Global "Warming" Updated

[DaneykoIsGod]

DanoIsgod - The lack of scientific data for the global cooling thang in the 1970s spurred the intense research that has lead people to discover the world is in fact warming. Comparing the two isn

[devilsadvoc8]

Hahaha! I posted that before I saw you responded (LOOK AT THE TIME STAMP) ... true I was anticipating --- funny how you chose to respond to this post though instead of the one where I actually responded to the post your waxing all hot air balloon over - how weird are you? This is what I mean though -- you guys dont read all the way through... it's weird - you post in here solely to be agitated. It's your CHOICE you really choose to be all wound up. now that's just amusing for others - do you have brothers? They must have a field day with you.

You greatly overestimate my agitation with your posts, pk. I actually find them amusing. So, what you are saying is that I should consider what you are typing at the same time I am since our posts came out at the same time?

[Devilish34]

That's what I'm talkin' about!

Only the rich can afford that sh!t -- we're talking Chevron rich the global warming parachute, man...

I like rich people but thats not "rich" thats crazy

[Pepperkorn]

But it actually WAS cooler in the '70s than it was in the '40s. Pollution was a convenient thing to blame it on since there was more of it in the air in the '70s than there was in the '40s (TIME freaking Magazine had a story about it). Now that it's warmer in the '00s than it was in the '70s, and there is more CO2 in the air in the '00s than there was in the '70s, it is once again the easy target. On the part of the so-called experts, this is incredibly lazy science. On the part of the profiteering scumbags taking advantage of this, it's douchebaggery defined.

Neither of those links work.

Temperature isn't a reliable predictor of climate change in the short term. 100 years is massively short term - 30 is a blip - that's why the conclusions drawn spurred the more in depth research. Even what they have now isn't conclusive.

Thanks for telling me about the links -- I'll fix or repost working links!

As for profiteering - there isn't any profit. People aren't creating some fear mongering scheme to make some cash. If it was that easy this all would be in place - the gas crisis in the 70s would have been enough!

I think it's insane to place a cow tax on farms because of methane emissions, so it's not like I think anything pro-environment is just swell and logical. Most of it sucks - but that doesn't mean there is no problem. Do you think the automotive industry and the fossil fuel industry isn't currently making all this money you guys are hollering about? It willnot change the impact on your lives if the money you're already dishing out changes hands to a more responsible pro-environment corporation. Do you want to keep paying out to the corporations destroying the ecology as opposed to -- this is just insane I'm not even having this discussion.

I dont give a sh!t how the problem is solved. People have to admit there is one to start with. That was the point of my stupid paragraph. WHO CARES who's making the money -- the money is being sucked out of our hides regardless - I'd rather not pay for the privilege of sh!tting up the planet - if some a$$hole gets rich keeping it clean how is that more ethically wrong?

You guys are not listening to yourselves. advoc8 is off his fvcking head saying I've climbed on some erudite pedestal -- HEY a$$holE - YOU'RE THE ONE ME WHO ASKED FOR THE SCIENTIFIC sh!t! What are you just pissed I have it? Pissed I'm not some jerk off, going off half-cocked based on one single stupid movie?

DGod - I respect you're inclination to question. I think that we're in agreement. I just take the problem a littl emore seriously and don't really care who gets rich because I see we're all getting effed in the a as it stands - better to not have the planet taking it up the ass as well so some dick can feel important.

Littleton - you're a naturalist, a hunter - I know you see first hand what industry is doing to our ecology. and you're more or less in agreement with Republicans. I'm sure you get the same hunting and land management magazines I do... you see there's a problem. We'd have a whole other debate that I think at the end of the day would come down to a simple - Because we're smarter and more responsible yeah - we have to suck it up - not drive a huge truck and not overpopulate the earth while our lesser-educated fvcknuts get to do whatever they want.

I'd rather move on to those types of discussions instead of this nonsense about it all being a myth forwarded by fear mongers on a money making endeavor -- there are far better schemes for making money than "Global Warming" - just ask Bernie Madoff -- Anyhow until we get beyond the myth thing, there will be no progress in this thread - on this topic until people admit there IS a problem. and if no one wants to do that then it's stupid to even write about - it's just -- dumb, hollow - a total waste of time especially when people get their feelings all hurt because they skimmed (ehem - you need siblings advoc8 -- or were you always the one trapped in the basement, getting the wedgie, the monkey in the middle? Sucks being the It brother...Seriously, you have to hone your goat getting skills!)

