Good listen. I should look for more from this guy.
and that my friends, is the media for you
I love potholer54 his videos are really good.
What most people call a rare occurrence these days in the solar system happen every couple hundred years, and in the solar system, something that happens every few hundred million years apart is rare. this drop in sunspot activity doesn't mean that much for anyone on earth. as a matter of fact, i read a Fox News article back in 05-06 about how sunspots can fry every electronic device on earth and cause the planet to burst into flames.
Honestly, this guy, while right about the Mini Ice Age begin wankous bullshit, sounds like a smug douchebag when he talks about how people think this means Global Warming is bullshit. Just had the coldest winter in many a year, and the summer isn't looking very hot right now.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;30637890]Honestly, this guy, while right about the Mini Ice Age begin wankous bullshit, sounds like a smug douchebag when he talks about how people think this means Global Warming is bullshit. Just had the coldest winter in many a year in Wisconsin, and the summer isn't looking very hot right now.. Gee, I wonder what happened to the polar ice caps melting?[/QUOTE]
You don't really understand how it works, you see, as the icecaps melt, the level of the ocean rises, something which, in this part of the process, actually leads to a slightly colder climate. The polar caps ARE melting, this is fact, but if it's due to man or just a cycle that's been ongoing for several million years is uncertain.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;30637890]Honestly, this guy, while right about the Mini Ice Age begin wankous bullshit, sounds like a smug douchebag when he talks about how people think this means Global Warming is bullshit. Just had the coldest winter in many a year, and the summer isn't looking very hot right now.[/QUOTE]
You don't know what Global Warming is. Global Warming is the rise in AVERAGE temperature over a set amount of time, say, a decade. The average between 1991-2000 is definitely lower than the average between 2001-2010.
Doesn't the reduction of sunspot activity actually correlate with increased solar output?
Fucking media.
Am I the only one who sees the major media as propaganda outlet?
[QUOTE=Strongbad;30637890]Honestly, this guy, while right about the Mini Ice Age begin wankous bullshit, sounds like a smug douchebag when he talks about how people think this means Global Warming is bullshit. Just had the coldest winter in many a year, and the summer isn't looking very hot right now.[/QUOTE]
Ah the typical, "but my city is having the coldest winter ever, the earth isn't warming!"
Unsurprisingly, that ridiculously narrow-minded point of view is incorrect. Just because it's been the coldest winter of the past 30 years doesn't mean [I]average global[/I] temperatures are on the rise. Just like you may have had the coldest winter in your town, a town on the other side of the globe may have had it's warmest winter ever.
Unrelated to your post, I hate people the jump on the conservative pundit buzzword "Global Warming". I recently had a massive argument with a kid in my class. I said global warming is happening. He kept arguing that it wasn't. Of course his argument was the media's definition of global warming. He was thinking of "man-made greenhouse gasses heating the earth." I obviously believe that has a significant impact on global temperatures, but I was arguing global warming, the simple idea that temperatures are on a rise. He then proceeded to show me a graph from some conservative blog that argued greenhouse gases aren't heating the earth. Being the retard he is, the graph clearly showed a rise in global temperatures over the past 25 years at which point I completely destroyed his argument.
[editline]22nd June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Engie;30640041]Am I the only one who sees the major media as propaganda outlet?[/QUOTE]
I don't see the media as that. I see mainstream media sources like Fox News, CNN, etc. as entertainment businesses. They need to keep up ratings. No one wants to hear boring stories so they obviously embellish and draw conclusions on stories. It's sensationalism because it draws in views.
bla bla fucking bla
Daily mail :v:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/XYK5V.png[/img]
[QUOTE=RixxzIV;30638377]if it's due to man or just a cycle that's been ongoing for several million years is uncertain.[/QUOTE]
It's not really uncertain among scientists, only the media and the public:
[img]http://jameswight.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/climate-change-infographic1.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=TH89;30651903]It's not really uncertain among scientists, only the media and the public:
[img]http://jameswight.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/climate-change-infographic1.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
It's because 26% are ignorant of the global scientist conspiracy! :downs:
I thought sunspots were colder spots on the sun. meaning less=warmer temperatures?
My geography professor preferred to call it "climate change" as a more correct term for what we are experiencing. I don't doubt that it exists but what causes it and if its a natural occurrence is up for debate.
