 affects it! We are just ASSUMING that mankind has huge impact on climate change, but we don't even know if that's true, the sun could also have an enormous effect on climate change. There is no explanation for the decline of global warmth since the last 10 years either. This is just like claiming that there is a God with no evidence to prove it. ^^
Nobody cares about how fucked up the food is that we eat, or how we can save animal races from extinction. All we can think of is that the world is gonna end within 60 years if we don't build up some solar energy solutions RIGHT NOW - what a ridiculous claim. Just think of Copenhagen - "OMFG ITS THE END OF THE WORLD IF COPENHAGEN IS GONNA FAIL"...and nobody talks about it anymore.
Discrediting every single scientist that does not agree with manmade global warming reminds me of what the catholic church has done some time ago...the inquisition. If the claims are right is another story.
This.
Damn, I thought the pro-nonrenewable anti-science lobby only had influence in the USA. Guess not.
I'm still surprised people who know so little can be the most vocal about their... uneducated opinions? At least I know well enough not to comment on the programming threads when I know nothing about programming.
That's because you're one of the sheeple who won't speak out against the Java conspiracy.
Object-oriented programming is such crock. No one can fit a fucking object inside a microchip.
On July 06 2010 00:48 Ineluctable wrote: I find it hard to believe people are so naive as to not see the immense commercial interests being served by denying global warming/cc.
What about the immense commercial interests being served by saying global warming/cc is an undisputeable fact without having any empiric studies to prove this? Just think about all the companies in the world manufactioring solar and wind energy solutions, electric cars, biofuel, or green lobbyists who try to gain more power..
look at the immense amounts of money invested to reduce CO2, while we don't even know how it affects cc yet. All this money would've been way better invested strengthening animal rights, saving the rainforest, etc.
I mean, now that there is so much money involved in this, we can't even use it to do something really helpful, and rather try to tell people they are criminals because they are driving a car that put out 10 mg too much CO2...
No empirical evidence? What? That is what 99% of science is based around, the systematic gathering of empirical evidence, of which an IMMENSE, IMMENSE amount has been compiled. We're talking 50 years of research and experiments all recorded in journals and then peer reviewed (though I don't think you really understand that concept.)
Yes there is money to be made in solving this issue and in all the areas you identified, wind energy, eletric cars, biofuels etcs. But how is that a bad thing? Its good for two reasons.
1. All those technologies work towards solving the problem of global warming, which is real and has been substantiated by the work of thousands of scienticts. Additionally, humanity needs to learn to live sustainably and technology is the key to doing that. So these technologies are an investment in the survivability and well being of the whole race not just a ploy to make money. That type of thinking is dangerous and counterproductive.
2. I hope you understand on a basic level how and economy works. Producing such technologies requires huge industrial investment, that includes money, materials, and people. Producing these technologies gives jobs and increases wealth to many people (not just some fictional tyrant who is 'king of wind power'
People need to get the idea of corporate tyranny out of their minds, its silly.
There is NO evidence that those technologies work towards solving the problem of global warming, because we don't even know how CO2 affects it! We are just ASSUMING that mankind has huge impact on climate change, but we don't even know if that's true, the sun could also have an enormous effect on climate change. There is no explanation for the decline of global warmth since the last 10 years either. This is just like claiming that there is a God with no evidence to prove it. ^^
Nobody cares about how fucked up the food is that we eat, or how we can save animal races from extinction. All we can think of is that the world is gonna end within 60 years if we don't build up some solar energy solutions RIGHT NOW - what a ridiculous claim. Just think of Copenhagen - "OMFG ITS THE END OF THE WORLD IF COPENHAGEN IS GONNA FAIL"...and nobody talks about it anymore.
Discrediting every single scientist that does not agree with manmade global warming reminds me of what the catholic church has done some time ago...the inquisition. If the claims are right is another story.
This.
Damn, I thought the pro-nonrenewable anti-science lobby only had influence in the USA. Guess not.
I'm still surprised people who know so little can be the most vocal about their... uneducated opinions? At least I know well enough not to comment on the programming threads when I know nothing about programming.
That's because you're one of the sheeple who won't speak out against the Java conspiracy.
Object-oriented programming is such crock. No one can fit a fucking object inside a microchip.
Even worse, structured programming is a paradigm based on functions and data, so what's the point in functional programming?
Gregsen-- Because, again, I am glad you do your homework, as it were, I respected that you had a claim that CO2 and CH4 have been constant in the last 8000 years, as PROVEN by the Max Planck Institute. So, always on the search for new information, I took your advice and looked it up. Here's a direct quote:
Max-Planck-Institute for Biogeochemistry CO2 is the single most important human-emitted greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, contributing 63.5 % (*) to the overall global radiative forcing. However, it is responsible for 85% of the increase in radiative forcing over the past decade and 86% over the last five years. For about 10,000 years before the industrial revolution, the atmospheric abundance of CO2 was nearly constant at ~ 280ppm (ppm = number of molecules of the gas per million molecules of dry air). ... Since 1750, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 38%, primarily because of emissions from combustion of fossil fuels (8.62 Gt carbon in 2007) and deforestation and land use change (0.5-2.5 Gt carbon per year over the 2000-2005 time period). High-precision measurements of atmospheric CO2 beginning in 1958 show that the average increase of CO2 in the atmosphere corresponds to ~ 55% of the CO2 emitted by fossil fuel combustion.
So, thanks for the heads-up on the research. I appreciate your honesty, but, as I suspected, your reading comprehension wasn't quite on point. Anyone can find this document and read it from http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/IAEA-WMO2009/index.shtml , which is again a Max-Planck-Institute webpage; about halfway down the page it directs you to this document from which I took the quote: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ghg/ghg5-online.html . The second link is the report from the World Meteorological Organization who sponsored a meeting at the MPI as a collection of greenhouse gas experts. They might have the evidence you are looking for...