Edited January 7, 2009 by Pepperkorn

[DaneykoIsGod]

Temperature isn't a reliable predictor of climate change in the short term. 100 years is massively short term - 30 is a blip - that's why the conclusions drawn spurred the more in depth research. Even what they have now isn't conclusive.

If this is all about trying to predict the future climate, then it's a lost cause.

DGod - I respect you're inclination to question. I think that we're in agreement. I just take the problem a littl emore seriously and don't really care who gets rich because I see we're all getting effed in the a as it stands - better to not have the planet taking it up the ass as well so some dick can feel important.

Ya know, I always tend to get into these debates with someone (whether it be online or in person) and end up debating two completely different aspects of the actual topic. I'm saying that carbon emissions aren't the cause of changes in our climate and that douchey asshats like Gore (who you've already said you don't care for) are, well, douchey asshats. Meanwhile you're saying that, who cares who gets rich and who cares about the details, you want to see everyone treat the planet better. Would you say that's accurate?

[RowdyFan42]

Ya know, I always tend to get into these debates with someone (whether it be online or in person) and end up debating two completely different aspects of the actual topic. I'm saying that carbon emissions aren't the cause of changes in our climate and that douchey asshats like Gore (who you've already said you don't care for) are, well, douchey asshats. Meanwhile you're saying that, who cares who gets rich and who cares about the details, you want to see everyone treat the planet better. Would you say that's accurate?

It is accurate because that's pretty much where we are. It's like I was trying to say earlier (to apparently deaf ears); you guys are still trying to debunk "An Inconvenient Truth", partly because of the science and partly because Al Gore's involved, while the rest of us have moved on past that into a more general environmentalist vein. We've more or less conceded that Al Gore is indeed an asshat but we really don't care about that because it's about so much more than Al Gore. If he gets rich off of this, fine, but that's just a piece of the big picture. You guys are stuck on the small picture and saying that this small picture invalidates the big picture and we're all wasting our time trying to lessen our impact on the planet. And that's where the disconnect comes in; we don't understand why anyone would still be focused on Al Gore unless they have a partisan axe to grind, and you apparently don't understand why we're looking at the forest instead of the trees.

[Pepperkorn]

If this is all about trying to predict the future climate, then it's a lost cause.

You missed the point entirely - relegating climate research to a lost cause this early in the game is ridiculous. I think you need to read what types of data analysis are currently going on to more accurately predict our climate history. Archaeology is not a precise research because no one was there -- no one knows for sure - do you think that's a lost cause as well? That's the sort of wiseass non-productive response you just gave me.

Ya know, I always tend to get into these debates with someone (whether it be online or in person) and end up debating two completely different aspects of the actual topic. I'm saying that carbon emissions aren't the cause of changes in our climate and that douchey asshats like Gore (who you've already said you don't care for) are, well, douchey asshats. Meanwhile you're saying that, who cares who gets rich and who cares about the details, you want to see everyone treat the planet better. Would you say that's accurate?

Again, you're being a wiseass - you're over-stating how far apart we are - but that's OK - I understand your frustration and I appreciate your articulating what you're getting out of this. I've been dealing solely with your assclown Al Gore point and you feel frustrated that I am not dealing with your assertion that carbon emissions are not significantly contributing to the apparent abrupt climate change we're dealing with. I'm not familiar with Al Gore's movie and I really didn't care about all the anti-Gore propaganda posted in this thread, so the whole carbon emissions facet is lost on me.

Carbon emissions are but the tip of the ice berg! I think that the seeking out and use of fossil fuels is destructive ALL THE WAY AROUND - - and in the end pretty much useless - I appreciate the necessity of having what have now -- and making use of what we've already tapped into - we'll need something to fill the void while technology develops alternate solutions to fuel. So I do not support seeking out and drilling for new supply of fuel - our time is better spent investing in alternative energy.

