Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on December 30, 2010, 10:29:52 PM
-
Coldest winter in the UK in a 1000 years!!
-
we should burn a million barrels of crude oil to celebrate !
-
Coach you don't know what you're talking about.
The climate is a complex fuxking system, for all we know its going to rebound and reach record highs in a few months.
Please PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE... just stop :'(
-
Coach you don't know what you're talking about.
The climate is a complex fuxking system, for all we know its going to rebound and reach record highs in a few months.
Please PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE... just stop :'(
no dude your side has had its say , now its time to burn the rain forest
-
Maybe its their growing muslim population?
-
Coldest winter in the UK in a 1000 years!!
Yet over here the (parts of the east coast) the seasons are running together...
-
For once, the thread delivers what the title says ;D
-
For once, the thread delivers what the title says ;D
an epic fail on coach's part maybe. hasn't tdongz covered this shit already? >:(
-
Snow in Pheonix and the US Mexican boarder.
-
Snow in Pheonix and the US Mexican boarder.
Again another epic fail by coach.... don't you find it strange that there is snow in Phoenix and on the Mexican-US border?
-
Coldest winter in the UK in a 1000 years!!
That just shows that the weather is getting more extreme.
"Global warming" does not mean that it will always be hotter everywhere on Earth. You're a fucking idiot if that's what you think it means. Sounds like you don't know anything about it.
-
Again another epic fail by coach.... don't you find it strange that there is snow in Phoenix and on the Mexican-US border?
Exactly.
Coach is retarded.
-
It hasn't been referred to as global warming for years. Global climate change, and it is being recorded across the globe. Stockholm is having the coldest winter it has had in 140yrs. The last two summers have been outrageously warm. The global trend is a gradual warming, the daily experience is a change in the norm. Once again, this is a non argument. The argument is about causation.
-
Do you honestly think that type of anecdotal evidence displaces years of scientific climate research
the false consciousness with conservatives is unbelievable sometimes..
-
coach you do understand that global warming doesn't mean neccesary that everything will become warmer? But that in some regions and overall it will become warmer
but that it also fucks with the oveall weather.
-
Global warming is not about it being too hot or cold for a couple days/season, it is rapid changes in temperature in a quick timespan
-
Well the icecaps are melting, it's been proven with satellite imagery.
Ocean levels have risen a fraction of an inch already.
Climate is changing for sure. WHY it's changing is somewhat debateable. But for people to deny that it's changing at all they must be very uninformed.
-
Again another epic fail by coach.... don't you find it strange that there is snow in Phoenix and on the Mexican-US border?
And it's not Cocaine, either....
-
Coldest winter in the UK in a 1000 years!!
yes but worldwide the warmest year in recorded history. Global warming increases the entropy of the system, which mean more chaos, meaning more weather extremes, and that's what we're seeing, certainly over the last decades. The UK winter is just an example of that. Theseextremes fit perfectly into the globel warming model.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/expect-more-extreme-winters-thanks-to-global-warming-say-scientists-2168418.html
-
religion of peace ::)
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/expect-more-extreme-winters-thanks-to-global-warming-say-scientists-2168418.html
These scientists are on a payroll. ::)
-
All I know is it was hot as fuck here this summer and cold as fuck now, we need Debussey back to clarify all this shit.
-
zionist plot
-
(http://www.getbig.com/pics/misc/2008boiseexpo/boise3446.jpg)
-
Coldest winter in the UK in a 1000 years!!
it s called global warming not uk-warming - silly man
gulf stream is about to stopbecause of the oceans getting warmer this is already setting europe back into iceage followed by stone age
global it s still getting warmer
-
no dude your side has had its say , now its time to burn the rain forest
Haha.
-
zionist plot
Exactly, they are just rats with wings.
-
Haha, liberal meltdown, I post a headline with nothing added and I get called names by all the climate experts on here. LOL!
-
That just shows that the weather is getting more extreme.
"Global warming" does not mean that it will always be hotter everywhere on Earth. You're a fucking idiot if that's what you think it means. Sounds like you don't know anything about it.
Then why was it so cold 1000 years ago before man burned fossil fuels?
hhhhmmmmmmm? ? ? ? ? ? ?
-
I have an idea -
Lets send all our $ $ $ $ to the govt, turn out the lights, turn out the heater, stop driving, stop eating, stop farming, stop producing etc to combat something that has been going on since the planet has existed. ::)
-
Great argument bro, seems like you actually know a lot about the subject. I am glad you are sharing your immense knowledge with the rest of us.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Answer the question.
-
All it takes is a third grade level question to blow up your climate scam.
-
All it takes is a third grade level question to blow up your climate scam.
"xerxes" might not be on that level yet. He should see more episodes of Sesame-street.
-
It's 36degrees in HB when I woke up at 6:45am
-
Actually science is looking towards the affects of sun spots and solar storms on the earth's weather, more and more. Finding that the potential for returning to another mini ice age is very possible. Patterns and cycle suggest this all too strongly. Around the time of the Dark Ages is when the last recorded mini ice age happens. Rivers and ocean fronts froze to almost year round. Crops failed, one of the exceptions being potatoes and other root below ground crops. Diseases were uncontrolled.
Al Gore just stated he was mistaken about the release of CO2 gases, in the air, had much affect on the "Theory" of global warming. Global Warming has been used as a political tool and scare tactic for too long. Thr UN being the prime guilty party to all this.
Heat and food, when global cooling comes, will be the concern. The weather has always been the main factor, by far, to the survival of humans on earth. If and when a major ice age returns, than as before, most of the northern hemisphere will become glaciers or heavily encased in a frozen wasteland. A theory, long held, suggest that the excess mass of weight (glaciers/snow/ice) in the northern hemisphere will tip the balance of the planet, causing another shift of the axis. A major axis shift has happened at least 3 times before in the history of the earth. Some think more times than this.
-
Killer Bees
Y2K
Bird Flu
Global Warming
-
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
QFT
-
Actually science is looking towards the affects of sun spots and solar storms on the earth's weather, more and more. Finding that the potential for returning to another mini ice age is very possible. Patterns and cycle suggest this all too strongly. Around the time of the Dark Ages is when the last recorded mini ice age happens. Rivers and ocean fronts froze to almost year round. Crops failed, one of the exceptions being potatoes and other root below ground crops. Diseases were uncontrolled.
Al Gore just stated he was mistaken about the release of CO2 gases, in the air, had much affect on the "Theory" of global warming. Global Warming has been used as a political tool and scare tactic for too long. Thr UN being the prime guilty party to all this.
Heat and food, when global cooling comes, will be the concern. The weather has always been the main factor, by far, to the survival of humans on earth. If and when a major ice age returns, than as before, most of the northern hemisphere will become glaciers or heavily encased in a frozen wasteland. A theory, long held, suggest that the excess mass of weight (glaciers/snow/ice) in the northern hemisphere will tip the balance of the planet, causing another shift of the axis. A major axis shift has happened at least 3 times before in the history of the earth. Some think more times than this.
Then maybe they'll take back the Nobel Peace Prize (a fraud in itself) and money they gave AlGore a few years back.......Naaah!
-
I can think of a few nobel prizes that need to be returned or revoked.
-
fact is scientists should shut the fuck up when they have no idea what they re talking about and dont have enough facts at their disposal -and when their following a political/financial agenda-. When they do, it's another thing. Concerning the theory of global warming, they dont have enough. Too many factors, placement of earth and surroundings planets in space, the sun, human activity, and others factors, unknown, are at play.
Until now it has only been used as a new trend to sell stuff and ease rich people 's conscience. In one word, it's pathetic.
-
I can think of a few nobel prizes that need to be returned or revoked.
Yes, at least 2 in the last 3 years!
-
It's 36degrees in HB when I woke up at 6:45am
That's pretty cold for California.
-
That's pretty cold for California.
It's pretty damn cold for So. Cal beach :(!
-
(http://www.getbig.com/pics/misc/2008boiseexpo/boise3446.jpg)
hey ron did you finally have a threesome with a bodybuilder and your wife alrdy?
-
It's pretty damn cold for So. Cal beach :(!
That sucks man..How often do you actually need to use the heat? I'm sure you had to use it today
-
Coldest winter in the UK in a 1000 years!!
This shows you have no idea about the concept of global warming and how it effects climate. Whether or not you agree at least you should try to educate yourself on the science.
I don't have a dog in this fight and I am no expert but at least I know that colder temperatures don't disprove global warming. As a matter of fact colder temperatures corroborate global warming. As the temps rise, the warm currents that keep countries in northern areas warmer than they should be, like the UK, become disrupted and those currents cool causing cooler weather.
