Global Warming (global Cooling) Climate Change?>

Houdini

Jun 24 2006, 04:27 PM

Global warming is at presented lately by some expecially Al Gore (who tried to become president three times and lost every time) who failed his science courses in college are tell us that driving cars, burning charoal to grill hamburger or hotdogs, cutting grass with a gas powered lawn mower using freon to cool out homes and automoblies are causing "Global Warming" or now the are calling it "Climate Change" ... duhhh of course it changes BOZO.

These theories to me are a crock of d*d* (you fill in the * yourself) and here is a rebuttal of this nonsense. The sun afects the warmness of uor planet more than all the gas powered or internal combustion engines ever could in a thousand years. Volcanos output more of the so called green house gasses that supposedly cause "Global Warming" or "Climate Change". The climate by definition is a constant change, it is like the stock market and here is a truth about the stock market. The stack market goes up, and the stock market goes down, but it never stays the same, and the same is true of the Climate. Now read what a real scientist says about "global Warming" or "Climate Change"

QUOTE

The Report “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2000 Years” has appeared. This Report discusses the IPCC “hockey stick” plot of the multi-century global average surface temperature trends.

When I first saw this plot several years ago, I assumed it would be quickly shown that pasting togther of proxy data with the instrument data for the last few decades is scientifically flawed. These two approaches represent two distinctly different procedures to assess surface temperature trends. However, this hockey stick figure has become an icon for communicating global warming (and climate change, in general) to the public and policymakers.

In the Report, I fail to see an assessment of the following questions:

1. What is the uncertainty associated with the diagnosis of a global average surface temperature trend by pasting the instrument record onto the end of the proxy record? How does proxy data in the last few decades correspond to the measured surface air temperature trends AT THE SAME LOCATIONS?

2. Why is it assumed that “The Earth warmed by roughly 0.6 degrees….during the 20th century..” when we have documented biases in the peer reviewed literature in the assessment of trends in the land surface temperature data (e.g. see “Should light wind and windy nights have the same temperature trends at individual levels even if the boundary layer averaged heat content change is the same?”; “Assessing ‘Global Warming’ with Surface Heat Content”)? In a national assessment, why was such peer reviewed literature ignored?

Ignoring these science questions provides the perspective that the Report is intended to promote a particular perspective on climate science, rather than providing a balanced presentation on the issues. Indeed, the statement in Boston Globe that,

“Our conclusion is that this recent period of warming is likely the warmest in a (millennium),’’ said John Wallace, one of the 12 members on the panel and professor of atmospheric science at the University of Washington”,

clearly shows such a biased view. The Report is a disappointment in not adequately addressing the accuracy of the global surface temperature trend data. Since its accuracy is at the foundation of the entire Report, the absence of such an evaluation very substantially weakens the value of the Report in climate science.
Comments (11)
June 21, 2006

Also Al Gores silly movie ( actually a slideshow) is not really raking in the dough and not really that many people are watching it anyway, but I bet it will be nominated for some kind of award even though it is flawed and not even popular just because a former presidential contender (did I say that he ran and lost his bid for the presidency 3 times?). Just want to know how many people really fall for this "Global Warming" or now "Climate Change" b.s. that is going around. I for one don't believe that me driving my car or grilling with charcoal or anything really effects the overall temperature of the earth at all, it is the sun and volcanoes and other things that have to do with all that.

illini319

Jun 24 2006, 06:12 PM

I find it particularly humorous that, by and large, environmentalists are lumped in the 'liberal' category wherease those who disagree are in the 'conservative' category. What are you trying to 'conserve'??? I agree, in principle, that the earth's temperature occilates and is ACUTELY affected by things larger than humans can muster; as in volcanoes. I don't exactly agree that petrochemical emissions are not affecting global climate change. I absolutely think that man has had a direct impact on global climates. But, at the same time, I don't think this spells the end for the earth. It would be quite arrogant for us to think, that even if all the ice caps melted, that humans could so destroy the earth that no life would ever exist again on this planet. Ask the dinosaurs. Most, if not all of, humanity may disappear from this planet (good riddance, I say) but life will go on; the earth will continue spinning.

yeh

Jun 25 2006, 12:57 AM

Yup... this is a tricky topic. I would agree with Houdini that there's yet any conclusive proof of human activities contributing to global warming. Or put it in another way... global warming could just be a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Having said that, the measures proposed by the environmentalists to curb global warming actually helped the environment that we lived in, and it doesn't matter if global warming is due to nature rather than human. However, if human activities do play a role in global warming, then heeding the advice of the environmentalists now would be a great idea, becoz once we have conclusive proof that global warming is happening, it might be too late, since it is happening right in front of us!! With our forests gone and greenhouse gases at its peak, the earth would just heats up for a long time before we can cool it down. And that would most probably take a few generations.