Also, please don't use "OH ITS A THEORY LOL" argument. Unless you don't believe in evolution or gravity, you don't have to put that smug little winky-face after emphasizing the word "theory."
Zch, this is not the source I referred to. Your link is guiding to the Max Planck Institute in Jena, I am referring to the Max Planck Institute in Hamburg. Those are two entirely different Institutes, difference being that the Institute in Hamburg isn't serving the interests of IPCC. There are a lot of Max-Planck-Institutes in Germany (insert smug little winky-face here).
Are you aware that there has been a medieval warming period between 800 and 1450, warmer than the one we are facing today, followed by a "mini iceage" with temperatures below average between 1450 and 1850? This is where all the graphs are starting, and as you can see, there's a good reason for it.
you really need to keep on searching for new information.
On July 06 2010 10:06 .zch wrote: Gregsen-- Because, again, I am glad you do your homework, as it were, I respected that you had a claim that CO2 and CH4 have been constant in the last 8000 years, as PROVEN by the Max Planck Institute. So, always on the search for new information, I took your advice and looked it up. Here's a direct quote:
Max-Planck-Institute for Biogeochemistry CO2 is the single most important human-emitted greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, contributing 63.5 % (*) to the overall global radiative forcing. However, it is responsible for 85% of the increase in radiative forcing over the past decade and 86% over the last five years. For about 10,000 years before the industrial revolution, the atmospheric abundance of CO2 was nearly constant at ~ 280ppm (ppm = number of molecules of the gas per million molecules of dry air). ... Since 1750, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 38%, primarily because of emissions from combustion of fossil fuels (8.62 Gt carbon in 2007) and deforestation and land use change (0.5-2.5 Gt carbon per year over the 2000-2005 time period). High-precision measurements of atmospheric CO2 beginning in 1958 show that the average increase of CO2 in the atmosphere corresponds to ~ 55% of the CO2 emitted by fossil fuel combustion.
So, thanks for the heads-up on the research. I appreciate your honesty, but, as I suspected, your reading comprehension wasn't quite on point. Anyone can find this document and read it from http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/IAEA-WMO2009/index.shtml , which is again a Max-Planck-Institute webpage; about halfway down the page it directs you to this document from which I took the quote: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ghg/ghg5-online.html . The second link is the report from the World Meteorological Organization who sponsored a meeting at the MPI as a collection of greenhouse gas experts. They might have the evidence you are looking for...
Also, please don't use "OH ITS A THEORY LOL" argument. Unless you don't believe in evolution or gravity, you don't have to put that smug little winky-face after emphasizing the word "theory."
Bhaha get owned Gregsen.
It is obvious from your posts that you don't understand basic scientific principals. Humans release of billions upon billions of tons of CO2 (as well as other greenhouse gases, CO2 is luckily less potent then methan or nitrous oxide for example) has had an obvious measurable effect on global temperatures. This HAS been 'proven' (i don't use the word proven without quotes because in science you can't really prove something 100% only disprove of it) through 1000s of peer reviewed papers. I don't know what else I can tell you but that the research has been done and it all points unequivocally towards human made global warming.
Now you claim we should spend more time on 'saving animals from extinction', but do you realize that global warming is going to cause more animals to go extinct than anything humans have done before?
With the cause for global warming well established, its obvious that renewable energy technologies are the answer to the problem. If you're so uneducated about a subject don't try to talk about it.
On July 06 2010 10:06 .zch wrote: Gregsen-- Because, again, I am glad you do your homework, as it were, I respected that you had a claim that CO2 and CH4 have been constant in the last 8000 years, as PROVEN by the Max Planck Institute. So, always on the search for new information, I took your advice and looked it up. Here's a direct quote:
Max-Planck-Institute for Biogeochemistry CO2 is the single most important human-emitted greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, contributing 63.5 % (*) to the overall global radiative forcing. However, it is responsible for 85% of the increase in radiative forcing over the past decade and 86% over the last five years. For about 10,000 years before the industrial revolution, the atmospheric abundance of CO2 was nearly constant at ~ 280ppm (ppm = number of molecules of the gas per million molecules of dry air). ... Since 1750, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 38%, primarily because of emissions from combustion of fossil fuels (8.62 Gt carbon in 2007) and deforestation and land use change (0.5-2.5 Gt carbon per year over the 2000-2005 time period). High-precision measurements of atmospheric CO2 beginning in 1958 show that the average increase of CO2 in the atmosphere corresponds to ~ 55% of the CO2 emitted by fossil fuel combustion.
So, thanks for the heads-up on the research. I appreciate your honesty, but, as I suspected, your reading comprehension wasn't quite on point. Anyone can find this document and read it from http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/IAEA-WMO2009/index.shtml , which is again a Max-Planck-Institute webpage; about halfway down the page it directs you to this document from which I took the quote: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ghg/ghg5-online.html . The second link is the report from the World Meteorological Organization who sponsored a meeting at the MPI as a collection of greenhouse gas experts. They might have the evidence you are looking for...
Also, please don't use "OH ITS A THEORY LOL" argument. Unless you don't believe in evolution or gravity, you don't have to put that smug little winky-face after emphasizing the word "theory."
Bhaha get owned Gregsen.
It is obvious from your posts that you don't understand basic scientific principals. Humans release of billions upon billions of tons of CO2 (as well as other greenhouse gases, CO2 is luckily less potent then methan or nitrous oxide for example) has had an obvious measurable effect on global temperatures. This HAS been 'proven' (i don't use the word proven without quotes because in science you can't really prove something 100% only disprove of it) through 1000s of peer reviewed papers. I don't know what else I can tell you but that the research has been done and it all points unequivocally towards human made global warming.