I'm not as radical as Al Gore is but I'm pretty sure you can't just affect the environment like we have and not expect some kind of repercussion.
[QUOTE=Saxon;30652109]My geography professor preferred to call it "climate change" as a more correct term for what we are experiencing. I don't doubt that it exists but what causes it and if its a natural occurrence is up for debate.
I'm not as radical as Al Gore is but I'm pretty sure you can't just affect the environment like we have and not expect some kind of repercussion.[/QUOTE]
He's right. Climate Change is the correct term - the phrase "Global Warming" was in fact entirely made up by the media. If you search through the entire scientific literature you won't find a single mention of "Global Warming" except in the context of "that isn't the right phrase".
[QUOTE=Saxon;30652109]My geography professor preferred to call it "climate change" as a more correct term for what we are experiencing. I don't doubt that it exists but what causes it and if its a natural occurrence is up for debate.
I'm not as radical as Al Gore is but I'm pretty sure you can't just affect the environment like we have and not expect some kind of repercussion.[/QUOTE]
you did see the image that was posted just above you, right
because if people who doubt anthropogenic climate change have short term memory loss, im getting the fuck out right now
[QUOTE=TH89;30651903]It's not really uncertain among scientists, only the media and the public:
[img]http://jameswight.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/climate-change-infographic1.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
How about some of those 'climate scientists' actually step forwards and identify themselves? It's well and good to throw up a graph saying 97% believe it, but there's no proof any 'experts' are actually supporting this theory that I've seen.
[editline]23rd June 2011[/editline]
Also, it never ceases to amaze me how many people don't realize that global warming was a publicity stunt by Al Gore, who also claims to have invented the internet.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;30657290]How about some of those 'climate scientists' actually step forwards and identify themselves? It's well and good to throw up a graph saying 97% believe it, but there's no proof any 'experts' are actually supporting this theory that I've seen.[/QUOTE]
I'm afraid there's lots of proof, and you're just out-and-out wrong on this issue. If you pick up any peer-reviewed scientific journal and look through their climate change studies, they all support the consensus that it's caused by humans. Every major scientific institution in the world has issued a statement of support for that consensus. The idea is that there's a huge debate among scientists is a lie.
Here's an article from Science Magazine, one of the two most respected scientific publications in the world (the other is Nature).
[quote]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 (8).
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. [/quote]
Here's the link, so you can check the sources: [url]http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full[/url]
[QUOTE=Strongbad;30657290]Also, it never ceases to amaze me how many people don't realize that global warming was a publicity stunt by Al Gore, who also claims to have invented the internet.[/QUOTE]
1) It's not "Global Warming". It's Anthropogenic Climate Change
2) Climate change was being studied for decades prior to Al Gore's campaign.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;30637890]Honestly, this guy, while right about the Mini Ice Age begin wankous bullshit, sounds like a smug douchebag when he talks about how people think this means Global Warming is bullshit. Just had the coldest winter in many a year, and the summer isn't looking very hot right now.[/QUOTE]
Sounds familiar to Australia's last summer which was abnormally cold and this Winter is the coldest I can recall for some years
[QUOTE=Strongbad;30637890]Honestly, this guy, while right about the Mini Ice Age begin wankous bullshit, sounds like a smug douchebag when he talks about how people think this means Global Warming is bullshit. Just had the coldest winter in many a year, and the summer isn't looking very hot right now.[/QUOTE]
Well we're having the warmest summer in years :colbert:
ever thought that the temperature isn't cyclic, but rather the temperature extremes are the thing that change.
[QUOTE=HiddenMyst;30681022]ever thought that the temperature isn't cyclic, but rather the temperature extremes are the thing that change.[/QUOTE]
First get them to understand what the term "scientific consensus" is. Then convince them it's not a myth fabricated by reptilians from the planet Nibiru.
At first his voice reminded me of John Pilger.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;30637890]Just had the coldest winter in many a year in Wisconsin, and the summer isn't looking very hot right now..[/QUOTE]
i live in wisconsin and all i can say is [b]how in the fuck does this surprise you[/b]
go stand on a soapbox and spout home-brewed conspiracy theories so i can push you off
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