Now the science could be all wrong, fuck if I know, I am no scientist and neither are you, but at least develop a basic understanding before you feel that you have the right to criticize.
-
This shows you have no idea about the concept of global warming and how it effects climate. Whether or not you agree at least you should try to educate yourself on the science.
I don't have a dog in this fight and I am no expert but at least I know that colder temperatures don't disprove global warming. As a matter of fact colder temperatures corroborate global warming. As the temps rise, the warm currents that keep countries in northern areas warmer than they should be, like the UK, become disrupted and those currents cool causing cooler weather.
Now the science could be all wrong, fuck if I know, I am no scientist and neither are you, but at least develop a basic understanding before you feel that you have the right to criticize.
the only real basic understanding of global warming scientists have is about how weather is affected during a nuclear winter following the crash of one or several meteors or/and the awakening of large volcanoes worldwide. And that's about it.
humans do not change the climate. Other phenomenons we have no clue about how they work do.
-
This shows you have no idea about the concept of global warming and how it effects climate. Whether or not you agree at least you should try to educate yourself on the science.
I don't have a dog in this fight and I am no expert but at least I know that colder temperatures don't disprove global warming. As a matter of fact colder temperatures corroborate global warming. As the temps rise, the warm currents that keep countries in northern areas warmer than they should be, like the UK, become disrupted and those currents cool causing cooler weather.
Now the science could be all wrong, fuck if I know, I am no scientist and neither are you, but at least develop a basic understanding before you feel that you have the right to criticize.
Dude, all due respect, science can't even make up it's mind.
-
coach you do understand that global warming doesn't mean neccesary that everything will become warmer? But that in some regions and overall it will become warmer
but that it also fucks with the oveall weather.
Yeah, but Fox News said.....
lol.
-
That sucks man..How often do you actually need to use the heat? I'm sure you had to use it today
I'm not a cold weather person what so ever and my being from Guam is especially not a cold weather person, we have the fire place going and when that goes out on comes the heater. We use the heater and fire place about 4-5 months out of the year.
-
positioning of earth in space, its rotation etc, the regions of space it's moving in, its distance from the sun, the phenomenons happening on the sun etc, the positionning of the moon and other unknown factors modify the weather and temperatures on earth. Not human activity. When will you fucktards understand.
You re portraying coach as a gullible moron who only gets his informations from fox news yet you re all defending thesis that are exposed...in the medias , press and tv constantly 24/24 7/7 since now years. Who's brainwashed here?
the only thing i know for a fact is that people buy stuff that has a sticker on it saying "this product is green/ earth friendly" and other bullshits which doesnt mean absolutely anything at all, cause recycling isnt even working at a third of its full potential in most civlized countries on earth. This is the purpose of this whole "erath friendly/green /eco" joke. Instillating into ignorant people fears that will make em buy some stuff instead of another to ease their conscience. It's basic pyschology here. Create a need / trend and milk ignorant people.
Also the major polluters on earth are third world countries right now , and no brainwashed hippie from europe or north america is going to do anything about it, it's easier for them to shit on their own politics caring about things that dont even affect their own life simply because they are bored with their nonsensical everyday life and have nothign better do. Hell most of them have kids who hate em cause they cant even love em adequatly, and yet they "care" about "global warming" ? please.
Hadnt you TV and access to the press, you wouldnt even be aware of all this made up stuff. You wouldnt even mind about it. You re all being brainwashed, conditionned by what you re reading, watching, all these repeated conditionnings who always serve only one purpose; make the wallet of someone else bigger.
The more people access these made up informations, the more they convince each others about it, which doesnt mean it's based on any kind of truth, evidence. But because at some point everything, everyone talks about it, you have to be convinced and follow the trend.
-
sigh...global warming melts the ice caps which release lots of freshwater into the oceans. the oceans become 'desalinized' by this influx of fresh water and normal current stream patterns get changed. The oceans deliver "weather" through these patterns...when they change, the weather changes. thats why you have "snow" in Mexico.
::)
-
Maybe I'm too stupid to understand the science, but "Warmers" were first pointing out warming trends as evidence. Then they pointed to cooling trends as evidence, too. But if Warming always meant extreme cooling too, then why change the wording to "Climate Change," like you're unsure and want to have it both ways?
Sounds like the experts are simply making it up as they go along.
-
Dude, all due respect, science can't even make up it's mind.
Science is always changing and updating as new evidence is found and that is the way it should be. Debate is healthy and necessary in science. Not everyone is always going to agree but through disagreement and the process of proving a claim, we move one step closer to the truth.
Never the less, it is important to educate yourself on the basic scientific arguments for global warming before you chime in as if you are an expert. That is all I am saying.
-
sigh...global warming melts the ice caps which release lots of freshwater into the oceans. the oceans become 'desalinized' by this influx of fresh water and normal current stream patterns get changed. The oceans deliver "weather" through these patterns...when they change, the weather changes. thats why you have "snow" in Mexico.
::)
Thank you.
-
the only real basic understanding of global warming scientists have is about how weather is affected during a nuclear winter following the crash of one or several meteors or/and the awakening of large volcanoes worldwide. And that's about it.
humans do not change the climate. Other phenomenons we have no clue about how they work do.
You sound pretty empathic so I don't think there is much room for debate. Are you a conspiracy theorist? How do you know that humans don't change climate? Where did you read that and have you ever wondered about the motivations and agenda of the groups who advocate that position? Have you ever considered that those who advocate that global warming is a myth also have an agenda and it is in there best interest to deny the existence of global warming.
-
sigh...global warming melts the ice caps which release lots of freshwater into the oceans. the oceans become 'desalinized' by this influx of fresh water and normal current stream patterns get changed. The oceans deliver "weather" through these patterns...when they change, the weather changes. thats why you have "snow" in Mexico.
::)
and where's the proof the ice cap melts because of human activity?
Oh, it's coming from your ass or from the ass of someone 's else who s following an agenda but who has media coverage. And because your parents and friends are hippies.
Thanks...
You sound pretty empathic so I don't think there is much room for debate. Are you a conspiracy theorist? How do you know that humans don't change climate? Where did you read that and have you ever wondered about the motivations and agenda of the groups who advocate that position? Have you ever considered that those who advocate that global warming is a myth also have an agenda and it is in there best interest to deny the existence of global warming.
How do you know humans change climate? Since even scientists arent sure of it? Oh, yeah, what i said earlier, you just have too much time on your hands. Ask skinny malnutrished africans if they care about these bullcraps. It's just another rich man's hobby to feel better about himself.
Retard.
-
It's all about the cow farts.
-
Have no fear, our resident know it alls Xerxes and Tbombz will be along soon to explain things to us simpletons. So enough of this tomfoolery, those two 20 something year olds have it all figured out.
-
Global
warming climate change has been shown to be a fraudulent industry. When the decreases in temperature stopped in the earlier part of the decade, no global warming models predicted that. The temperatures were completely below the confidence intervals for the model. So, they threw out the model and the entire theory and relabeled it global "climate change." Now, the theory seems to somehow envelop increasing temperatures, decreasing temperatures, and no temperature change. Freak storms like this that come around once every few decades get blamed on it...even though they aren't unusual at all in the longer view. The only thing these scientists did was redefined the terms to ensure they continue to get funding and research dollars. Green companies influenced legislation to force governments to use their technology, regardless of it cost-benefit ratio. It's become the left version of the military industrial complex.
Simply put, how do you falsify global climate change? The only answer I have ever heard is if there is no change whatsoever...which has never been the case in earth's history.
-
Global warming climate change has been shown to be a fraudulent industry. When the decreases in temperature stopped in the earlier part of the decade, no global warming models predicted that. The temperatures were completely below the confidence intervals for the model. So, they threw out the model and the entire theory and relabeled it global "climate change." Now, the theory seems to somehow envelop increasing temperatures, decreasing temperatures, and no temperature change. Freak storms like this that come around once every few decades get blamed on it...even though they aren't unusual at all in the longer view. The only thing these scientists did was redefined the terms to ensure they continue to get funding and research dollars. Green companies influenced legislation to force governments to use their technology, regardless of it cost-benefit ratio. It's become the left version of the military industrial complex.
Simply put, how do you falsify global climate change? The only answer I have ever heard is if there is no change whatsoever...which has never been the case in earth's history.
boom.
/end of all "climate change/global warming" related threads.
-
boom.
/end of all "cilmate change/global warming" related threads.
White castle's post pretty much sums it all...
-
Coach you don't know what you're talking about.
The climate is a complex fuxking system, for all we know its going to rebound and reach record highs in a few months.
Please PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE... just stop :'(
No shit, huh...