Edited January 7, 2009 by Pepperkorn

[Pepperkorn]

It is accurate because that's pretty much where we are. It's like I was trying to say earlier (to apparently deaf ears); you guys are still trying to debunk "An Inconvenient Truth", partly because of the science and partly because Al Gore's involved, while the rest of us have moved on past that into a more general environmentalist vein. We've more or less conceded that Al Gore is indeed an asshat but we really don't care about that because it's about so much more than Al Gore. If he gets rich off of this, fine, but that's just a piece of the big picture. You guys are stuck on the small picture and saying that this small picture invalidates the big picture and we're all wasting our time trying to lessen our impact on the planet. And that's where the disconnect comes in; we don't understand why anyone would still be focused on Al Gore unless they have a partisan axe to grind, and you apparently don't understand why we're looking at the forest instead of the trees.

and by the way --- what he said

[devilsadvoc8]

Temperature isn't a reliable predictor of climate change in the short term. 100 years is massively short term - 30 is a blip - that's why the conclusions drawn spurred the more in depth research. Even what they have now isn't conclusive.

Thanks for telling me about the links -- I'll fix or repost working links!

As for profiteering - there isn't any profit. People aren't creating some fear mongering scheme to make some cash. If it was that easy this all would be in place - the gas crisis in the 70s would have been enough!

I think it's insane to place a cow tax on farms because of methane emissions, so it's not like I think anything pro-environment is just swell and logical. Most of it sucks - but that doesn't mean there is no problem. Do you think the automotive industry and the fossil fuel industry isn't currently making all this money you guys are hollering about? It willnot change the impact on your lives if the money you're already dishing out changes hands to a more responsible pro-environment corporation. Do you want to keep paying out to the corporations destroying the ecology as opposed to -- this is just insane I'm not even having this discussion.

I dont give a sh!t how the problem is solved. People have to admit there is one to start with. That was the point of my stupid paragraph. WHO CARES who's making the money -- the money is being sucked out of our hides regardless - I'd rather not pay for the privilege of sh!tting up the planet - if some a$$hole gets rich keeping it clean how is that more ethically wrong?

You guys are not listening to yourselves. advoc8 is off his fvcking head saying I've climbed on some erudite pedestal -- HEY a$$holE - YOU'RE THE ONE ME WHO ASKED FOR THE SCIENTIFIC sh!t! What are you just pissed I have it? Pissed I'm not some jerk off, going off half-cocked based on one single stupid movie?

DGod - I respect you're inclination to question. I think that we're in agreement. I just take the problem a littl emore seriously and don't really care who gets rich because I see we're all getting effed in the a as it stands - better to not have the planet taking it up the ass as well so some dick can feel important.

Littleton - you're a naturalist, a hunter - I know you see first hand what industry is doing to our ecology. and you're more or less in agreement with Republicans. I'm sure you get the same hunting and land management magazines I do... you see there's a problem. We'd have a whole other debate that I think at the end of the day would come down to a simple - Because we're smarter and more responsible yeah - we have to suck it up - not drive a huge truck and not overpopulate the earth while our lesser-educated fvcknuts get to do whatever they want.

I'd rather move on to those types of discussions instead of this nonsense about it all being a myth forwarded by fear mongers on a money making endeavor -- there are far better schemes for making money than "Global Warming" - just ask Bernie Madoff -- Anyhow until we get beyond the myth thing, there will be no progress in this thread - on this topic until people admit there IS a problem. and if no one wants to do that then it's stupid to even write about - it's just -- dumb, hollow - a total waste of time especially when people get their feelings all hurt because they skimmed (ehem - you need siblings advoc8 -- or were you always the one trapped in the basement, getting the wedgie, the monkey in the middle? Sucks being the It brother...Seriously, you have to hone your goat getting skills!)

Interesting reply Pk. Too bad you are off base. #1 I didn't ask you for any "SCIENTIFIC sh!t" See post 75 in this thread if you need a refresher of facts. I plainly asked you multiple times if you actually believed that there was no money to be made from the advocates of anthropogenic climate change group. The erudite pedestal comments were based upon simultaneous posts regarding a paragraph you considered deleting (see your jan 6 2:04 post).

I continue to be amused by your statements regarding profiteering. In your third paragraph of the above quoted post you say "there isn't any profit" but then in the fourth paragraph you indicate "WHO CARES who's making the money " which insinuates that there is profit to be made. Which is it PK?