Now you claim we should spend more time on 'saving animals from extinction', but do you realize that global warming is going to cause more animals to go extinct than anything humans have done before?
With the cause for global warming well established, its obvious that renewable energy technologies are the answer to the problem. If you're so uneducated about a subject don't try to talk about it.
dude, just shut up, read my last arguments, and understand that zch is referring to a DIFFERENT source. Seriously, how old are you?
Also, understand that, much more likely than being the end of the world, global warming has a positive effect on our environment. Maybe that helps you, as global warming is something you can't stop anyway.
The 'interests' of the IPCC? What exactly are the 'interests' of the IPCC? This leads me to believe that you are buying into some sort of conspiracy theroy, and people who believe that sort of unsubstantiated garbage tend to ignore logic, and the simple fact of the matter.
On July 06 2010 10:39 MadVillain wrote: The 'interests' of the IPCC? What exactly are the 'interests' of the IPCC? This leads me to believe that you are buying into some sort of conspiracy theroy, and people who believe that sort of unsubstantiated garbage tend to ignore logic, and the simple fact of the matter.
hahaha wow, while I link to a youtube video, you're linking to a complete assessment report on IPCC's own homepage. You're cool buddy, you're cool. And so objective.
How about you watch it first before saying that it completly denies logic? That'd be very kind.
What exactly is there to be objective about? I'm posting the facts, and a compilation of the work thats been done on this subject matter. Its much more relevant and direct and can answer many of the questions that your ignorance is begging you to answer.
And please, how can you completely discredit one Max Planck Institute just because you believe its serving someone's interests, yet use another to 'disprove' global warming?
With that said the description from your youtube video:
"This film by the documentary-maker Martin Durkin presents the arguments of scientists and commentators who don't believe that CO2 produced by human activity is the main cause of climate change. It's all to scare the shit out of us folks! The Illuminati set this up to make us, the people of the world, the problem. Don't believe it! Resist the New World Order!!!!"
On July 06 2010 11:11 Romantic wrote: LMAO Gregsen literally got his arguments from a bad documentary on Youtube.
You are so right. I didn't read anything about this topic, not a single study from IPCC and the Max Planck Institute Hamburg, and didn't talk to a lot of meteorologists concerning that matter. I am also very bad at things like physics and biology.I didn't post this video so everybody could get at least a little bit of a different perspective rather than the totally one-sided media, no, it was my only source.
Also, how is this documentary bad?
Guess I'm outta here, since I made every point I was trying to make, and no point got neglected by evidence so far.
On July 06 2010 10:06 .zch wrote: Gregsen-- Because, again, I am glad you do your homework, as it were, I respected that you had a claim that CO2 and CH4 have been constant in the last 8000 years, as PROVEN by the Max Planck Institute. So, always on the search for new information, I took your advice and looked it up. Here's a direct quote:
Max-Planck-Institute for Biogeochemistry CO2 is the single most important human-emitted greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, contributing 63.5 % (*) to the overall global radiative forcing. However, it is responsible for 85% of the increase in radiative forcing over the past decade and 86% over the last five years. For about 10,000 years before the industrial revolution, the atmospheric abundance of CO2 was nearly constant at ~ 280ppm (ppm = number of molecules of the gas per million molecules of dry air). ... Since 1750, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 38%, primarily because of emissions from combustion of fossil fuels (8.62 Gt carbon in 2007) and deforestation and land use change (0.5-2.5 Gt carbon per year over the 2000-2005 time period). High-precision measurements of atmospheric CO2 beginning in 1958 show that the average increase of CO2 in the atmosphere corresponds to ~ 55% of the CO2 emitted by fossil fuel combustion.
So, thanks for the heads-up on the research. I appreciate your honesty, but, as I suspected, your reading comprehension wasn't quite on point. Anyone can find this document and read it from http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/IAEA-WMO2009/index.shtml , which is again a Max-Planck-Institute webpage; about halfway down the page it directs you to this document from which I took the quote: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ghg/ghg5-online.html . The second link is the report from the World Meteorological Organization who sponsored a meeting at the MPI as a collection of greenhouse gas experts. They might have the evidence you are looking for...
Also, please don't use "OH ITS A THEORY LOL" argument. Unless you don't believe in evolution or gravity, you don't have to put that smug little winky-face after emphasizing the word "theory."
On July 06 2010 10:24 Gregsen wrote: Zch, this is not the source I referred to. Your link is guiding to the Max Planck Institute in Jena, I am referring to the Max Planck Institute in Hamburg. Those are two entirely different Institutes, difference being that the Institute in Hamburg isn't serving the interests of IPCC. There are a lot of Max-Planck-Institutes in Germany (insert smug little winky-face here).
Are you aware that there has been a medieval warming period between 800 and 1450, warmer than the one we are facing today, followed by a "mini iceage" with temperatures below average between 1450 and 1850? This is where all the graphs are starting, and as you can see, there's a good reason for it.
you really need to keep on searching for new information.
Gregson you mean the report from the Max Planck Institute Hamburg which says
"According to the calculations of scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, over the next century the climate will change more quickly than it ever has in the recent history of the earth. These results come from the latest climate model calculations from the German High Performance Computing Centre for Climate and Earth System Research.
The global temperature could rise by up to four degrees by the end of the century. Because of this warming, the sea level could rise on average by as many as 30 centimeters.
In addition to the findings about the complex interplay between atmosphere and ocean, the current climate models from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology also include new findings about the effects of aerosols and the influence of the earth's carbon cycle. The results confirm speculations over recent years that humans are having a large and unprecedented influence on the climate and are fuelling global warming."