-
It hasn't been referred to as global warming for years. Global climate change, and it is being recorded across the globe. Stockholm is having the coldest winter it has had in 140yrs. The last two summers have been outrageously warm. The global trend is a gradual warming, the daily experience is a change in the norm. Once again, this is a non argument. The argument is about causation.
Absolutely. Good post. :)
-
I think the whole "Mankind is causing climate changes which have been happening for a billion years" is a bunch of crap. I think Al Gore is full of crap.
However, there are some people who still believe it:
Sarah Palin:
“I believe that man’s activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change.”
“I’m attributing some of man’s activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate right now.”
Sept 2008.
So while those of us with common sense believe it's probably just the world doing what it always does - warm and cool naturally. And yes Joe - there will be colder winters that come with hotter summers - because the hotter summers melt more ice from the poles which ends up in our cities come winter time ;) So that point is a little bit off - there certainly are larger extremes. But it's natural. People like Gore and Palin are idiots on this matter.
-
Well the icecaps are melting, it's been proven with satellite imagery.
Ocean levels have risen a fraction of an inch already.
Climate is changing for sure. WHY it's changing is somewhat debateable. But for people to deny that it's changing at all they must be very uninformed.
You don't even need satellite imagery to prove this. Just look at photos from a century ago compared to now. And mountain glaciers are reteating everywhere, not just the icecaps. And it's happening fast.
-
Dude, all due respect, science can't even make up it's mind.
Thats the beautiful thing about science. It's always changing. You would rather believe in a talking snake and a man living inside of a fish for 3 days and pray to a zombie.... idiot ::)
-
I live in the sub-arctic, and she's as cold as a whore's heart right now. I wish this warming would hurry the f*#k up and get here!
-
I live in the sub-arctic, and she's as cold as a whore's heart right now. I wish this warming would hurry the f*#k up and get here!
Where exactly are you?
-
Coach your ignorance is comparable only to your stupidity! Please stop listening to fox news and Rush Limbaugh and start reading about global warming issue from text and source wrote by real scientists. If you do what I told you maybe next time you will be less prone to embarrass yourself in front at getbig comunity. ;)
-
Coach your ignorance is comparable only to your stupidity! Please stop listening to fox news and Rush Limbaugh and start reading about global warming issue from text and source wrote by real scientists. If you do what I told you maybe next time you will be less prone to embarrass yourself in front at getbig comunity. ;)
You mean like scientists appointed by AlGore and the UN that have been debunked and proven frauds? The photo shops in AlGores movie that was meant to scare people for a political agenda? You mean those scientists?
-
The scientists that consider global warming real are not only americans with supposed connection to Al Gore(fox news propaganda suspicions by the way) but from all over the world!
-
You mean like scientists appointed by AlGore and the UN that have been debunked and proven frauds? The photo shops in AlGores movie that was meant to scare people for a political agenda? You mean those scientists?
global warming only works in the summers,,,winters DO NOT COUNT
gh15 approved
-
Good thing we don't already have a 10 page thread about this ::)
-
Good thing we don't already have a 10 page thread about this ::)
It's almost not funny anymore to see "xerxes" meltdown with capital letters. :o
-
The real culprit behind global warming. Hot chicks + other hot chicks = Global hot.
-
I am only repeating what I've seen and read from official sources like universities, scientific institutions etc. Fuck yourselves
You mean the one's that provided AlGore and the UN with their "scientific" studies?
-
Where exactly are you?
NWT, Canada.
-
Dude, all due respect, science can't even make up it's mind.
Because science is a process, you twit. Science and scientists have never claimed that predictions are always constant. The process of science is to ask questions, answer them, then ask new questions when new evidence arises.
(http://img687.imageshack.us/i/scimethod.gif/)
-
and where's the proof the ice cap melts because of human activity?
The ice caps are melting because there is a hole in the ozone above the artic. This hole lets in more of the sun's radiation (heat). The hole comes from an increase in CO2 that's collected in the atmosphere. The increase in CO2 levels and the human contribution to it is where the debate is. Volcanos emit huge amounts of CO2, large commercial farms release a lot of CO2, certain industrial industries omit large amounts of CO2 and it would be foolish to think that the introduction of hundred's of millions of cars over the last 80 years didn't contribute to rising CO2 levels.
That being said...are humans the cause of this, probably not. Are we contributing to the problem, absolutely. Are there scientists, politicians, business people and media outlooks out there with agendas...of course...tt's naive to think otherwise. However, it's also naive to dismiss credible evidence obtained through the scientific method that shows at minimum...human contribution, which is the only variable out there that you can control.
Personally, I think you humans are f*cked anyway. I suspect that the life intelligence of this planet will find a way to eradicate the human plague pretty quickly after you create a sustainable space migration program.
Best of luck!
-
Yeah SF19 I understand that but liberals don't otherwise they would wait (forever) for conclusive eveidence instead of making it a political agenda. That idiot Gore received a Nobel based on fraudulent findings based on an admitted photoshopped movie.
-
Yeah SF19 I understand that but liberals don't otherwise they would wait (forever) for conclusive eveidence instead of making it a political agenda. That idiot Gore received a Nobel based on fraudulent findings based on an admitted photoshopped movie.
Exactly! Just like how the neocons "waited (forever) for conclusive evidence" about WMDs before making it a political agenda...and destroying a country.
Everything at that level is political and motivated by special interests. To claim that fraud, deceit, lying and immoral behavior exists on only one side of the political spectum is naive.
-
Yeah SF19 I understand that but liberals don't otherwise they would wait (forever) for conclusive eveidence instead of making it a political agenda. That idiot Gore received a Nobel based on fraudulent findings based on an admitted photoshopped movie.
So then why don't you wait for conclusive evidence that a God exists? Hate to break it to you, there is none. ::) ::) Yet, you still believe in the imaginary Sky Daddy.
-
Fuck that noise. I'm an atheist. I'm conservative and think, not "feel" that global warming is nothing but liberal money grabbing bullshit. If any of you here think (and here I am being kind to you) that global warming is "real" and "we" need to do something about it, then put up and get the fuck off the map. Drop out. No electricity, no gas, no cars, no motorcycles, no bicycles, nothing. Oh. and no soup for you!
Eat shit, eat dirt or grow your own food in your own shit, but no processed foods for you.
Make your own clothes but do so without modern materials. Live the way you want others to live, with nothing. No running water, either hot or cold for you. Get the fuck off the internet and live the life of bum. No standing on the corner axing for money either. Fuck technology, its killing the "earth mother" or whatever the fuck these morons are calling this planet now.
Fucktard earthies. You don't deserve to live in a van...down by the river.
-
yeah, dont drink coca cola anymore cause bottles are made of plastic, dont lace up your nikes made by a chinese kid for 1 buck a day, dont use the car to go to the grocery 100 meters aways from your house, dont use your toilets, shower, dont watch your favorite soap on tv anymore... hahaha you nailed it.
Fucking hypocritical retards with nothing else to do in life but to care about something they have 0 influence on and that has not even be proved real. But hey, everyone on TV and as a result in your everyday life says you have to be "eco friendly" and "green" so you HAVE to think the same dont you?
::)
-
Who gives a fuck about being "eco friendly" ? Who are you ranting towards??
Hey smartass, it's about fossil fuels and not much else. Not abandoning modern life. Straw man argument if I ever saw one.
I don't "argue" Mrs. Garrison. Years ago, before you were born (and that is based upon your obvious mental capabilities) Mount Pinatubo, an active volcano erupted and vomited more crap in the air than every automobile, truck, motorcycle and liberal that has ever existed. We're still here. You neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeed to get rid of all modern trappings, little one. Put up or shut the fuck up. Think of it this way, my little modern version of Jeremiah Johnson: you're not "abandoning modern life", instead you're embracing nature and all that is good.
As is always the case here, you are in way over your head. You are a typical eco-cynic. You claim to know the price of everything and all the while display that you know the value of nothing. Don't make me use words, phrases and terms that aren't in Urban Dictionary, kid. ;D
Now get the fuck off the internet, you're killing "gaia".
-
there is nothing that is non natural cause everything that exists has been create by nature itself, including man. And everything man does is a product of nature intrinsically as a result. Everything can only be natural cause it has been spawned by nature itself.
-
In way over my head? What the fuck are you on about? Do you still believe that volcano argument? Hahaha
Here's a reality check for you, even with all these volcanos that were erupting blowing co2 into the atmosphere, it was still nowhere near the levels we have today, THE HIGHEST IN RECORDED HISTORY, this shows it from 400 000 years ago.
Your argument is invalid, hope this helps. Now go pat yourself on the back for nothing again, douchebag.
