|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On August 06 2009 19:02 jello_biafra wrote:
I'm skeptical of this global warming thing, the earth's climate changes all the time, 100 years ago it was colder than it is now, ~1500 years ago it was considerably warmer than now, the arctic didn't have nearly as much ice about 700 years ago as it does today, and many of these pictures that supposedly show a region going from being snow covered to not are the result of deforestation.
The rising water levels will apparently come from simply the expansion of the water due to heat, ice melting into it won't make a difference.
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229
|
Also, on the point earlier.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/japan_warming_UN/2009/02/25/185606.html?s=al&promo_code=7AFE-1
Japanese: U.N. Man-Made Global Warming Theory Like 'Ancient Astrology'
Wednesday, February 25, 2009 4:04 PM
By: Jim Hirsen Article Font Size
Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the United Nations’ view on man-made global warming with a report asserting that “this hypothesis has been substituted for truth.”
Three of the five researchers involved in the report disagree with the view of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that recent warming is due primarily to industrial emissions of greenhouse gases, and say it is instead driven by natural cycles.
The report was issued by the Japan Society of Energy and Resources, an academic group representing scientists from the energy and resource fields that acts as a government advisory panel. The report has been translated from the Japanese by The Register in Britain.
Kanya Kusano, Program Director for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology, compares computer climate modeling used to support the man-made global warming theory to “ancient astrology.”
He states that the IPCC’s “conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonous increase should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis.”
Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, agrees: “IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with [carbon dioxide increases] is nothing but a hypothesis.”
Among the points made in the report:
CO2 emissions began to increase significantly after 1946 and are still rising. Therefore, according to the IPCC, global atmospheric temperatures should continue to increase. However, temperatures stopped increasing in 2001.
The global temperature increase up to today is primarily a recovery from the “Little Ice Age” that earth experienced from 1400 to 1800. This rise peaked in 2000.
Global warming and the “halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity.”
Despite the continuing controversy and uncertainty surrounding the claims of man-made global warming, efforts to influence major climate change legislation in Washington are heating up.
An analysis by the Center for Public Integrity found that more than 770 companies and interest groups hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists in the past year to influence federal policy.
Politico.com notes that since 2003, the number of global warming lobbyists has risen by more than 300 percent, and “Washington can now boast more than four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress.”
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
|
On August 06 2009 19:15 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2009 19:02 jello_biafra wrote:
I'm skeptical of this global warming thing, the earth's climate changes all the time, 100 years ago it was colder than it is now, ~1500 years ago it was considerably warmer than now, the arctic didn't have nearly as much ice about 700 years ago as it does today, and many of these pictures that supposedly show a region going from being snow covered to not are the result of deforestation.
The rising water levels will apparently come from simply the expansion of the water due to heat, ice melting into it won't make a difference. http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229
The Evidence shows that there has been a .8C average temperature decrease, as I said earlier which negated the increase. In 10 years, it negated the previous 100. How is this possible if CO2 levels are at an all-time high. It simply cannot be. Global Warming cannot be confirmed by both an increase or decrease. That is just absurd.
Secondly, if you read the actual article they show no correlation between CO2 and increased temperatures. Saying it doesn't make it true. If increased CO2 is accountable for the increased temperature, then how do you explain a .8C decrease?
While there is evidence and proof that Solar Activity (Sun cycles / Sun spots) accounts for the fluctuations of temperature in Earth's history. You can see dips and rises correlated by Solar Activity consistently and accurately.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/04/harvard-astrophysicist-global-temperature-corresponds-to-solar-activity/
Show us the conclusive evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real. I'm waiting for the data.
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On August 06 2009 19:21 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2009 19:15 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:On August 06 2009 19:02 jello_biafra wrote:
I'm skeptical of this global warming thing, the earth's climate changes all the time, 100 years ago it was colder than it is now, ~1500 years ago it was considerably warmer than now, the arctic didn't have nearly as much ice about 700 years ago as it does today, and many of these pictures that supposedly show a region going from being snow covered to not are the result of deforestation.
The rising water levels will apparently come from simply the expansion of the water due to heat, ice melting into it won't make a difference. http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229 Show us the conclusive evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real. I'm waiting for the data.
I think what sensible people should be doing is working with the notion of "the weight of scientific evidence".
|
On August 06 2009 18:35 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2009 18:18 Velr wrote:
I have problems to see what the "fearofclimatechange" has brought bad to us yet... Hmmm, creating a commodity out of mid-air that has no value. Surely, nothing bad can come of that. You know besides farmers instead of creating crops, they're doing nothing and selling off "carbon-credits" to those who have to buy them or face penalties by the Federal Government because of Global Warming. Oh, increased energy prices because of CO2 penalties and increased regulation by the Federal Government which produces higher energy costs. Take Coal for example that supplies 52% of America's power. If Cap and Trade passed, by Barack Obama's own words: When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations.