The institute you are talking about not only agrees with man-made climate change, it is giving one of the more radical outlooks out of most of the speculations I've seen.
The Max-Planck Institute is the Max-Planck Institute regardless of which place the document comes from.
Also the director of that documentary you linked, also made a documentary saying that silicon boobs are healthy for women and prevent cancer.
Seriously, do you really know wtf you are talking about?
Gregsen, I have two brief points. 1) Quote from sciencedaily.com news article:
Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg In addition to the findings about the complex interplay between atmosphere and ocean, the current climate models from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology also include new findings about the effects of aerosols and the influence of the earth's carbon cycle. The results confirm speculations over recent years that humans are having a large and unprecedented influence on the climate and are fuelling global warming.
2) If you truly think that all the people partaking in a world-wide academic invitational meeting like the "WMO/IAEA Meeting of Experts on Carbon Dioxide, Other Greenhouse Gases, and Related Tracer Measurement Techniques" are all somehow lackeys of the IPCC, then there's really not much hope for you. This isn't some sort of cool-kids club where only people published in one of the IPCC reports are allowed to join, it's an academic meeting.
PS: Funny that the report I cited from Max Planck Institute in Jena actually had nothing to do with IPCC whereas your Institute in Hamburg that you hold in such high regard directly reported to the IPCC, as shown in the article.
EDIT: Touche, Sluggaslamoo. It's good to see that other people are checking his sources as well. You beat me to it with the quote; I took a Day[9] break. GG, well done.
On July 05 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Yeah, in the last 100 years temperatures have gone up.... when you look at adjusted data rather than actual temperatures. [...images omitted...] I could post lots of things about statistical accuracy. But I'll just leave it at Global Warming hasn't met the scientifically significant statistical relevance to be considered "true". So if you're saying it's true, you're wrong.
You're using yearly measurements. If you use the daily measurements, your confidence interval shrinks by a factor of sqrt(~365) and it is then statistically significant.
Calculating daily variability of climate doesn't increase your confidence interval, because you use a less statistically relevant amount of time.
We have 800,000 years of ice core data of the earth. Will one day be more accurate, or 100 years? What you are suggesting is that picking one person randomly would be more accurate than sampling thousands.
On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote: So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking.
what? how does that make any logical sense at all?
a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder
in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas)
how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades
oh well it's not actually getting warmer on this hot summer day because someone is having a cookout and the air is getting colder over the ice cooler they just brought out
if the temperature was increasing, it would be getting warmer there too
2. I hope you understand on a basic level how and economy works. Producing such technologies requires huge industrial investment, that includes money, materials, and people. Producing these technologies gives jobs and increases wealth to many people (not just some fictional tyrant who is 'king of wind power'
I'm sorry, I just have to say, that made me laugh so much. I'm also waiting on Gregsen's response to all the sources being posted lol.
On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote: So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking.
what? how does that make any logical sense at all?
a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder
in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas)
how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades
What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever?
Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to?
What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures.
As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report.
These Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion. -Robert Anton Wilson
On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote: So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking.
what? how does that make any logical sense at all?
a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder
in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas)
how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades
What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever?
Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to?
What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures.
Nope, none whatsoever.
On July 09 2010 14:45 SnK-Arcbound wrote: As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report.
These Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion. -Robert Anton Wilson
Yeah, the leadership of the university ordered a third party to investigate one of their departments for fraud, because keeping frauds within the walls of your research university means that the good name of your university is tarnished.
On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote: So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking.
what? how does that make any logical sense at all?
a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder
in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas)
how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades
What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever?
Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to?
What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures.
As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report.
These Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion. -Robert Anton Wilson
Ok first off:
Global warming is called global for a reason. Its a GLOBAL trend, meaning its affecting every part of the planet not just the ice. So immediately I can tell you don't know what you're talking about when you try to discount a global trend with a purely local example. Fact of the matter the average temp of the planet is increasing.
Second:
The studies which indicated that the ice sheet was growing are very speculative and cannot be taken that accurately. The growing ice says nothing to discredit the theory, it is probably a result of the warming. Besides the ice melting in greenland is significantly higher than any that is forming into ice in the antarctic.
Third: I mean you can't really argue that there is no data that points towards CO2 being the primary reason for global warming. The amount of research thats been done is enormous.
On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote: So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking.
what? how does that make any logical sense at all?
a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder
in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas)
how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades
What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever?
Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to?
What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures.
As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report.
These Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion. -Robert Anton Wilson
Ok first off:
Global warming is called global for a reason. Its a GLOBAL trend, meaning its affecting every part of the planet not just the ice. So immediately I can tell you don't know what you're talking about when you try to discount a global trend with a purely local example. Fact of the matter the average temp of the planet is increasing.
Second:
The studies which indicated that the ice sheet was growing are very speculative and cannot be taken that accurately. The growing ice says nothing to discredit the theory, it is probably a result of the warming. Besides the ice melting in greenland is significantly higher than any that is forming into ice in the antarctic.
Third: I mean you can't really argue that there is no data that points towards CO2 being the primary reason for global warming. The amount of research thats been done is enormous.
Can someone please explain to me how growing temperatures makes ice spread? And if its global then why like others have said is one ice sheet growing while the other is shrinking? If temperatures were increasing everywhere wouldn't it have the same impact in both places? It seems there are a lot of "facts" on both side of the argument in this thread that posters dont back up.
On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote: So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking.
what? how does that make any logical sense at all?
a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder
in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas)
how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades
What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever?
Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to?
What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures.
As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report.
These Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion. -Robert Anton Wilson
Ok first off:
Global warming is called global for a reason. Its a GLOBAL trend, meaning its affecting every part of the planet not just the ice. So immediately I can tell you don't know what you're talking about when you try to discount a global trend with a purely local example. Fact of the matter the average temp of the planet is increasing.
Second:
The studies which indicated that the ice sheet was growing are very speculative and cannot be taken that accurately. The growing ice says nothing to discredit the theory, it is probably a result of the warming. Besides the ice melting in greenland is significantly higher than any that is forming into ice in the antarctic.
Third: I mean you can't really argue that there is no data that points towards CO2 being the primary reason for global warming. The amount of research thats been done is enormous.
Can someone please explain to me how growing temperatures makes ice spread? And if its global then why like others have said is one ice sheet growing while the other is shrinking? If temperatures were increasing everywhere wouldn't it have the same impact in both places? It seems there are a lot of "facts" on both side of the argument in this thread that posters dont back up.
Global warming isn't like you're placing the Earth in a microwave and then everything heats up equally. There's bound to be fluctuations in temperature around the world; Some places might be "colder" than others. This happens all the time, even without taking into account global warming.
But overall temperate has been going up which means if you took the temperature of every area on Earth, overall trends show a marked increase in temperature. The only real argument I see in this debate is if this change is significant enough from normal expected values. The research so far points to that being true.
On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote: So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking.
what? how does that make any logical sense at all?
a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder
in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas)
how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades
What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever?
Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to?
What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures.
As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report.
These Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion. -Robert Anton Wilson
Ok first off:
Global warming is called global for a reason. Its a GLOBAL trend, meaning its affecting every part of the planet not just the ice. So immediately I can tell you don't know what you're talking about when you try to discount a global trend with a purely local example. Fact of the matter the average temp of the planet is increasing.
Second:
The studies which indicated that the ice sheet was growing are very speculative and cannot be taken that accurately. The growing ice says nothing to discredit the theory, it is probably a result of the warming. Besides the ice melting in greenland is significantly higher than any that is forming into ice in the antarctic.
Third: I mean you can't really argue that there is no data that points towards CO2 being the primary reason for global warming. The amount of research thats been done is enormous.
Can someone please explain to me how growing temperatures makes ice spread? And if its global then why like others have said is one ice sheet growing while the other is shrinking? If temperatures were increasing everywhere wouldn't it have the same impact in both places? It seems there are a lot of "facts" on both side of the argument in this thread that posters dont back up.
Global warming isn't like you're placing the Earth in a microwave and then everything heats up equally. There's bound to be fluctuations in temperature around the world; Some places might be "colder" than others. This happens all the time, even without taking into account global warming.
But overall temperate has been going up which means if you took the temperature of every area on Earth, overall trends show a marked increase in temperature. The only real argument I see in this debate is if this change is significant enough from normal expected values. The research so far points to that being true.
So if some places are still staying cooler while others warm up, is "Global Warming" nothing more than just a name? Even if it didn't heat up evenly, wouldnt there still be some increase in temperature? I still dont understand WHY some places would be staying "colder" while others arent. Is the CO2 just sitting above the places its produced and not dispersing evenly (this happens with volcanic ash and nuclear fallout, why not atmospheric gas)? If CO2 is the cause, then why wouldnt decaying plants, volcanic emissions, animal (cow) emissions, and just 7 billion people breathing even everything out temperature wise?
On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote: So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking.
what? how does that make any logical sense at all?
a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder
in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas)
how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades
What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever?
Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to?
What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures.
As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report.
These Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion. -Robert Anton Wilson
You must understand that you lack the expertise required to look at the data avaiable and form your own opinon. This is not an insult btw, I'm quite sure the same holds true for just about everyone in this thread (including me). However people who are experts have been looking at the data and arguing over it for several decades now, we kind of have to trust the conclusion they have arrived at. (Unless we want to spend a decade or two studying physics and atmospheric chemistry and writing our own papers on the topic.) Search any of the bigger journals for papers written on climate change and see for yourself what the consensus opinion is. You can also see how for example global cooling was a valid theory a few decades ago but then disapeared as the empirical evidence started to mount agaist it. Or just read a review or two were this has been done for you. Eg: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 Note that there _are_ papers which present other theories but they are very few in comparassion and more importantly there is no single opposing theory but rather a wealth of generally mutually exclusive ones each supported by often a single person.
On July 10 2010 02:13 Helios.Star wrote: So if some places are still staying cooler while others warm up, is "Global Warming" nothing more than just a name? Even if it didn't heat up evenly, wouldnt there still be some increase in temperature? I still dont understand WHY some places would be staying "colder" while others arent. Is the CO2 just sitting above the places its produced and not dispersing evenly (this happens with volcanic ash and nuclear fallout, why not atmospheric gas)? If CO2 is the cause, then why wouldnt decaying plants, volcanic emissions, animal (cow) emissions, and just 7 billion people breathing even everything out temperature wise?
You raise a few good questions in this post, which as far as I could tell hadn't been addressed at the time of this writing. Hopefully my response will help shed some light, although I always hope people don't take my word for it and continue to do their own research from reliable sources (e.g. journal literatures, not necessarily news sites or anything with ".org" in the name).
A) No. Global warming is more than "just a name" (although the proper term is "climate change" for a reason: the entire globe doesn't warm homogenously). You just aren't considering that it is an average value, not a uniform one. Consider this very simple analogy: Planet A is made up of Location 1 and Location 2. Location 1 is 30 degrees while Location 2 is 40 degrees. The average temperature of Planet A is 35 degrees. Then: climate change of some sort! Planet A's average temperature is 45 degrees! A proportionately enormous change in the average. However, to get there, Location 2 cooled down by 5 degrees to be 35 degrees, while Location 1 heated up by 25 degrees to be 55 degrees--averaging out to a net increase of 10 degrees globally. That ended up being more convoluted than I intended, so I apologize--but hopefully it's understandable. One of the main reasons for non-uniformity in warming trends is that there is unequal heating in the northern and southern hemispheres. Water has a much higher specific heat than land of any sort does (a phenomenon that can easily be verified by observing coastal weather). The northern hemisphere has over twice the total landmass of the southern hemisphere. On a hemisphere-to-hemisphere basis, net influence of solar radiation is greater on the north half of the globe than the south.