Keep in mind, oh child of the earth, every time you post gaia kills a kitten. Every time. Murderer. ::)
-
In way over my head? What the fuck are you on about? Do you still believe that volcano argument? Hahaha
Here's a reality check for you, even with all these volcanos that were erupting blowing co2 into the atmosphere, it was still nowhere near the levels we have today, THE HIGHEST IN RECORDED HISTORY, this shows it from 400 000 years ago.
Your argument is invalid, hope this helps. Now go pat yourself on the back for nothing again, douchebag.
Actually from what I've understood, most volcanic eruptions tend to have a cooling effect.
-
::)
Another kitten dies. Fucktard liberal. Get off the internet and off the map. Go back to your "roots" and live in a cave, sport. Oh wait. You're a typical liberal eco-hypocrite, i.e., do as I say and I'll do as I want. FTN, champ.
-
Another kitten dies. Fucktard liberal. Get off the internet and off the map. Go back to your "roots" and live in a cave, sport. Oh wait. You're a typical liberal eco-hypocrite, i.e., do as I say and I'll do as I want. FTN, champ.
meltdown
-
what's the big deal........everyone likes it a bit warmer anyway.
-
what's the big deal........everyone likes it a bit warmer anyway.
voice of reason
-
meltdown
Are you suggesting that he should start wearing diapers for his constant "meltdown" issues here on MeltBig? ???
-
it's not just liberals.
sarah palin believes mankind causes teh weather to change too.
there are clueless people in both parties.
-
it's not just liberals.
sarah palin believes mankind causes teh weather to change too.
there are clueless people in both parties.
You really cant help yourelf can you?
-
That just shows that the weather is getting more extreme.
"Global warming" does not mean that it will always be hotter everywhere on Earth. You're a fucking idiot if that's what you think it means. Sounds like you don't know anything about it.
You neither....
-
Even assuming Global Warming is true, why does anyone believethat changing light bulbs, sending $ $ $ $ to Al Gore and Goldman Sachs, and jacking peoples' electric rates will do a damn thing?
And what is worse? Abject poverty, starvation, perpetual 10% + UE, and misery or a few degrees higher in the Temp?
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/17/las-vegas-snow-strip-cove_n_151951.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/17/las-vegas-snow-strip-cove_n_151951.html)
LAS VEGAS SNOW: Strip Covered In Snow last night
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/54354/thumbs/s-LAS-VEGAS-SNOW-large.jpg)
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/17/las-vegas-snow-strip-cove_n_151951.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/17/las-vegas-snow-strip-cove_n_151951.html)
LAS VEGAS SNOW: Strip Covered In Snow last night
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/54354/thumbs/s-LAS-VEGAS-SNOW-large.jpg)
Here let me have a swing at it. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA GLOBAL "WARMING" HAHAHAHAHAH STUPID LIBERAL BLEEDING HEART HIPPIES. ALL PROPAGANDA. JUST ANOTHER AL GORE HIPPY STINK LIBERAL CONSPIRACY. HOW CAN IT BE GLOBAL WARMING IF ITS SNOWING IN VEGAS.......... owww my head hurts now... i think i feel dumber already. Must be hard to be the coach or any of these conservative fools.
-
Here's a reality check for you, even with all these volcanos that were erupting blowing co2 into the atmosphere, it was still nowhere near the levels we have today, THE HIGHEST IN RECORDED HISTORY, this shows it from 400 000 years ago.
Your argument is invalid, hope this helps. Now go pat yourself on the back for nothing again, douchebag.
::)
You're a simpleton.
Can you find one peer review publication that clearly demonstrates that atmospheric CO2 causes the temperature anomaly rather than the temperature anomaly causing increased C02? Knock yourself out.
(http://docs.engineeringtoolbox.com/documents/1148/solubility-co2-water.png)
-
Nah temperature doesn't lead CO2
Thanks for trying
Post a peer-review link, not junk science.
You can't.
-
Post a peer-review link that shows me that temperature leads co2. ::)
First the bolded part: theres no assuming, you look at the evidence and take the most logical explanation, IT IS TRUE FFS.
:-\ you speak as though AGW is a mathematical thereom. Empirical facts about empirical reality cannot be proven absolutely. The burden of proof, therefore, rests with you my kashka bademjan eating friend.
ps When you're done with your Masters of Youtube -> http://climateaudit.org/
-
I am just a 21 year old kid who tried to learn about global warming, first I was fooled by "Lord" Monckton, when I saw the lies he fed me I decided to read and learn a lot more, the things I've read leads me to believe that global warming is real. The deniers etc have lied and misinformed me more than anything. I am very interested in reading skeptical opinion so if you would get off your high horse (i.e simpleton blabla) and show me what specifically on that site I should read.
When you get older you will see the ridiculousnous of the global warming scare mongers.
-
I am just a 21 year old kid who tried to learn about global warming, first I was fooled by "Lord" Monckton, when I saw the lies he fed me I decided to read and learn a lot more, the things I've read leads me to believe that global warming is real. The deniers etc have lied and misinformed me more than anything. I am very interested in reading skeptical opinion so if you would get off your high horse (i.e simpleton blabla) and show me what specifically on that site I should read.
Lord whoever has nothing to do with the science.
I would suggest reading the entire site, since you said you want to learn more. If you're really interested then you will quickly discover that these predictive models all hang on very tenuous assumptions. It is all too easy to tweek different parameters, cherry pick data sets in order to achieve a desired outcome (which means those consistent with Mann's original hockey stick model). People such as the guy at climate audit spend much of their time doing such reanalysis, which at the end of the day evaluates the robustness of those predicted outcomes.
(ii) More generally, for context. Climate science/ IPCC has long been politicised. Re: "scientific consensus". There is this thing called "grantsmenship". Academic research is all about publishing in recognised journals to attain status, which requires research, which requires money, which requires track record (publications). Mostly it is governments that provide such funding. A grant proposal is written in a manner that best attracts funding. One is compelled to write a grant which suits a political agenda, and in the climate sciences it is, currently, a very fierce agenda. An academic would not expect much in the way of funds to conduct any 'skeptical' research and to that end is it suprising that most scientists have reached a consensus? ::)
-
It has nothng to do with the climate. It has everything to do with $ $ $ $.
They are using the "climate" as the foil to get useful idiots, fools, naive college students, suckers, and do-gooders to do their bidding.
Look at the people behind these "movements". Corrupt money-changers and greedy pigs like Al Gore, Franklin Raines, Goldman Sachs, Obama, Soros, etc.
-
Lord whoever has nothing to do with the science.
I would suggest reading the entire site, since you said you want to learn more. If you're really interested then you will quickly discover that these predictive models all hang on very tenuous assumptions. It is all too easy to tweek different parameters, cherry pick data sets in order to achieve a desired outcome (which means those consistent with Mann's original hockey stick model). People such as the guy at climate audit spend much of their time doing such reanalysis, which at the end of the day evaluates the robustness of those predicted outcomes.
(ii) More generally, for context. Climate science/ IPCC has long been politicised. Re: "scientific consensus". There is this thing called "grantsmenship". Academic research is all about publishing in recognised journals to attain status, which requires research, which requires money, which requires track record (publications). Mostly it is governments that provide such funding. A grant proposal is written in a manner that best attracts funding. One is compelled to write a grant which suits a political agenda, and in the climate sciences it is, currently, a very fierce agenda. An academic would not expect much in the way of funds to conduct any 'skeptical' research and to that end is it suprising that most scientists have reached a consensus? ::)
Well put and spot on.
-
As opposed to the deniers who have absolutely no interest in oil,gas and coal industries right? ::) ??? :-\
::) ::)
We need and gas to live, windmills and solar panels are still a joke.
-
Marketing 'Climate Change'
American Thinker ^ | January 04, 2011 | Steve McCann
A good indicator that a movement ostensibly based on so-called scientific facts has run out of steam is when that crusade must openly resort to crass marketing techniques to sell a flawed product. As with so many iconic beliefs of the left, it is not the message that is flawed, but the messaging.
Der Spiegel, the paragon of leftist thinking in Germany, just published a lengthy article, entitled "Green Groups try to Sex Up Climate Change," chronicling the movement's efforts to recapture the public's attention, which has severely waned over the past two years.
Editors at major German newspapers are openly stating that global warming is a "loser" in media terms. The New York Times quoted one science filmmaker as calling climate research "bo-ho-ho-ring" and "quite possibly, THE most boring subject the science world has ever had to present to the public."
Surveys have shown that in the Netherlands, once the hotbed of global warming hysteria, only one in three Dutch people is concerned about climate change. The number is half that in the United States.