So my point on this topic is to see the advice given by the environmentalists on a broader basis. Gazetting natural forests as protected parks, using less oil as fuel(which is a good thing now with oil prices rising) and more renewal energy, etc. can only do good to humanity.

QUOTE

Well, this might generate some heat... so if the moderators find this unsuitable, feel free to delete this part. I don't know whether Al Gore did failed his science courses in college, as alleged by Houdini, but what I do know is George Bush was a former drug user and he even admitted it. Again, I don't know whether Al Gore failed 3 times in his presidency bid but if I'm not mistaken, Abraham Lincoln failed numerous times in his presidency bid before he succeeded.

Arbitrary

Jun 25 2006, 10:06 PM

QUOTE

Uh. I don't remember Al Gore failing any science courses. [link, perhaps?] ~~I do know that George Bush got C's througout college.~~ It's not a big deal to fail to become president--every winning president had a losing opponent. At least they came close enough as to be that opponent. Moreover, Al Gore did win the popular vote. He just lost the electoral college one, which is decidely unfair. ~~I don't remember him trying three times. Link again?~~

QUOTE

Okay. So, any explanation for why you believe what you believe? Because all you've been saying so far is that you don't think it's true but not backing it up with solid evidence. Just my two cents: sure, if you drive a car, it won't make much of a difference on the overall temperature. Individuals make no difference. But if many people drive cars, then the difference becomes apparent. It'll take many more years before there's some mass extinction of the human species. ~~That's sci-fi...~~ Since when do volcanoes have anything to do with global temperature? The volcanoes aren't massive mountains that cover a fourth of the earth so that their explosions will cause a major uprise in temperature. ><

Btw, yes, there isn't really a lot of proof about humans being responsible for global warming being either true or false. But, the point remains that there is more proof supporting that than the opposing side, meaning that I'm more inclined to believe it. It's just like when there's two boxes of candy for sale at the same price and one is bigger while the other is smaller. I'd definitely get the bigger one. Same in this case.

@yeh, I agree. What the environmentalists say is supposed to be helping us. Some of them go overboard, of course, but if we listen to some of the more balanced ones, we'd get their heap. It's definitely not bad for us that we do some of what we say. Like driving cars and getting little to no excercise isn't necessarily good for your health.

Although, another way to argue that humans aren't responsible--I tend to think that we humans are part of nature--that what we do is part of nature--so that even if our actions impacted the world a lot, that's only natural, and nature will somehow fix thnigs.

sonoftheclayr

Jun 26 2006, 06:20 AM

I am going to have to say that I also believe Global Warming is false. A change of .6 degrees over the last century? What about the temperature change during the last millenium? Surely that will show that the Earth's average temperature is like a roller coaster and not a steady scenic railroad.

I would like to point out that up until a century ago the glaciers in Europe were expanding. Now they have stopped.
Global Warming? I don't think so. If these glaciers had been around long enough wouldn't they cover the entire world? It is just a coincidence that the Earth's natural phase of warming up has begun during the Industrial revolution. Maybe it hasn't, for all we know the Earth actually cooled down in the lat 1000 years. Wasn't there a little ice age in the 14th-19th centuries? Wouldn't this have cooled the Earth just a bit. Even if it only lasted a decade that would affect the global climate. Maybe now the Earth is only just heating up to it's former temperature.

There have been times in Earth's past where the temperature would've skyrocketed, lik the meteor that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs, and other times when it dropped, ice ages.
I am sure now we are going through a warm phase. Is there actually any evidence to suggest that global warming started during the industrial revolution and was a direct consequence of man's use of coal and steam power? Oh, hang on, temperature records wouldn't go back that far would they? While there is proof to suggest that the temperature has risen over the last century there is none to say that it wasn't rising in the century leading up to the 20th, and then in the 18th, 17th, 16th, etc.

I am going to say that 'Global Warming' is a result of Earth warming itself up after the little ice age last mellenia.