That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers. You can already see what the arguments are going to be during the general election. People will say Obama and Al Gore …these folks...they're going to destroy the economyNo, thats not bad. Fear-mongering for more centralized power, that has never ended up badly. And I will pre-empt you on the enivatible, but Boooosh. All I have to say on that subject is: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
These are just baseless assumptions?
I could also say that these new *penaltys* enforce faster technological development which is good and gives opportunities to an unknown amount of chances for new products.
But we won't agree, probably on anything ever. I liked your first few post in this tread, after that you drifted farer and farer away from my point.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
wtf how come i keep reading about the temperatures increasing lol
:|
now i don't know what to believe
.....
but this thread is interesting
|
Considering the nukes don't drop within a 100 years ._.
oh wait 21. desember 2012 hi 
|
On August 06 2009 17:50 Polyphasic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2009 17:41 keV. wrote:
It really is sickening how hard it is to get facts about global warming. Its not a game about who wins, climate directly effects life on earth as we know it. It is truly horrible that there are people in limbo because of dollars being thrown around. Not hard. Just hard for you. FYI Direct link to PDF: PDF FileShow nested quote +On August 06 2009 17:26 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:This is an extremely technical area. While it is possible to have a useful discussion, I am not sure anyone here is going to gain anything significant in the way of actual scientific knowledge from reading long posts from Brood War fans banging away at their keyboards. I of course include myself in this. And members of the coast guard. The man-made climate change model is the overwhelming consensus of the relevant parts of the scientific community. There is a huge amount of disinformation spread, both intentionally and unintentionally, on this topic. Due to this, the Royal Society, perhaps Britain's most important and respected scientific institution, has issued a layman's guide to the many controversies. It addresses eight different misleading arguments put forward against the man-made climate change model, some of which have already reared their ugly heads in this thread, and attempts to clarify where the weight of scientific evidence lies: "The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science.
"This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming. Instead, the Society - as the UK's national academy of science - responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies."Link to main page: Royal SocietyDirect link to PDF: PDF File
I was speaking in generalities but thank you for flaming me.
I was referring to the way liberals blow it out of proportion and conservatives pretend that nothing at all is happening. Why would I want to start an argument with a nerd like you, you cant win against your type.
"before i thoroughly rape you on your conviction that global warming doesn't exist"
Grow up.
|
On August 06 2009 15:46 Polyphasic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2009 15:29 Aegraen wrote:On August 06 2009 15:22 D10 wrote:
Earth has around 15 billion people capacity, but thats not the problem, the problem is when are we going to create subaquatic cities ?
I Know brazil is pretty advanced regarding deep water drilling and etc... tech, so I hope we win this race. Um....? We have plenty of land space for easily 30 billion+ people. Take for example the US. The US only has about 5-8% developed land. Vast majority of the US 90%+ is undeveloped. Extrapolating this, at 50% developed the US alone can sustain 3.5 billion people. (350Million x 10) With the ever increasing technology leaps in regards to desalinization, genetic manipulation, and hydroponics, etc. it is quite conceivable to even raise that to 40 billion+. By the time we reach 30 billion population we'll be traversing the stars. Limitless options abound at that point. this is literally one of the dumbest most ignorant things i've ever heard on teamliquid. you are saying that the earth can support 5x the amount of people currently alive because there is space? get your head out of your fucking ass for a minute and think a bit. the oceans are literally almost all fished out. most of the natural forests are destroyed. fossil fuels are nearing depletion within our lifetime. our fucking factories are causing global warming. the top 1% of the world's population use 90% of its resources. how do you propose we increase our population to 5x of what it is now?
By stop being such fucking idiots. All the arguments you just lined up are caused by human stupidity.
|
i know i always love these TED stuff. post some more
|
I thought there would´we just been the july jumping off bridge vid in the OP.
|
I think we should shut the fuck up. I find it insane that you can even hope to debate these issues with so little background. You "disprove" the claim about bacterial infection causing extinction with a one line argument to the effect of "hydrogen sulfide doesn't cover the ocean floor". A scientist who is respected enough to be invited to one of the biggest conferences of the year has put his reputation on the line to make a hypothesis based on potentially years of research. And you think your incredibly naive reasoning that took 0 education and 5 seconds can have a part to play in the debate?
Same with all your arguments about global warming. Do any of you have the qualifications to engage in the scientific debate regarding this? Could any of you produce research that would be published in a respected paper within the field? If not, why are you bothering to debate this? Why are you continuing with your juvenile arguments against netizens who will not give up their firmly rooted ideologies at pain of death?
Thankfully the people who actually make things happen speak to scientists as opposed to political pundits on the TL General forums. I hope so anyway.
|
sarcher
We do it for fun? And actually, in the end, after most of these treads you are a tiny little bit smarter or at least know some other *views* no matter how strongly you disagree with them.