B) As for carbon dioxide migration from a volcano versus that from industrial sources: this isn't necessarily true. C0(2) migration in the atmosphere is obviously highly dependent upon local jet stream elevation, prevailing winds, current weather, etc. However, one thing I can touch upon is that relating volcano emissions to car emissions is a bit disingenuous. It's like the difference between a point source and a non-point source. Again using an oversimplification to illustrate, consider one volcano emitting 2000 tons of CO(2) in a day, versus two thousand cars emitting 2 ton of CO(2) in a day. The volcano, of course, is stationary. The very reason the cars are emitting CO(2) is that they are moving. Hence, although the immediate local concentration of carbon dioxide over the volcano is much greater, the cars, although not having a centralized location of emission, emit twice as much net carbon dioxide (and over a much greater area).
C) I'm unsure of what you're saying here--what is evening out temperature wise? The entire globe? If it was elaborated upon then I would respond to it.
This should be clear, but as a disclaimer obviously none of these numbers in the 'examples' are real values; all of them were just pulled out of my ass for the purpose of illustration.
On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote: So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking.
what? how does that make any logical sense at all?
a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder
in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas)
how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades
What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever?
Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to?
What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures.
As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report.
These Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion. -Robert Anton Wilson
You must understand that you lack the expertise required to look at the data avaiable and form your own opinon. This is not an insult btw, I'm quite sure the same holds true for just about everyone in this thread (including me). However people who are experts have been looking at the data and arguing over it for several decades now, we kind of have to trust the conclusion they have arrived at. (Unless we want to spend a decade or two studying physics and atmospheric chemistry and writing our own papers on the topic.) Search any of the bigger journals for papers written on climate change and see for yourself what the consensus opinion is. You can also see how for example global cooling was a valid theory a few decades ago but then disapeared as the empirical evidence started to mount agaist it. Or just read a review or two were this has been done for you. Eg: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 Note that there _are_ papers which present other theories but they are very few in comparassion and more importantly there is no single opposing theory but rather a wealth of generally mutually exclusive ones each supported by often a single person.
You don't understand how simple statistics is. You set up your null hypothesis, your data set, you put it into your TI83 calculator using the correct statistical test, then the calculator gives you P=......... Assuming the earth is some 100 million years old, we would need a sample of 10 million years to have a scientifically significant data set with a 95% confidence interval. Looking at 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years is utterly insignificant. All of it is shitty science.
Scientists can't tell what the temperature will be tomorrow with 95% confidence, but they can tell what it will be in 50 years. When Mt.St.Helens blew up, they predicted that all the volcanic ash spewed into the atmosphere would block out the sun and produce a mini-ice age. They also said there would be no forest growth at the mountain for 50 years. We don't know all the variables that create weather, and in what proportion they work.
I've said the same things, and I don't have to be a climatologist to take one look at the statistical probability presented and know what it means. There is not a statistically significant amount of evidence to assume that the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 concentration cause a green house effect to be true.
On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote: So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking.
what? how does that make any logical sense at all?
a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder
in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas)
how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades
What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever?
Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to?
What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures.
As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report.
These Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion. -Robert Anton Wilson
Ok first off:
Global warming is called global for a reason. Its a GLOBAL trend, meaning its affecting every part of the planet not just the ice. So immediately I can tell you don't know what you're talking about when you try to discount a global trend with a purely local example. Fact of the matter the average temp of the planet is increasing.
Second:
The studies which indicated that the ice sheet was growing are very speculative and cannot be taken that accurately. The growing ice says nothing to discredit the theory, it is probably a result of the warming. Besides the ice melting in greenland is significantly higher than any that is forming into ice in the antarctic.
Third: I mean you can't really argue that there is no data that points towards CO2 being the primary reason for global warming. The amount of research thats been done is enormous.
Can someone please explain to me how growing temperatures makes ice spread? And if its global then why like others have said is one ice sheet growing while the other is shrinking? If temperatures were increasing everywhere wouldn't it have the same impact in both places? It seems there are a lot of "facts" on both side of the argument in this thread that posters dont back up.
As temperatures rise, more water evaporates, especially in tropical regions. Some of this water vapor ends up drifting to the poles, where it falls as snow/ice.
I forget offhand why this happens more at the south pole than the north pole...
On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote: So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking.
what? how does that make any logical sense at all?
a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder
in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas)
how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades
What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever?
Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to?
What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures.
As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report.
These Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion. -Robert Anton Wilson
You must understand that you lack the expertise required to look at the data avaiable and form your own opinon. This is not an insult btw, I'm quite sure the same holds true for just about everyone in this thread (including me). However people who are experts have been looking at the data and arguing over it for several decades now, we kind of have to trust the conclusion they have arrived at. (Unless we want to spend a decade or two studying physics and atmospheric chemistry and writing our own papers on the topic.) Search any of the bigger journals for papers written on climate change and see for yourself what the consensus opinion is. You can also see how for example global cooling was a valid theory a few decades ago but then disapeared as the empirical evidence started to mount agaist it. Or just read a review or two were this has been done for you. Eg: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 Note that there _are_ papers which present other theories but they are very few in comparassion and more importantly there is no single opposing theory but rather a wealth of generally mutually exclusive ones each supported by often a single person.