EDIT: The Little Ice Age lasted from the 14th to mid-19th centuries, not decades but centuries and is thought to have changed the world's temperature by 1 degree celcius. Wasn't the 19th century during the Industrial Revolution? Wouldn't the Earth have started warming up then, in direct conjunction of mankinds widespread use of electricty use and comsumption of fossil fuels.
Global Warming has now been proved as Earth's warming mechanism from the little Ice Age, not as a direct result of mankind. Proved by a 14 year old boy. Scientists across the world that believed Global Warming, hang your heads in shame.

Houdini

Jun 26 2006, 01:02 PM

There is another theory of Global Warming out there and it has graphs and other data to support the theory. It is the Pirate theory. It seems to lower Global Warming wee need more Pirates. Here is the link to the report with a graph for the Pirate theory of Global Warming. Pirate Theory of Global Warming

lenbot

Jun 26 2006, 06:09 PM

Exactly Houdini, just because we see the increase of emmision's in our atmosphere it doesn't mean the the whole world is warming up just because of that singly alone. Hell it's important to keep the enviroment safe and clean and if scaring the little buggers by saying there doing it is a sure fire way to get them to respond. I don't think any automaker wants to put a car out there that is really a polluter and isn't enviromently friendly. The public wants to have these things and I think that these people recogonize it and blow it out of proportion to get the public talking about pollution and stopping it. What they don't say is there also saying don't pollute and there holding out there big fat hands saying well if you don't want to do anything give us your money we will help stop it.

Ya I would think most enviromental groups out there are in it for the money. You don't have to show how much your really reducing in fact you don't have to do anything other than just promote don't pollute to other people. It's really a dirty little scam most of them are running. Most of the Enviromentalist who are really trying to help do it with out funding, I think on discovery channel they had a guy on there who figured out how to dim Florecent Light Bulbs. People said it couldn't be done but any 10th grader could of told you other wise and told you how to do it probably. But because this guy invented it he is going to be able to save energy around the world. Most florecent bulbs can actually dimmed to 50% before the eye even notices to much of a difference. And that means Half the Cost of every building around the world once they get it out there and people installing it. That chap didn't ask for money to do it, he went out and did it and did it for saving energy. All that money you donate to most enviromental groups do nothing but promote it, so don't give them all your money for they don't do anything other than promote it more which is good but they did such a good job most people are aware of pollution.

Little ideas like that is what we should be investing in. There should be a orginization that you could donate to that will invest in these little energy saving projects around the world. Then perhaps we would see energy reducing stuff go way up and we could be really cut back our green houses gases. Lets face the fact that Greenhouse gases are actually worse for us then they probably are for the world. I mean the world will probably be able to handle it but the question is will we able to.

Micheal Chrichton is a well spoken man who talks about the truths global warming in his book State of Fear. He has also written speaches he has brought to congress. A couple of good ones are "Aliens Cause Global Warming". which you can find on his website here.http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/index.html.

Here is a little snippet from Aliens Cause Global Warming

QUOTE

Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS… None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.

All I can say is it is happening and yes perhaps there is a link. And we should be concerned about the enviroment even if it is at its best and we can't possibly pollute anymore. But seriously we have alot to learn about our enviroment and don't let anyone tell you we know all the answers there is to know about, because we just don't. Hell we barely know why lightening occurs, we just take pokes and jabs. We are in a huge learning stage of our enviroment but to blow it out of proportion is just wrong. TO use it as a pollitical advantage is just wrong, to use it to get money from people caring about pollution is just wrong. If you really want to help tell everyone you meet that polluting shouldn't be tollerated and we should really start taking care of the planet better. We missed 50 years of taking care, we have to catch up but I think this generation is up to the job.

Also here is a little video on New Water technology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb8wIqECwGE...rch=water%20car

Do you think that it will be in next year's cars. Do you think Honda, Ford, and all those guys are going to give up there cut backs from the oil companys. If you don't think there recieving cut backs look at there new hybrid cars. I say $(%^ that ****, give me an fully eletric car then we will start talking your saving the enviroment. Sure it helps but they could litterally get rid of it entirly and they wont because they get a cut, its Worth there intrest to continue to making Cars that run on Gas. Anyways I hope this car comes out soon and we can start doing more for the enviroment.

Cheers
-Lenbot

Houdini

Jun 26 2006, 06:28 PM

Yes but what about the Pirate Theory? I think it is well researched and even has a little graph that almost shows that it has to be true. But I am working on my own theory and that is that the more researchers that get government grants to prove Global Warming or Climate Change is caused by human activity will only be looking for empirical evidence however far fetched it might be.

The 'Cow Poop' theory is also a good one that I think I might be able to get a grant on we will either have to quit raising bovine around the world or raise more of them depending on how much money you can get for your conclusion.