The loss of credibility is attributed to two factors: 1) the mistakes made public around a year ago on the U.N.'s 2007 climate report and
2) the "Climategate" scandal involving e-mails from the researchers at the University of East Anglia. Per Der Spiegel, "[t]his leaked correspondence revealed trench warfare that caused scientists to withhold some data and defend their results at all costs."
As the primary media strategy up to that time was centered on the credibility of the scientists involved, the PR damage was significant, and it caused the public to begin seriously questioning the validity of the movement.
So now the environmental activists, not willing to give up on an enormous source of money from government grants and extortion, have come up with a myriad of approaches to try to make the climate change argument attractive. Some ideas are:
1.Greater emphasis on emotional messaging using animals such as polar bears and whales and people suffering the results of weather catastrophes. An old but tried-and-true PR strategy that has lost its luster, but it is very difficult to give up.
2.Another old but successful tactic: sex sells. At a recent Global Media Forum working group on climate change, the motto was "Climate change is sexy." However, there is some argument that the attention would be on the shapely figure of an attractive female researcher standing in front of a glacier rather than on the message.
3.Climate activists have begun funneling millions of dollars into training programs for so-called environmental journalists to encourage even more advocacy journalism. Apparently all the rest of us were foolish to believe there was nearly nothing but advocacy journalism in the mainstream media throughout the world.
4.Climate change discussion must become less abstract and come down to the level of the average person. In other words, make it relevant in the day-to-day life of the individual by simplification and promotion along with easily understood solutions. Whether these are genuine solutions is immaterial as long as they are presented with all the fanfare of being so.
5.Stop being so vocal and causing a commotion about climate change. Instead, emphasize restraint and the ability to quietly and respectfully listen to opposing views. A bit of acting talent may be required, but that should not be a problem when reading from a fictional script.
6.The movement needs a new "Messiah." Al Gore has become yesterday's newspaper in the bottom of the birdcage, so someone has to be found who can arouse the masses -- per Andreas Ernst from Kassel University, "[j]ust as Martin Luther King Jr. awakened the civil rights movement." Comparing every political crusade to the civil rights movement has become transparent and threadbare, but this is apparently a strategy from which the left cannot emancipate itself.
7.Lastly, climate researchers have started setting up new organizations that will communicate climate data better. Coordination of messaging will be the order of the day. The accuracy of the messaging has not been discussed.
So there you have it: soon we who are agnostics when it comes to the religion of global warming (now renamed "climate change") will be subjected to the best marketing strategy the human mind can devise. As Europe shivers in the coldest winter in over 125 years and we see the wealth of the country squandered in foolish regulations and laws ostensibly geared to save the earth, we can be comforted in knowing the best and brightest are on the job to save the planet from itself. We were foolish enough to believe that only God could do that.
-
Wake up people and put the Kool-Aid down!!
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/3272-arctic-ice-expanding-not-retreating
-
Lord whoever has nothing to do with the science.
I would suggest reading the entire site, since you said you want to learn more. If you're really interested then you will quickly discover that these predictive models all hang on very tenuous assumptions. It is all too easy to tweek different parameters, cherry pick data sets in order to achieve a desired outcome (which means those consistent with Mann's original hockey stick model). People such as the guy at climate audit spend much of their time doing such reanalysis, which at the end of the day evaluates the robustness of those predicted outcomes.
(ii) More generally, for context. Climate science/ IPCC has long been politicised. Re: "scientific consensus". There is this thing called "grantsmenship". Academic research is all about publishing in recognised journals to attain status, which requires research, which requires money, which requires track record (publications). Mostly it is governments that provide such funding. A grant proposal is written in a manner that best attracts funding. One is compelled to write a grant which suits a political agenda, and in the climate sciences it is, currently, a very fierce agenda. An academic would not expect much in the way of funds to conduct any 'skeptical' research and to that end is it suprising that most scientists have reached a consensus? ::)
your an idiot with no education in climate sceince. :)
-
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306 no. 5702 p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618
ESSAYS ON SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change” (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (.
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
References and Notes
1.↵ A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times A1 (19 June 2003).
2.↵ S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2(1), 3 (2003).
3.↵ See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
4.↵ J. J. McCarthy, Ed. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
5.↵ National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
6.↵ American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
7.↵ American Geophysical Union, Eos 84(51), 574 (2003).
8.↵ See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
9.↵ The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put “climate change” in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, “Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong,” presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.
-
no dude your side has had its say , now its time to burn the rain forest
yes, oxygen is a myth! ::)
-
Well put and spot on.
your an idiot too
-
to who ever claimed that no one funds the skeptical side wrt to research you are in fact a moron. that is the holy grail of research, to disprove a prevailing theoy.My comp is fucked so i can barely type so ill leave it at that for now.
-
your an idiot with no education in climate sceince. :)
You have proven yourself to be as close as humanly possible to being a retard without being assigned to an institution. I would just post on boards you are well versed on, like.......
-
to who ever claimed that no one funds the skeptical side wrt to research you are in fact a moron. that is the holy grail of research, to disprove a prevailing theoy.My comp is fucked so i can barely type so ill leave it at that for now.
u sound like a fucking retard. fix your broken computer bitch.
-
u sound like a fucking retard. fix your broken computer bitch.
;D
when necrosis posts its going to be bad news bears for all these ignorant fools.. dude is wicked smart
-
your an idiot too
Never fails.
-
Coldest temperatures in Cuba in over half a century
http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2011/01/11010...
<snip>
Cuba continues to experience its coldest temperatures in over half a century, according to meteorologists.
Temperatures in some areas on the island have fallen to a minimum of 1.9 degrees Celsius, or 35 Fahrenheit, with December thought to have been the coldest month on record since 1951.
----------------
-
to who ever claimed that no one funds the skeptical side wrt to research you are in fact a moron. that is the holy grail of research, to disprove a prevailing theoy.My comp is fucked so i can barely type so ill leave it at that for now.
STFU kid. If you seriously believe this drivel then, clearly, you are on the outside.
;D
when necrosis posts its going to be bad news bears for all these ignorant fools.. dude is wicked smart
Based on the above gem (and the obvious inability of this idiot 'necrosis' to determine that I was referring to AGW skepticism) we're all shaking in our boots. ::)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
"A fourth problem with determining whether AGW theory is true or not is closely related to a similar problem medical research has — the source of funding. This has got to be one of the least appreciated sources of bias in global warming research. In pharmaceutical research, experimentally demonstrating the efficacy of some new drug might be influenced by the fact that the money for the research came from the company that developed the drug in the first place. This is partly why double-blind studies involving many participants (we have only one: Earth) were developed.
But in global warming research, there is a popular misconception that oil industry-funded climate research actually exists, and has skewed the science. I can’t think of a single scientific study that has been funded by an oil or coal company.
But what DOES exist is a large organization that has a virtual monopoly on global warming research in the U.S., and that has a vested interest in AGW theory being true: the U.S. Government. The idea that government-funded climate research is unbiased is laughable. The push for ever increasing levels of government regulation and legislation, the desire of government managers to grow their programs, the dependence of congressional funding of a problem on the existence of a “problem” to begin with, and the U.N.’s desire to find reasons to move toward global governance, all lead to inherent bias in climate research.
At least with medical research, there will always be funding because disease will always exist. But human-caused warming could end up to be little more than a false alarm…as well as a black eye for the climate research community. And lest we forget, possibly the biggest funding-related source of bias in climate research is that research community of scientists. Everyone knows that if the AGW “problem” is no longer a problem, their source of research funding will disappear."
-
Who cares? Does anybody think we're going to be able to stop a Chinese or Indian from getting electricity? We'll figure something out if the icecaps melt.
-
Who cares? Does anybody think we're going to be able to stop a Chinese or Indian from getting electricity? We'll figure something out if the icecaps melt.
Kay-Secki.
Sheebal Nome.
-
Never fails.
Haha ;D
-
STFU kid. If you seriously believe this drivel then, clearly, you are on the outside.
Based on the above gem (and the obvious inability of this idiot 'necrosis' to determine that I was referring to AGW skepticism) we're all shaking in our boots. ::)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
"A fourth problem with determining whether AGW theory is true or not is closely related to a similar problem medical research has — the source of funding. This has got to be one of the least appreciated sources of bias in global warming research. In pharmaceutical research, experimentally demonstrating the efficacy of some new drug might be influenced by the fact that the money for the research came from the company that developed the drug in the first place. This is partly why double-blind studies involving many participants (we have only one: Earth) were developed.
But in global warming research, there is a popular misconception that oil industry-funded climate research actually exists, and has skewed the science. I can’t think of a single scientific study that has been funded by an oil or coal company.