You don't understand how simple statistics is. You set up your null hypothesis, your data set, you put it into your TI83 calculator using the correct statistical test, then the calculator gives you P=......... Assuming the earth is some 100 million years old, we would need a sample of 10 million years to have a scientifically significant data set with a 95% confidence interval. Looking at 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years is utterly insignificant. All of it is shitty science.
Scientists can't tell what the temperature will be tomorrow with 95% confidence, but they can tell what it will be in 50 years. When Mt.St.Helens blew up, they predicted that all the volcanic ash spewed into the atmosphere would block out the sun and produce a mini-ice age. They also said there would be no forest growth at the mountain for 50 years. We don't know all the variables that create weather, and in what proportion they work.
I've said the same things, and I don't have to be a climatologist to take one look at the statistical probability presented and know what it means. There is not a statistically significant amount of evidence to assume that the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 concentration cause a green house effect to be true.
Like i've said to other people, if you are so sure, and if it's that simple then write it up and submit to nature! Climate change is _the_ topic at the moment and if you are right you are going to be famous. Of course that's not going to happen =p What I don't understand is why lay people consider themselves entitled to an opinion on this particular scientific topic and no other. Well evolution is a pretty big example I guess but it is quite easy to understand why that is so - with religion in the mix and all. I mean you suddenly wouldn't get the idea (I hope) that the theory of wave particle duality is crappy conspiracy theory and that newton was right all along would you?
On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote: So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking.
what? how does that make any logical sense at all?
a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder
in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas)
how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades
What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever?
Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to?
What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures.
As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report.
These Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion. -Robert Anton Wilson
You must understand that you lack the expertise required to look at the data avaiable and form your own opinon. This is not an insult btw, I'm quite sure the same holds true for just about everyone in this thread (including me). However people who are experts have been looking at the data and arguing over it for several decades now, we kind of have to trust the conclusion they have arrived at. (Unless we want to spend a decade or two studying physics and atmospheric chemistry and writing our own papers on the topic.) Search any of the bigger journals for papers written on climate change and see for yourself what the consensus opinion is. You can also see how for example global cooling was a valid theory a few decades ago but then disapeared as the empirical evidence started to mount agaist it. Or just read a review or two were this has been done for you. Eg: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 Note that there _are_ papers which present other theories but they are very few in comparassion and more importantly there is no single opposing theory but rather a wealth of generally mutually exclusive ones each supported by often a single person.
You don't understand how simple statistics is. You set up your null hypothesis, your data set, you put it into your TI83 calculator using the correct statistical test, then the calculator gives you P=......... Assuming the earth is some 100 million years old, we would need a sample of 10 million years to have a scientifically significant data set with a 95% confidence interval. Looking at 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years is utterly insignificant. All of it is shitty science.
Yep, better revoke a few thousand PhDs (it takes about twenty thousand hours of study to get a PhD) because none of them have ever taken a high school statistics course. Plus, your knowledge of statistics is horrific.
Nobody who knows anything about statistics would suggest that you require a sample of ten million to make reasonable conclusions about a population of ten million; in fact, when the population itself hits the upper end it doesn't matter how large the population is: the amount of samples to achieve a certain confidence depends on the standard deviation of your sample.
Finally, we're looking for recent trends, meaning we don't need all one hundred million years of data to make conclusions about the next thousand; if we were predicting climate over the next hundred million years you might have a point, but you don't since just about nobody is looking past the next five hundred years. Analysis temperature records reject the null (no trend) hypothesis for warming over the last hundred years with extremely high significance.
But people have been around for tens of thousands of years, and this is only fifty years of data. Maybe population isn't going up after all.
On July 10 2010 05:44 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Scientists can't tell what the temperature will be tomorrow with 95% confidence, but they can tell what it will be in 50 years.
Weather is different from climate. Long-term behavior of a system is different from short-term chaotic behavior. They can't tell you if it will rain in week but they can sure as fuck tell you that July will, on average (in the northern hemisphere,) be warmer than January.
On July 10 2010 05:44 SnK-Arcbound wrote: When Mt.St.Helens blew up, they predicted that all the volcanic ash spewed into the atmosphere would block out the sun and produce a mini-ice age.
Citation required.
On July 10 2010 05:44 SnK-Arcbound wrote: They also said there would be no forest growth at the mountain for 50 years.
Citation required.
On July 10 2010 05:44 SnK-Arcbound wrote: I've said the same things, and I don't have to be a climatologist to take one look at the statistical probability presented and know what it means. There is not a statistically significant amount of evidence to assume that the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 concentration cause a green house effect to be true.
Just like how there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature in the last 400,000 years.
If Keynes were alive today reagan supports would say he was a fraud because he often went to extremes of dickishness to prove a point.
I think it's actually pretty funny that this researcher was so pissed off about deniers.
As for this discussion, how many legitimate scientific peer review journals publish articles that take as their fundamental assumption that climate change is not real?
If you think you can do real statistical analysis on a graphing calculator you are a complete tool. It's true, you can solve a 16 by 16 matrix on a ti-83 (or 89 if youre not poor lolololol) but it takes supercomputers to solve real matrices.
its natural cycles it has occured many times before nothing humanity can do to stop it only lessen the effect so green technologys arnt a bad idea shows some respect for your mother 'living planet' you think she doesnt have feelings. Karma is a good word to explain the coming 5yrs humanity mostly deserves what they gonna get.
You should all be concerned what a pole shift brought on by a second sun and comet cluster is gonna do to the earth... I can say this with 99% certainy that when these events do occur it is likely anyone will survive if some do survive it will be small groups. We estimate about 72% of population will die in the first week.