On to the topic at hand: You state above that even 100 hundred years of temperature data is not conclusive yet even an aggressive time span of the current warming trend starts in the 1950s, let alone positive attribution to mankind. What you fail to realize is that most of the skeptics in this forum are not anti-conservation and anti-environment. The skeptics are however, against laws, taxes and other requirements that are based upon poor science. The impact to every one of us of something like a cow tax is immense. A cow tax is only the beginning. And yes, I do object to some jackhole profiteering on something that is based on unsound science. Look to the silicone breast implant litigation as a prime example. Bad science ended up significantly impacting a reputable company (and its employees' livelihoods). The lawyers profited immensely in that instance. Skeptics here want solutions backed up by hard science before gravely impacting the economy which is already on one knee.

Renewable energy sources are a good idea. Why not more nuclear? As Eaglejelly brings up, what about population restrictions? Wind farms? Water rationing? Every solution has an associated problem and legislating solutions has a dismal track record. The problem is, I don't think it has been proven that due to action A, climate change X occurred. Further no one can with great certainty state that solution B with cost C will reverse climate change X.

I'll refrain from the dime store psycho analysis that you seem to excel in PK. Carry on!

[Pepperkorn]

Good post advoc8 - I have to go but we're getting closer to a discussion! and I'm glad you've enjoyed my dimestore psychoanalysis! I AM good ain't I?

So I'll try to reply later -- I think we all agree more than we say.

[DaneykoIsGod]

It is accurate because that's pretty much where we are. It's like I was trying to say earlier (to apparently deaf ears); you guys are still trying to debunk "An Inconvenient Truth", partly because of the science and partly because Al Gore's involved, while the rest of us have moved on past that into a more general environmentalist vein. We've more or less conceded that Al Gore is indeed an asshat but we really don't care about that because it's about so much more than Al Gore. If he gets rich off of this, fine, but that's just a piece of the big picture. You guys are stuck on the small picture and saying that this small picture invalidates the big picture and we're all wasting our time trying to lessen our impact on the planet. And that's where the disconnect comes in; we don't understand why anyone would still be focused on Al Gore unless they have a partisan axe to grind, and you apparently don't understand why we're looking at the forest instead of the trees.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. You're saying that the small picture I'm stuck on is Al Gore and Global Warming, while the big picture is our whole impact on the planet, right? PK already called me a wiseass for incorrectly assuming where she was coming from, so I'll wait for a reply until I go further.

Again, you're being a wiseass - you're over-stating how far apart we are - but that's OK - I understand your frustration and I appreciate your articulating what you're getting out of this. I've been dealing solely with your assclown Al Gore point and you feel frustrated that I am not dealing with your assertion that carbon emissions are not significantly contributing to the apparent abrupt climate change we're dealing with. I'm not familiar with Al Gore's movie and I really didn't care about all the anti-Gore propaganda posted in this thread, so the whole carbon emissions facet is lost on me.

I'll try to tie the two together right now: People like Gore make money from the purchase of carbon credits (and carbon credit companies are very secretive about what their revenue actually goes toward). People buy carbon credits because they think carbon emissions are causing Global Warming. Science says that Global Warming is a farce.

That, in a nutshell, is my argument. Of course this is an over-simplification. And for the record, I've never seen his movie either.

Carbon emissions are but the tip of the ice berg! I think that the seeking out and use of fossil fuels is destructive ALL THE WAY AROUND - - and in the end pretty much useless - I appreciate the necessity of having what have now -- and making use of what we've already tapped into - we'll need something to fill the void while technology develops alternate solutions to fuel. So I do not support seeking out and drilling for new supply of fuel - our time is better spent investing in alternative energy.

I agree with everything you said right there.

devilsadvoc8 ... awesome post.

[RowdyFan42]

Please correct me if I'm wrong. You're saying that the small picture I'm stuck on is Al Gore and Global Warming, while the big picture is our whole impact on the planet, right? PK already called me a wiseass for incorrectly assuming where she was coming from, so I'll wait for a reply until I go further.

More or less. And if not you personally, then at least that's the general tone of this thread. Also, I may be wrong, but I think one of the points PK was trying to establish is that there's just as much science supporting man-made global warming as there is debunking it.