But what DOES exist is a large organization that has a virtual monopoly on global warming research in the U.S., and that has a vested interest in AGW theory being true: the U.S. Government. The idea that government-funded climate research is unbiased is laughable. The push for ever increasing levels of government regulation and legislation, the desire of government managers to grow their programs, the dependence of congressional funding of a problem on the existence of a “problem” to begin with, and the U.N.’s desire to find reasons to move toward global governance, all lead to inherent bias in climate research.
At least with medical research, there will always be funding because disease will always exist. But human-caused warming could end up to be little more than a false alarm…as well as a black eye for the climate research community. And lest we forget, possibly the biggest funding-related source of bias in climate research is that research community of scientists. Everyone knows that if the AGW “problem” is no longer a problem, their source of research funding will disappear."
because you put something in blue writing means it is worth its weight in shit? ::)
yes, the evil scientists, their evil plan to to spend a quarter of their lives getting an education in a field so they can spend another decade doing research in that field all so they could look credible enough to society so that they could con them into thinking that the research they have been doing/been educated about is conlcusive, thus they can make their evil plan come true... more funding for the same research!!! dum dum dum!!! these research-happy scientists who spend their entrie lives getting educated only so they can turn around and lie to the people in order to keep on doing research!!. yes, yes i think thats it.
::)
if you had any clue, any education on the topic of climate science, even in the lsightest, you would not be debating this issue. there is not only correlational evidence but a descriptive cause and effect all backed up with verifiable facts.
-
Changing Tides: Research Center Under Fire for 'Adjusted' Sea-Level Data
By Maxim Lott
Published June 17, 2011
| FoxNews.comNASA
In a NASA "what-if" animation, light-blue areas in southern Florida and Louisiana indicate regions that may be underwater should sea levels rise dramatically.
Is climate change raising sea levels, as Al Gore has argued -- or are climate scientists doctoring the data?
The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters -- or about the thickness of a fingernail -- every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.
"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring," said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.
Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.
"We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger... water volume is expanding," he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).
Taylor calls it tomfoolery.
"There really is no reason to do this other than to advance a political agenda," he said.
Climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said that the amount of water in the ocean and sea level were two different things.
"To me… sea level rise is what's measured against the actual coast," he told FoxNews.com. "That's what tells us the impact of rising oceans."
Taylor agreed.
"Many global warming alarmists say that vast stretches of coastline are going to be swallowed up by the sea. Well, that means we should be talking about sea level, not about global water volume."
In e-mails with FoxNews.com, Nerem indicated that he considered "sea level rise" to be the same thing as the amount of water in the ocean.
"If we correct our data to remove [the effect of rising land], it actually does cause the rate of sea level (a.k.a. ocean water volume change) rise to be bigger," Nerem wrote. The adjustment is trivial, and not worth public attention, he added.
"For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy… [The] effect is tiny -- only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet."
But Taylor said that the correction seemed bigger when compared with actual sea level increases.
"We’ve seen only 7 inches of sea level rise in the past century and it hasn’t sped up this century. Compared to that, this would add nearly 20 percent to the sea level rise. That's not insignificant," he told FoxNews.com.
Nerem said that the research center is considering compromising on the adjustment.
"We are considering putting both data sets on our website -- a GIA-corrected dataset, as well as one without the GIA correction," he said.
Christy said that would be a welcome change.
"I would encourage CU to put the sea level rate [with] no adjustment at the top of the website," he said.
Taylor’s takeaway: Be wary of sea level rise estimates.
"When Al Gore talks about Manhattan flooding this century, and 20 feet of sea level rise, that’s simply not going to happen. If it were going to happen, he wouldn’t have bought his multi-million dollar mansion along the coast in California."
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data
-
http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/02/saving-the-earth-one-fraud-at-a-time
Reason Magazine
Saving the Earth, One Fraud at a Time
The latest embarrassment for global warming activists
Steven Greenhut | March 2, 2012
If the theory of man-made global warming were such a self-obvious truth, the result of scientific consensus, then why do advocates for this idea keep committing frauds to advance it? Even more disturbing, why are some writers willing to defend this behavior?
The latest embarrassment for global-warming activists came on Feb. 20 after Peter Gleick, founder of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security in Oakland, admitted that he committed fraud to obtain documents he thought would embarrass a conservative think tank that has been a leading debunker of some of the overheated claims of the climate-change Chicken Littles.
The memos, which reveal the group’s political and fund-raising strategies, provided little to embarrass the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, but it has damaged the reputation of a man who was a respected intellectual in the environmental world. Gleick, a MacArthur Foundation “genius” fellow, doesn’t seem brilliant now, as he takes a leave of absence from the institute, faces public embarrassment and possible prosecution. (Heartland claims that one memo was fabricated, although Gleick denies that charge, but the scandal could get uglier.)
But even after Gleick admitted and apologized for his action, Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik defended him: “It’s a sign of the emotions wrapped up in the global warming debate that Gleick should be apologizing for his actions today while the Heartland Institute stakes out the moral high ground.”
“Peter Gleick lied, but was it justified by the wider good?” asked James Garvey of the British Guardian newspaper. He compared Gleick’s action to that of a man who lied to keep his friend from driving home drunk. “What Heartland is doing is harmful, because it gets in the way of public consensus and action,” he argued. “If his lie has good effects overall—if those who take Heartland’s money to push skepticism are dismissed as shills, if donors pull funding after being exposed in the press—then perhaps on balance he did the right thing. … It depends on how this plays out.”
In his view, anything that gets in the way of “consensus”—i.e., everyone agreeing with Garvey—is dangerous, so why not cheat, as long as it “has good effects”? Let’s reserve judgment based on how it plays out.
What would these people argue if a conservative who argues that, say, public-sector unions are bankrupting the state, pulled a similar fraud to get his hands on documents from union officials? Would they be defending that? Of course not. These writers are advancing a Machiavellian political agenda, not advancing a consistent ethical principle.
When it comes to global warming, the ends apparently justify the means. People from all political persuasions do stupid things to advance their cause, but what bothers me most are respectable people who justify behavior they would never tolerate from their foes. That type of ideological fanaticism is corrosive of our democratic society.
It’s easy to chide the hypocrisy of Gleick. He had been the chairman of an ethics committee for a scientific association. His column blasting dishonesty still sits on his institute’s Web site. It’s harder to explain away his deceit as a mere aberration in the climate-change drama.
In the “Climategate” scandal in 2009, “Hundreds of private email messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change,” according to a New York Times report from the time. The emails showed that the scientific community is so invested in this climate-change ideology for financial and ideological reasons that it rather cook the numbers than level with the public about the reality of the threat. A follow-up release of emails in 2011 provided even more evidence supporting skeptics’ claims.
In this scandal, Gleick created a bogus email account in which he pretended to be a Heartland board member. Then he contacted the organization and asked for documents from a recent board meeting. He released them on the Internet anonymously and to journalists while claiming to be a Heartland insider, according to the institute’s explanation.
Although he offered his regrets, Gleick’s mea culpa was laden with excuses: “I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts—often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated—to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.”
How do you base a “rational public debate” on deceit?
It’s not as if the documents added anything to the debate. They didn’t show any enormous investment by big corporations. They proved, as one writer noted, that donors give money to organizations whose work they endorse. What a revelation. Isn’t that what happens on the environmental side, also?
Marc Gunther of The Energy Collective admitted that “the leaked Heartland documents didn’t prove very much.” He slammed allies in the global-warming movement for praising Gleick and comparing him to a whistleblower. Clearly, not all believers in man-made global warming defend the indefensible.
But there is something about global warming that attracts the “ends justify the means” crowd. It’s the same fraudulent ideology that California’s state government has embraced as it implements a first-in-the-nation cap-and-trade program that won’t do a thing to cool our state, but will raise taxes on businesses and drive many of them elsewhere. Advocates of AB32 were hardly fonts of honesty and rational debate.
Hey, if Planet Earth is in danger, then anything goes in the political realm also. That ideology is far scarier to me than a little warmer weather.
Steven Greenhut is vice president of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity.
-
Global warming is not about it being too hot or cold for a couple days/season, it is rapid changes in temperature in a quick timespan
Shouldn't you be on the weather channel forums?
-
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html
NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years WASHINGTON -- A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.
Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record.
"There's always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year's ranking, but the ranking often misses the point," said James Hansen, GISS director. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated."
January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Looking back to 1880, when modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, although there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s.
In the past three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.36 degrees F (0.2 degrees C) per decade. In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 1.5 degrees F (0.8 degrees C) since 1880.