Thats enough reason for me to read and occasionally post in such treads...
|
On August 06 2009 22:46 Mah Buckit! wrote: I thought there would´we just been the july jumping off bridge vid in the OP.
to much to hope for...
|
On August 06 2009 23:01 searcher wrote:
I think we should shut the fuck up. I find it insane that you can even hope to debate these issues with so little background. You "disprove" the claim about bacterial infection causing extinction with a one line argument to the effect of "hydrogen sulfide doesn't cover the ocean floor". A scientist who is respected enough to be invited to one of the biggest conferences of the year has put his reputation on the line to make a hypothesis based on potentially years of research. And you think your incredibly naive reasoning that took 0 education and 5 seconds can have a part to play in the debate?
Same with all your arguments about global warming. Do any of you have the qualifications to engage in the scientific debate regarding this? Could any of you produce research that would be published in a respected paper within the field? If not, why are you bothering to debate this? Why are you continuing with your juvenile arguments against netizens who will not give up their firmly rooted ideologies at pain of death?
Thankfully the people who actually make things happen speak to scientists as opposed to political pundits on the TL General forums. I hope so anyway.
Look, if the Bubonic plague couldn't kill humanity off in the best of conditions for such an occurence, what makes you think a bacterial infection can wipe out 90% of the species on Earth when everything modern science tells us this is impossible. How many bacteria and virus do you know that is deadly to every species? There are none, period. It simply can't happen. You don't have to be a geneticist to know this.
Per your expertly and eloquently crafted thesis that you have to be in the actual field of study to even debate the issues is baseless. For one, I'm not the one formulating the scientific processes. I am merely comprehending and citing studies, sources, and other information that other scientists and persons have concluded. For example, it doesn't take a scientist to understand the pre-requisites to a proper siting station. Any schlub can count distance, it isn't that difficult.
Lastly, you don't need a PhD. to understand the theories and conclude based on evidence presented whether a theory holds up to the rigors of the scientific method. When the hypothesis is that increasing CO2 levels based on humanities consumption of fossil fuels is a direct correlative of increasing temperatures, and temperatures have been on the decline for the past 9-10 years you don't think you ought to take a step back and say, that theory has been debunked. Especially when the IPCC comes out and says that temperatures will be ever increasing if we continue to use Fossil Fuels, and as of now the usage is at an all-time high, yet the temperature is not increasing. Holy fuck, I didn't know I needed a PhD to understand that. Thanks for the insight. Truely beneficial.
|
On August 06 2009 23:01 searcher wrote:
I think we should shut the fuck up. I find it insane that you can even hope to debate these issues with so little background. You "disprove" the claim about bacterial infection causing extinction with a one line argument to the effect of "hydrogen sulfide doesn't cover the ocean floor". A scientist who is respected enough to be invited to one of the biggest conferences of the year has put his reputation on the line to make a hypothesis based on potentially years of research. And you think your incredibly naive reasoning that took 0 education and 5 seconds can have a part to play in the debate?
Same with all your arguments about global warming. Do any of you have the qualifications to engage in the scientific debate regarding this? Could any of you produce research that would be published in a respected paper within the field? If not, why are you bothering to debate this? Why are you continuing with your juvenile arguments against netizens who will not give up their firmly rooted ideologies at pain of death?
Thankfully the people who actually make things happen speak to scientists as opposed to political pundits on the TL General forums. I hope so anyway.
Bu- bu- but arguing on the internet is what it's all about! Have you not read the comments sections of news articles? At least TL people do it civilly and on topic (most of the time). I tried reading through this thread but gave up after the same posts over and over - "We can survive!" "We are fucked!" , repeat. But hey, that's just me, they're having fun so I say let them have it.
I agree that it's good to know that rhetoric and arguments don't actually lead to any real action that affects what said argument is about. However, it's good to hear both sides of a debate - a trait lacking in many politicians (decision makers) these days.
|
On August 06 2009 15:40 Aegraen wrote:
You do know that Ice shelves and other constructs like icebergs disperse water, thereby increasing the sea level correct?
.. yeah, whatever..
On August 06 2009 15:40 Aegraen wrote:
You have heard of desalinization correct?
.... definitely, how could i not?..
On August 06 2009 16:04 Aegraen wrote:
You are aware I am in the Coast Guard, and one of our important functions is policing EEZ's (Exclusive Economic Zones), correct?
WHAT THE FUCK?
the way you post is so incredibly annoying LOL
|
I really enjoyed reading this thread. I used to think opposition to "anthropogenic" Global Warming was hogwash, but Aegrean has persuaded me that I'll need to dig deeper before concluding such.
|
On August 06 2009 19:11 Aegraen wrote:
Yes, I concede the point. However, you fail to account that the sea levels would drop to due ice shelves melting, however that is off-set by land ice melting and water run-off (However, remember ice melts slow and the land does absorb and use water). In any event they cancel each other.
sad
they just cancel each other
land ice doesnt win
cuz.. land sucks up the water.. and after all the calculations.. it cancels each other out anyways
shoot yourself
|
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote:
We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
I just jizzed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