[Pepperkorn]

My point is being missed by all but Rowdy. I get what your saying about Gore -- my point is I DO NOT CARE - the point is moot. It is a debate forwarded by those who seek to profit off the continued dependance on fossil fuel -- There! Now our combined truthiness cancels each other out and neither is correct on the who makes money front. but my truthiness (for one thing IS the truth carbon emission ARE real and ARE impacting our atmosphere) is ethically superior because it improves the state of the environment while your truthiness destroys it. If this makes no sense to you or if you choose to be deliberately obtuse why are we even writing here.

So here's one simple question - a Yes/No

Do you think it's good that suppliers of fossil fuels have GIGANTIC profits and will continue to increase these profits as supplies of fossil fuel dwindle?

[Pepperkorn]

More or less. And if not you personally, then at least that's the general tone of this thread. Also, I may be wrong, but I think one of the points PK was trying to establish is that there's just as much science supporting man-made global warming as there is debunking it.

There is significantly MORE research supporting it. The support debunking it is basically based on "but how do you know if that's true" kind of arguing. They have no DATA to support their conclusions - they merely state that the data establishing any CAUSE of abrupt climate change could be seen as marginally speculative (at worst).

Global Climate change is a fact...

That we're in a state of abrupt climate change is widely accepted as fact.

Increased carbon emissions as the cause of this change is MINORLY debated - mostly thanks to big oil trying to deflect the increasingly strong focus on the subject - but

the majority of scientific evidence points to a significant link to the increased use of fossil fuel and the increase in carbon emission from the earth is due to global industrialization.

The debate comes in because you can say it's overpopulation creating the increased emission -- well duh... more people create more carbon emissions (it's what we emit processing oxygen after all) More people driving cars increases emissions further... cutting back on what we all have control over is a start.

Will people choose to cut back on using fossil fuel? It's a fvck of a lot easier and more civilized to legislate the use of fuel than it is to LEGISLATE POPULATION CONTROL which some of you doofuses are honestly advocated just to ensure AL GORE wont profit -- HOW fvckED UP IOS THAT????? AHHHHHHHHHHHHH! You are NOT SERIOUS.... SO THIS IS STUPID...**sigh***

You know this is just stupid -- we've got a$$holes saying it's morally superior to destroy human life than even contemplating supporting research that might create an invention that Al gore might have invested in....

THIs IS JUST SO fvckING STUPID!!!! :argh: :

Man - just admit your being stubborn ass holes and be done with it...stoip tryign to find some moral high ground for your opinion I guess is what I'd really like from you all to be honest.

[devilsadvoc8]

My point is being missed by all but Rowdy. I get what your saying about Gore -- my point is I DO NOT CARE - the point is moot. It is a debate forwarded by those who seek to profit off the continued dependance on fossil fuel -- There! Now our combined truthiness cancels each other out and neither is correct on the who makes money front. but my truthiness (for one thing IS the truth carbon emission ARE real and ARE impacting our atmosphere) is ethically superior because it improves the state of the environment while your truthiness destroys it. If this makes no sense to you or if you choose to be deliberately obtuse why are we even writing here.

So here's one simple question - a Yes/No

Do you think it's good that suppliers of fossil fuels have GIGANTIC profits and will continue to increase these profits as supplies of fossil fuel dwindle?

First of all are you talking about CO2 emissions? If so, the debate about the impact of C02 emissions is far from over so your truthiness about degree of impact is uncertain IMO, eg is it a trailing or leading indicator of temperature? The answer makes a big difference.

To answer your question: YES. Simple economics are holding true here. As soon as you try to mess with basic issues of supply and demand artificially the whole system gets wacked. There are no laws restricting the development of alternative energies. The fact of the matter is that all current alternate supplies basically suck when compared to fossil fuels. As supply dwindles and prices go up, the alternative supplies will become more attractive let alone the advances that will be made in between now and then.

There will be a watershed event in the next 100 years (don't hold me to that , it is a WAG), in which we as denizens of the earth will either have broken down the barriers to cheap alternative sources or our demand for power will have exceeded our ability to supply energy at our current standards of living. It might be a utopia or hell. I have faith in our science and ability to solve issues WITHOUT government morons mucking it up.