On July 12 2010 04:53 Maji wrote: You should all be concerned what a pole shift brought on by a second sun and comet cluster is gonna do to the earth... I can say this with 99% certainy that when these events do occur it is likely anyone will survive if some do survive it will be small groups. We estimate about 72% of population will die in the first week.
I don't think magnetic pole shifts have been proven to be dangerous.
On July 12 2010 04:53 Maji wrote: Radiation: What you Feel and what you think is radiated from you. So we will give a example you project specific emotions and thoughts in which then affects those around you therefore affecting your own experience.
Attraction: What you Feel and what you think is attracted too you. Attraction is the processes in which based on polarization 'choices' wether it be negative or positive interpetion of events and responses, those same emotions and thoughts being projected will be attracted to you.
Reflection: What you Feel and what you think is reflected back onto you. Law of Reflection states that what is sent our will be sent back, hence Reflection means that you project emotions and thoughts based on type sent will affect you in long run.
Why are you predicting Earth's doom when you believe that anything you believe is going to happen
Some of you have to keep up with the latest lingo. AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is now CAGCC (catastrophic antropogentic global climate change). Remember that it's name of the IPCC. CAGCC is nearly unprovable but can't be disproved either. Since it's so vague it has to be backed up with the precautionary principle and widespread fear of the unknown risks.
CAGCC might be happening but I'd worry about cloud patterns, rainfall rates, and evaporation patterns more than temperature or CO2. The "science is settled" crowd are a bunch of pompous self-righteous holier-than-thou charlatans.
On July 10 2010 05:44 SnK-Arcbound wrote: I've said the same things, and I don't have to be a climatologist to take one look at the statistical probability presented and know what it means. There is not a statistically significant amount of evidence to assume that the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 concentration cause a green house effect to be true.
Just like how there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature in the last 400,000 years.
Correlation is not causation. Rather it looks like the causation is the other way around with CO2 lagging temperature changes by a few centuries. current CO2 concentrations are also very low by geological standards.
On July 12 2010 04:43 Maji wrote: its natural cycles it has occured many times before nothing humanity can do to stop it only lessen the effect so green technologys arnt a bad idea shows some respect for your mother 'living planet' you think she doesnt have feelings. Karma is a good word to explain the coming 5yrs humanity mostly deserves what they gonna get.
You make my brain hurt. At least you used a period and a capital this time. You are making progress ^.^.
BTW, Maji, I have a theory. Global Warming is caused by all the bad karma we have from electing Obama. What do you think?
On July 10 2010 06:12 EmeraldSparks wrote: Nobody who knows anything about statistics would suggest that you require a sample of ten million to make reasonable conclusions about a population of ten million; in fact, when the population itself hits the upper end it doesn't matter how large the population is: the amount of samples to achieve a certain confidence depends on the standard deviation of your sample.
You need a representative sample. Sampling procedure must be rigorously defended or they put the entire conclusion at risk.
Statistical significance as a test (5% rule) against a null hypothesis is highly misunderstood and sometimes not a very good metric. Statistics should be a method of last resort to prove anything since there is always the risk of being wrong.
On July 10 2010 06:12 EmeraldSparks wrote: Finally, we're looking for recent trends, meaning we don't need all one hundred million years of data to make conclusions about the next thousand; if we were predicting climate over the next hundred million years you might have a point, but you don't since just about nobody is looking past the next five hundred years. Analysis temperature records reject the null (no trend) hypothesis for warming over the last hundred years with extremely high significance.
Predictive models must prove their predictive capacity. The standard proving method is to use current data to prove a future event. Since that might be too late for climate change which happens to invoke the PP (precautionary principle), the test of the predictive models should be a double blind prediction and validation using data sets from two different time periods. I don't recall ever seeing that done.
On July 10 2010 06:12 EmeraldSparks wrote:
But people have been around for tens of thousands of years, and this is only fifty years of data. Maybe population isn't going up after all.
Climate Change might have more to do with human population sprawl or human population density rather than human carbon dioxide production. The human population signal is much stronger than the global carbon dioxide signal, but climate science has an obsession with carbon dioxide.
We update the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis of global surface temperature change, compare alternative analyses, and address questions about perception and reality of global warming. Satellite-observed nightlights are used to identify measurement stations located in extreme darkness and adjust temperature trends of urban and peri-urban stations for non-climatic factors, verifying that urban effects on analyzed global change are small. Because the GISS analysis combines available sea surface temperature records with meteorological station measurements, we test alternative choices for the ocean data, showing that global temperature change is sensitive to estimated temperature change in polar regions where observations are limited. We suggest use of 12-month (and n×12) running mean temperature to fully remove the annual cycle and improve information content in temperature graphs. We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade, despite large year-to-year fluctuations associated with the El Nino-La Nina cycle of tropical ocean temperature. Record high global temperature during the period with instrumental data was reached in 2010.
EPT
ing. Keep the show going!![[image loading]](http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b282/SnK-Arcbound/cru-darwin8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b282/SnK-Arcbound/cru-darwin7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i50.tinypic.com/2d1pmi1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i46.tinypic.com/2pob3g3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i46.tinypic.com/jz9nxl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i50.tinypic.com/208k9x5.png)
![[image loading]](http://i49.tinypic.com/hug37t.png)
![[image loading]](http://i48.tinypic.com/f36rls.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i46.tinypic.com/2usy2vl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b282/SnK-Arcbound/ANTARCTIC_SP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b282/SnK-Arcbound/Antarctic.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://maps.grida.no/library/files/historical-trends-in-carbon-dioxide-concentrations-and-temperature-on-a-geological-and-recent-time-scale.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/World_population_history.svg/500px-World_population_history.svg.png)