It is all a damned joke, and I ain't buying any of it except the 'Pirate Theory', we simply need more Pirates and The Flying Spaghetti Monster (who created the universe and everything in it) will be happy and we would not want to make HIM unhappy would we.

yeh

Jun 27 2006, 12:03 PM

QUOTE

Ya I would think most enviromental groups out there are in it for the money

Hehe... vultures are always out there, dude...

And this applied not just to environmental groups. Some non-governmental organizations task with aiding the poor, helping third world countries etc. are actually skimming away the money meant for those charitable purposes. All these stuff are well documented. Guess that's how the world works...

I think the most important question to ask is that whether there are reasons/rationale to conclude that human activities contribute to global warming. Just plotting a graph of pirate activities vs global temperature do not make sense to me. What do you guys think?

Now, are there experiments to conclude or refute that CO2 and other greenhouse gases actually increases the temperature of the controlled environment in the experiment. If the answer is a resounding NO, and those experiments and the results can be replicated, then we can all forget about the hypothesis that global warming is due to human activities.

However, if the answer is YES, then the second question to ask is what would happen when let's say in 20 years time, the amount of land covered by forests is reduced to 25% of the land area today while the consumption of fossilized fuel increases to twice the amount today. What do you think would happen to all the greenhouse gases?

illini319

Jul 3 2006, 06:58 PM

who cares whether the earth is warming or not? Humans may survive or find some technology which scours the CO2 out of the air (hint, plant more trees). In either case, (if) when it becomes popularly unbearable, then things will start moving. too late? maybe. Unlikely. The earth is too damn big for us to irreversibly make it uninhabitable.

Latest Entries

iceblade

Jul 27 2006, 05:39 PM

As I was reading Houdinis first post, I thought about it. About how technology is expanding, and it occoured to me:
What if the earth isn't warming up any, but we are just better at sensing it growing warmer?

EDIT: And by that, the forecasts say hotter temps. and we subconciously think it is hotter and we remind ourselves how hot it is. Well, its kinda hard for me to explain I guess, but I think it may also have something to do with our minds.

Regardless, the climate does change over time, as I think someone else on this thread stated. After all, we have had an ice age or two, haven't we? So maybe its quite the opposite; we're going to a heat age.

And, I suppose as I think someone else stated (atleast, I think I read it on this thread), if it is getting hotter, lets just move to the poles of the earth. Even if all the ice melts and what not, it'll still be cooler up there.

It'd be quite the opposite of Battlefield 2142 where it is too cold to go anywhere except on the area that the equater is. It'd be too hot to go anywhere near the equator.

Thanks for the article(s).

unimatrix

Jul 14 2006, 07:37 AM

I didn't bother to read all the posts, but here is my opinion on the subject.

The climate is chaotic. It is always in a flux and always has been. There have been periods of no ice and of total ice and all that have been due to natural cycles. The conculsions that most scientists use for "global warming" has been measurements taken over the last seventy years or so. That's seventy years out of how many billions? Anyone that's had a stats class knows that's a pretty small sample size to base conclusions upon.

We know that the Atlantic conveyer has broken before leading to a global cooling. There was once in the 19th century where a volcanic eruption in Indoesia had a massive impact on global climate for a number of years. Including famines, crop failures, etc..

Futhermore, if you look around the solar system, "global warming" is also occuring on Mars, oddly enough. There are many, too many, varibles that could be at work here. Human actitivity is one, but the sun and natural processes are another.

I think the real questions we need to ask is how will humanity cope with these changes. The real challenge is our ablity to adapt.

Now that's not to say we should go around and pollute out the wazzu. There are other effects of pollution upon humanity that we know are harmful barring climate change.

Houdini

Jul 13 2006, 10:25 PM

Here is an interesting link (that some people say is a MYTH) about those scientist that say that Global warming is a crock of poo poo. Read this link Scientists that refute the Global Warming Theory. There are now about 17,200 that have signed this petition, and if you read the entire article then you will see that any one of them has forgotten more about the climate of the world than Al Gore has or will ever know.

Do not believe his propaganda in the slide show (they call it a movie) An Inconvienient Truth (an inconsistent truth), and really don't even watse your money for such tripe, just because you try to convincengly state something a fact it does not make.

Global Warming (global Cooling) Climate Change?> - Can't the alarmists get it straight.

Global Warming (global Cooling) Climate Change?> - Can't the alarmists get it straight.

Latest Entries