[Darwindog]

I think we

[devilsadvoc8]

PK or the dog, your "moral" elitism is staggering. You seek to define my motivation and thought process from within your own flawed mindview. Simply, you are wrong but it appears that that won't stop you. Perhaps the dog should stick to its strengths (sniffing crotches and chasing squirrels) instead of debates.

[Nature's Minister]

it was really cold outside today

there is no such thing as global warming because of this evidence

[devilsadvoc8]

it was really cold outside today

there is no such thing as global warming because of this evidence

tru dat

[Devilish34]

it was really cold outside today

there is no such thing as global warming because of this evidence

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

[DevilMinder]

I guess my eventual VT move isn't such a good idea anymore.

[Devilish34]

Just bring you skis

[DaneykoIsGod]

More or less. And if not you personally, then at least that's the general tone of this thread. Also, I may be wrong, but I think one of the points PK was trying to establish is that there's just as much science supporting man-made global warming as there is debunking it.

That's fair enough. I'll admit that I have an all-encompassing hatred for that wolf in sheep's clothing Al Gore, so sometimes I can be blinded for that. I apologize if my arguments have degenerated to that. But I've been trying to cite those sources debunking Global Warming while I haven't seen anything posted that supports it. At least not anything beyond what I keep referring to as "lazy science."

PK, please don't preach this holier than thou stuff because you label yourself an environmentalist and anyone who thinks Global Warming is BS as an anti-environmentalist. Yes, the planet is getting warmer. But if there is this giant pile of evidence saying that it is because of man, then I must be missing it. All I've seen is lazy science and a rehash of theories that were flawed when they said we were to blame for the planet getting cooler 30 years ago. I'm not debating whether or not we should take better care of the planet. I'm debating that we, as mankind, have no control over our climate. Hell, the temperature is rising on Mars at a similar clip to what we're seeing on earth ... is that because Mars is inhabited by anti-environmentalists too? I'm not sure where the big oil argument comes from ... I've never brought them up once and yet you seem to be painting me as some big oil sympathiser. Oil companies are run by big bags of douche that match the douchiness of those profiting from the lazy science of Global Warming. They all suck.

We need to take better care of our planet. But being told that we are accelerating our own doom by melting ice caps or whatever shouldn't be what provides the impetus to get us to take better care of our planet. We've been destroying the earth and draining its resources long before the Global Warming myth spread. Hell, the Cuyahoga River has caught fire at least three freaking times ... is this not motivation enough for us to clean up our act? Overhunting has devastated entire ecosystems ... is this not motivation enough to look at the big picture? As a race, humankind is responsible for doing all kinds of bad things to the earth, but I'm just not convinced that we are responsible for the weather. If humans were around for the Ice Age, I'm sure there would be a gaggle of lazy scientists willing to slop together theories saying it was all our fault.

[Darwindog]

There will be a watershed event in the next 100 years (don't hold me to that , it is a WAG), in which we as denizens of the earth will either have broken down the barriers to cheap alternative sources or our demand for power will have exceeded our ability to supply energy at our current standards of living. It might be a utopia or hell. I have faith in our science and ability to solve issues WITHOUT government morons mucking it up.

We need to take better care of our planet. But being told that we are accelerating our own doom by melting ice caps or whatever shouldn't be what provides the impetus to get us to take better care of our planet. We've been destroying the earth and draining its resources long before the Global Warming myth spread. Hell, the Cuyahoga River has caught fire at least three freaking times ... is this not motivation enough for us to clean up our act? Overhunting has devastated entire ecosystems ... is this not motivation enough to look at the big picture? As a race, humankind is responsible for doing all kinds of bad things to the earth, but I'm just not convinced that we are responsible for the weather. If humans were around for the Ice Age, I'm sure there would be a gaggle of lazy scientists willing to slop together theories saying it was all our fault.

So that is why you guys fighting against lower carbon emissions then.

Advoc8 believes global warming to be true - that quote says it all in a nutshell. Any rational person can see I

[Darwindog]

“With a low-probability, high-impact event like this . . . If there’s a one percent chance..., we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.”

Would you agree with this statement?

Edited January 13, 2009 by Darwindog