"That's the important number to keep in mind," said GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt. "The difference between the second and sixth warmest years is trivial because the known uncertainty in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years."
The near-record global temperatures of 2009 occurred despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America. High air pressures from the Arctic decreased the east-west flow of the jet stream, while increasing its tendency to blow from north to south. The result was an unusual effect that caused frigid air from the Arctic to rush into North America and warmer mid-latitude air to shift toward the north. This left North America cooler than normal, while the Arctic was warmer than normal.
"The contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the United States' temperature does not affect the global temperature much," Hansen said.
GISS uses publicly available data from three sources to conduct its temperature analysis. The sources are weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea surface temperatures, and Antarctic research station measurements.
Other research groups also track global temperature trends but use different analysis techniques. The Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom uses similar input measurements as GISS, for example, but it omits large areas of the Arctic and Antarctic where monitoring stations are sparse.
Although the two methods produce slightly differing results in the annual rankings, the decadal trends in the two records are essentially identical.
"There's a contradiction between the results shown here and popular perceptions about climate trends," Hansen said. "In the last decade, global warming has not stopped."
-
Hansen? LMFAO! Why not quote Al gore for all that matter?
-
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.
Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.
“For the first time, and in a single compelling comparison, the analysis brings together multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “The records come from many institutions worldwide. They use data collected from diverse sources, including satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys. These independently produced lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: our planet is warming,”
The report emphasizes that human society has developed for thousands of years under one climatic state, and now a new set of climatic conditions are taking shape. These conditions are consistently warmer, and some areas are likely to see more extreme events like severe drought, torrential rain and violent storms.
“Despite the variability caused by short-term changes, the analysis conducted for this report illustrates why we are so confident the world is warming,” said Peter Stott, Ph.D., contributor to the report and head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution of the United Kingdom Met Office Hadley Centre. “When we look at air temperature and other indicators of climate, we see highs and lows in the data from year to year because of natural variability. Understanding climate change requires looking at the longer-term record. When we follow decade-to-decade trends using multiple data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world.”
While year-to-year changes in temperature often reflect natural climatic variations such as El Nińo/La Nińa events, changes in average temperature from decade-to-decade reveal long-term trends such as global warming. Each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the decade before. At the time, the 1980s was the hottest decade on record. In the 1990s, every year was warmer than the average of the previous decade. The 2000s were warmer still.
“The temperature increase of one degree Fahrenheit over the past 50 years may seem small, but it has already altered our planet,” said Deke Arndt, co-editor of the report and chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. “Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are more common. And, as the new report tells us, there is now evidence that over 90 percent of warming over the past 50 years has gone into our ocean.”
More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives. To help keep citizens and businesses informed about climate, NOAA created the Climate Portal at http://www.climate.gov. The portal features a short video that summarizes some of the highlights of the State of the Climate Report.
-
::)
-
human caused global warming is just a theory, not a fact!
-
human caused global warming is just a theory, not a fact!
theres no such thing as a scientific fact. there are only theories. as far as theories go global warming is just about as proven as the theory that the earth orbits the sun.
-
theres no such thing as a scientific fact. there are only theories. as far as theories go global warming is just about as proven as the theory that the earth orbits the sun.
So lets run out and spend trillions of dollars on bogus green products, stop driving, cut off the lights, live in tents, and sign kumbaya around a camp fire every night right?
BTW - can you tell me the year the earth had the so called "perfect climate" to which we need to go back to and how the present proposals of al gore will get us back to that?
-
So lets run out and spend trillions of dollars on bogus green products, stop driving, cut off the lights, live in tents, and sign kumbaya around a camp fire every night right?
BTW - can you tell me the year the earth had the so called "perfect climate" to which we need to go back to and how the present proposals of al gore will get us back to that?
If you had any self-awareness, you'd be embarrassed by your willful ignorance.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov
-
My grits always stay really hot for a long time. I suspect someone of something.
-
If you had any self-awareness, you'd be embarrassed by your willful ignorance.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov
Oh go Fluke yourself. You can't answer my question because it completly destroys every aspect and facet of this nonsensical issue.
"Climate Change" and "Global Warming" are little more than a nother contrived "crisis" by far leftist special interest groups seeking control over the population and a way to suck more $$$$ out of hard working people.
-
I'm emptying some aerosol cans out the front door as we speak....
-
So lets run out and spend trillions of dollars on bogus green products, stop driving, cut off the lights, live in tents, and sign kumbaya around a camp fire every night right?
BTW - can you tell me the year the earth had the so called "perfect climate" to which we need to go back to and how the present proposals of al gore will get us back to that?
Climate change or not, we need to start adapting to our planets limited resources. We most likely already hit peak oil and with the exponential growth of the population and the economy of the world we're headed towards nothing less than disaster. The system is going to collapse when our beloved growth comes to a halt most of which is dependent on our fossil fuel consumption.
Even if this whole climate debacle turns out to be a hoax(which I seriously doubt at this point) it still serves as a good motivator to change our ways.
-
Climate change or not, we need to start adapting to our planets limited resources. We most likely already hit peak oil and with the exponential growth of the population and the economy of the world we're headed towards nothing less than disaster. The system is going to collapse when our beloved growth comes to a halt most of which is dependent on our fossil fuel consumption.
Even if this whole climate debacle turns out to be a hoax(which I seriously doubt at this point) it still serves as a good motivator to change our ways.
So taxing ourselves more and giving the money to corrupt govt thugs like Obama, Al Gore, Pelosi, Clinton, Bush, Newt, Putin, Merkel, Dragi, Monti, Chavez, et al is going to do anything but make those thugs and their friends rich?
Do you seriously believe that placing more power into the hands of the govt is going to fix this make believe "crisis"?
-
i see you have a very strong emotional rejection to the idea that modern technologies can be harmful to the environment
nobody is saying we need to revert to the stone age, dont worry champ
what we are saying is that the science is very clear, the earth is getting warmer, along with many other potentially harmful things, and all of it is being caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases.
what the solution is, what the potential damage will be... these are after thoughts. first we just want the world and its rulers to understand this, to understand what is happening and why its happening.
but the extinction rate has increased more than 1,000 fold in the past century. ice caps are melting. the oceans are turning more acidic. ect.
what climate should we go back to? ummmm... the climate we had 500 years ago maybe ?? :-X
-
i see you have a very strong emotional rejection to the idea that modern technologies can be harmful to the environment
nobody is saying we need to revert to the stone age, dont worry champ
what we are saying is that the science is very clear, the earth is getting warmer, along with many other potentially harmful things, and all of it is being caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases.
what the solution is, what the potential damage will be... these are after thoughts. first we just want the world and its rulers to understand this, to understand what is happening and why its happening.
but the extinction rate has increased more than 1,000 fold in the past century. ice caps are melting. the oceans are turning more acidic. ect.
what climate should we go back to? ummmm... the climate we had 500 years ago maybe ?? :-X
So far, every single policy advocated by people involved in the global warming nonsense is:
1. higher taxes
2. less freedom
3. less choice
4. less privacy
5. more regulation
6. more crony corruption
Etc etc. No thanks. I'll take my chances while the rest of you build your green communist utopia
-
So taxing ourselves more and giving the money to corrupt govt thugs like Obama, Al Gore, Pelosi, Clinton, Bush, Newt, Putin, Merkel, Dragi, Monti, Chavez, et al is going to do anything but make those thugs and their friends rich?
Do you seriously believe that placing more power into the hands of the govt is going to fix this make believe "crisis"?
wtf are you talking about? I said nothing about taxes or governments. Epic strawman. I don't claim to know the solution to the climate issues we've got but I say it's wise to at least acknowledge them and not stick your head up your own ass.
If you know anything about exponential growth then you'd know that we're headed for very turbulent times, climate change or not.
-
So far, every single policy advocated by people involved in the global warming nonsense is:
1. higher taxes
2. less freedom
3. less choice
4. less privacy
5. more regulation
6. more crony corruption
Etc etc. No thanks. I'll take my chances while the rest of you build your green communist utopia
I guess the ozone layer doesn't matter to you either? Or widespread led poisoning? If only governments had stayed outta our way ::)
-
So far, every single policy advocated by people involved in the global warming nonsense is:
1. higher taxes
no
2. less freedom
sure. but laws against murder also cause less freedom.
3. less choice
sure. but laws against child pornography also cause less choice.
4. less privacy
no
5. more regulation
yes
6. more crony corruption
no
Etc etc. No thanks. I'll take my chances while the rest of you build your green communist utopia
-
Oh go Fluke yourself. You can't answer my question because it completly destroys every aspect and facet of this nonsensical issue.
"Climate Change" and "Global Warming" are little more than a nother contrived "crisis" by far leftist special interest groups seeking control over the population and a way to suck more $$$$ out of hard working people.
There is no one answer to your idiotic question. But, if there could be a way of determining it, it would be through science, not by the ridiculous deflective/evasive derp you spew. Oh brother.
-
wtf are you talking about? I said nothing about taxes or governments. Epic strawman. I don't claim to know the solution to the climate issues we've got but I say it's wise to at least acknowledge them and not stick your head up your own ass.
If you know anything about exponential growth then you'd know that we're headed for very turbulent times, climate change or not.
These are all points held dear by the GOP, the corporate party of invasive big business. 3.14 has no real ideas about them per se, he's just parroting/cutting-and-pasting the party line.
-
There is no one answer to your idiotic question. But, if there could be a way of determining it, it would be through science, not by the ridiculous deflective/evasive derp you spew. Oh brother.
Again - very simple - tell me the so called "solution" to the so called "crisis", what it will cost and what impact it will have in solving the so called "crisis"
Save your high minded bullshit for others too stupid to see through that nonsense and give me a straight answer.
Cap n Trade?
Carbon tax?
Driving restrictions?
Flying restrictions?
hhhmmmm?????
-
Again - very simple - tell me the so called "solution" to the so called "crisis", what it will cost and what impact it will have in solving the so called "crisis"
Save your high minded bullshit for others too stupid to see through that nonsense and give me a straight answer.
Cap n Trade?
Carbon tax?
Driving restrictions?
Flying restrictions?
hhhmmmm?????
There is no simple answer. This isn't like fixing a flat tire, or darning a sock; there are no quick fixes. Maybe, it's the complexity of the issue at hand which overwhelms your underpowered brain.
-
Again - very simple - tell me the so called "solution" to the so called "crisis", what it will cost and what impact it will have in solving the so called "crisis"
Save your high minded bullshit for others too stupid to see through that nonsense and give me a straight answer.
Cap n Trade?
Carbon tax?
Driving restrictions?
Flying restrictions?
hhhmmmm?????
It's unrealistic to expect that taxes, caps or technological advancements are going to save our asses out of this mess. They may prolong our economic growth but only temporarily. The main root of the problem is our ever growing population. How do you take care of that in a humane way? I don't have the slightest clue.
-
ill play.
absolutely no fossil fuel burning or greenhouse gas releasing technologies may be commercially produced on the planet starting in the year 2015.
for a start
-
ill play.
absolutely no fossil fuel burning or greenhouse gas releasing technologies may be commercially produced on the planet starting in the year 2015.
for a start
Only hypothetical and will never, ever, happen.
-
It's unrealistic to expect that taxes, caps or technological advancements are going to save our asses out of this mess. They may prolong our economic growth but only temporarily. The main root of the problem is our ever growing population. How do you take care of that in a humane way? I don't have the slightest clue.
http://www.real-science.com/2012-0-6c-cooler-2010
-
Only hypothetical and will never, ever, happen.
dont be so damn cynical :P
-
ill play.
absolutely no fossil fuel burning or greenhouse gas releasing technologies may be commercially produced on the planet starting in the year 2015.
for a start
And plunge us back into the stone age - thank you for your honesty. Far more will die from starvation, freezing to death, over heating in the summer, as a result of that insanity than ever would with so called climate change.
-
http://www.real-science.com/2012-0-6c-cooler-2010
How is that even supposed to be an argument against what I said?
-
And plunge us back into the stone age - thank you for your honesty. Far more will die from starvation, freezing to death, over heating in the summer, as a result of that insanity than ever would with so called climate change.
::)
-
How is that even supposed to be an argument against what I said?
Wasnt an argument - just showing that the earth is not getting warmer at such rate we need to do what tbmomz want and act as if we have some crisis on our hands.
-
Wasnt an argument - just showing that the earth is not getting warmer at such rate we need to do what tbmomz want and act as if we have some crisis on our hands.
Ok. Fascinating.....
But seriously, what do you think about the FACT that the global population is growing at an ever increasing rate and we already most likely hit peak oil? You can't Obama-bash your way out of that one. You're stuck on this planet.
-
http://www.real-science.com/2012-0-6c-cooler-2010
'Real' science doesn't have a politically slanted web-site. ::)
-
Wasnt an argument - just showing that the earth is not getting warmer at such rate we need to do what tbmomz want and act as if we have some crisis on our hands.
::) year to year data is irrelevant, what matters is long term trends.
-
'Real' science doesn't have a politically slanted web-site. ::)
LMFAO! And the so called "climate scientists" who have proven frauds and liars are to be trusted correct? ::) ::) ::)
-
Good Post.
positioning of earth in space, its rotation etc, the regions of space it's moving in, its distance from the sun, the phenomenons happening on the sun etc, the positionning of the moon and other unknown factors modify the weather and temperatures on earth. Not human activity. When will you fucktards understand.
You re portraying coach as a gullible moron who only gets his informations from fox news yet you re all defending thesis that are exposed...in the medias , press and tv constantly 24/24 7/7 since now years. Who's brainwashed here?
the only thing i know for a fact is that people buy stuff that has a sticker on it saying "this product is green/ earth friendly" and other bullshits which doesnt mean absolutely anything at all, cause recycling isnt even working at a third of its full potential in most civlized countries on earth. This is the purpose of this whole "erath friendly/green /eco" joke. Instillating into ignorant people fears that will make em buy some stuff instead of another to ease their conscience. It's basic pyschology here. Create a need / trend and milk ignorant people.
Also the major polluters on earth are third world countries right now , and no brainwashed hippie from europe or north america is going to do anything about it, it's easier for them to shit on their own politics caring about things that dont even affect their own life simply because they are bored with their nonsensical everyday life and have nothign better do. Hell most of them have kids who hate em cause they cant even love em adequatly, and yet they "care" about "global warming" ? please.
Hadnt you TV and access to the press, you wouldnt even be aware of all this made up stuff. You wouldnt even mind about it. You re all being brainwashed, conditionned by what you re reading, watching, all these repeated conditionnings who always serve only one purpose; make the wallet of someone else bigger.
The more people access these made up informations, the more they convince each others about it, which doesnt mean it's based on any kind of truth, evidence. But because at some point everything, everyone talks about it, you have to be convinced and follow the trend.
-
I bet anyone living on the Eastern Seaboard will def. agree that the 'winter' was almost non-existent. Two dustings all year, no snowfall amounts more than 1 inch anywhere and unseasonably warm.....
-
We probably have accurate weather reports on record for less than 100 years. Yet when ever it's to hot or to cold it's Global Warming. In the past 100 years we have had really brutal winters, storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts and heat waves just like now. On the east coast we have had two brutal winters in a row followed by this winter which was one of the mildest I can ever remember.
-
We probably have accurate weather reports on record for less than 100 years. Yet when ever it's to hot or to cold it's Global Warming. In the past 100 years we have had really brutal winters, storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts and heat waves just like now. On the east coast we have had two brutal winters in a row followed by this winter which was one of the mildest I can ever remember.
yes, more extreme weather, both extremely cold and extremely hot, is part of the process. worldwide average temperature goes up while year to year and season to season fluctuations become more extreme. global warming is the major long term trend. there are several major problems associated with increased green house gases though. not all of them have to do with temperature either. weather systems, the oceanic ecosystem, etc etc.
-
I bet anyone living on the Eastern Seaboard will def. agree that the 'winter' was almost non-existent. Two dustings all year, no snowfall amounts more than 1 inch anywhere and unseasonably warm.....
Middle of Canada here and in my 40+ years I've never seen warm weather like we've had the last few years. Climate change rocks.
-
I have an idea -
Lets send all our $ $ $ $ to the govt, turn out the lights, turn out the heater, stop driving, stop eating, stop farming, stop producing etc to combat something that has been going on since the planet has existed. ::)
Fuck off and stop making sense
-
Yes one 3 month window in one country great picture of global warming. ::)
Idiot repub.
-
Coach you don't know what you're talking about.
The climate is a complex fuxking system, for all we know its going to rebound and reach record highs in a few months.
Please PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE... just stop :'(
Please just a few more months Coach, the climate Apocalypse is coming, I know we have been saying it for 40 years, but I am sure it is only a few more months, please Coach, just bear with our BS just a few more months, you'll see, You'll see it's true, just wait, you'll see!
-
Below average temperatures this summer in Australia
-
ill play.
absolutely no fossil fuel burning or greenhouse gas releasing technologies may be commercially produced on the planet starting in the year 2015.
for a start
well that would be perhaps the biggest economic disaster of our times, world economy would collapse overnight.