More nails to the coffin on Global Warming Alarmists? - General

Easiest way to solve this discussion: [b]We're fucking insignificant specks on a small rock orbiting a small sun that is a part of a star system that is part of a galazy and so on and so on.[/b]

The thing about "The inconvenient truth" that never made sence to me was when he showed the graph of the CO2 and temperature and the correlation between the 2, but the thing was he made a big deal out of how in recent times the heat no longer followed the CO2's path and instead went sharply up, to me that says the temperature change isn't related to CO2.

[QUOTE=40kplayer;18596408]Easiest way to solve this discussion: [b]We're fucking insignificant specks on a small rock orbiting a small sun that is a part of a star system that is part of a galazy and so on and so on.[/b][/QUOTE] thanks for your philosophy 101 imput. You're, like, blowing my mind man [QUOTE=GunsNRoses;18596428]The thing about "The inconvenient truth" that never made sence to me was when he showed the graph of the CO2 and temperature and the correlation between the 2, but the thing was he made a big deal out of how in recent times the heat no longer followed the CO2's path and instead went sharply up, to me that says the temperature change isn't related to CO2.[/QUOTE] read the thread, we've been over this

@Sigma, yeah i read through it now. It did remind me of something quite ironic, well the majority of pollution a car makes is actually in the production of it, not in the driving of it. Hybrid cars make more pollution than a normal car ever will due to the fact that much more pollution is made during its production. Anyway yeah i don't think its man made, but pollution is still a bad thing nonetheless.

[QUOTE=GunsNRoses;18596551] Anyway yeah i don't think its man made,[/QUOTE] congrats on ignoring all of the scientific evidence then??

[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;18591879]1. No, that's stupid. You're saying the sun just so happened to start rapidly increasing in size and temperature during the industrial revolution? 2. No they didn't. [editline]02:28AM[/editline] He's funny he must be right.[/QUOTE] The sun IS constantly expanding and heating up, but not at a rate that would be very noticeable over a hundred or two years as you pointed out. However it is considerably hotter and brighter than when the dinosaurs were around, for example.

this is all bulshit, the GLobal warming that is. here's why: [QUOTE=Idi Amin;18592842] Global warming is natural. It happened in the past and it will happen again. Climate cycles is the proper term.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=rilez;18593001]global warming is just as real as global cooling.[/QUOTE] since year 0 we've had 4 mini ice ages, each of these have a gap period of 4-500 years, of these about 100 years are exceptionally hot. we've just started measuring temperatures in the mid 1800s. coinsidentially, that's in the middle of a mini ice age, that means we've had temperatures climbing exponentially since back then, more and more each decade and that will continue till late 2100s. now, 1850s coincidentially fall perfectly in line with the global industrialization, burning fuel= greenhouse gasses. how do we know of these mini-ice ages if we couldn't meassure it?. well, among historic texts, hints of the current weather are written, ofcourse these notes covers more than "todays forecast" they cover the weather of the current generation. also, the weather wasn't the focus of the text, ít was just mentioned while telling whatever event. for example, tales from northern countries at around 1300s relate of wars and happenings in harsh extreme weathers, but 300 years later the land is frutatious and crops don't freeze during the winter. we're talking northern europe here, it's cold as fuck! of course there are notes more reliable and closer to the 1600s and some from the roman empire and the greek states. the first thing that should be done when natural "disasters" or anomalies happen is to check if it ever happened before. they do it all the time with vulcanoes, why start a panic? well there are two posibilities: 1. they're frightened as hell and didn't check anything before crying wolf, happened before. 2. it's good for us anyway to go green and this is about the only thing that could force us. [QUOTE=dryer-lint;18593067][img]http://austcom.org.au/uploads/pics/CO2-Temp.jpg[/img] .[/QUOTE] the curve is right, but the Y axis data is bullshit, yes it fits, but do they show the 30 years prior? no, why'd they want to show an exponential curve climbing from before we started burning exessively? that would ruin their arguments and why ever take prior mini ice-ages into account? "because it's bullshit, and you know it!" -Penn Gilette [QUOTE=dryer-lint;18593247]Here's a pretty long graph. You have to read it right to left though. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png[/img] At least validates CO2 as a greenhouse gas.[/QUOTE] because we burned exessively 5000 years ago... this post is a waste of my time, you've allready been smart enough to talk about this, well i'll leave it here anyway. if you think i'm late, herp...

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18596584]congrats on ignoring all of the scientific evidence then??[/QUOTE] wrong scientific evidence? do i believe in global warming? no do i believe in "global change"? yes

I'm quite surprised about FP's climate change denial stance, I thought we were a sensible bunch. [editline]08:54PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Bomimo;18599930]since year 0 we've had 4 mini ice ages, each of these have a gap period of 4-500 years, of these about 100 years are exceptionally hot. we've just started measuring temperatures in the mid 1800s. coinsidentially, that's in the middle of a mini ice age, that means we've had temperatures climbing exponentially since back then, more and more each decade and that will continue till late 2100s. now, 1850s coincidentially fall perfectly in line with the global industrialization, burning fuel= greenhouse gasses. how do we know of these mini-ice ages if we couldn't meassure it?. well, among historic texts, hints of the current weather are written, ofcourse these notes covers more than "todays forecast" they cover the weather of the current generation. also, the weather wasn't the focus of the text, ít was just mentioned while telling whatever event. for example, tales from northern countries at around 1300s relate of wars and happenings in harsh extreme weathers, but 300 years later the land is frutatious and crops don't freeze during the winter. we're talking northern europe here, it's cold as fuck! of course there are notes more reliable and closer to the 1600s and some from the roman empire and the greek states.[/QUOTE] [img]http://imgkk.com/i/Y-p.png[/img] I see what you mean bro

global warming exsists. the thing that pissess me off is people saying " its all your fault turn those fucking lights off or the planet will blow up". We are a tiny , tiny contributor. as in around a single percent. if we stop , global warming / cooling will continue. it's a natural process anyway.

Rouge scientist syndrome.

[QUOTE=schrollbach;18604353]wrong scientific evidence? [/QUOTE] lol yes, you, internet forums poster schrollbach, knows more about climatology than all of those scientists with their bullshit "college degrees." [editline]08:53PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Hemroid_Man;18605176] We are a tiny , tiny contributor. as in around a single percent. if we stop , global warming / cooling will continue. it's a natural process anyway.[/QUOTE] one percent huh? make sure to wipe that number down (I am implying that you pulled it out of your ass [you did]) [editline]08:53PM[/editline] [QUOTE=fritzel;18605436]Rouge scientist syndrome.[/QUOTE] hey you're fritzel learn to spell "rogue" and then get out [editline]09:09PM[/editline] now listen to me you scrubs: you post on a video game forum. The people who developed the concept of global climate change have college degrees. [b][url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686]THERE IS AN OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS THAT GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL, AND MAN MADE.[/url][/b] [url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041108213307.htm]Source 2[/url] [url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041108213307.htm]http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf]Source 3[/url] [url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041108213307.htm]http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate-change-final.pdf]Source 4[/url] [url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041108213307.htm]http://www.inqua.tcd.ie/documents/iscc.pdf]Source 5[/url] now unless you guys, many of whom are still in highschool, are about to tell me that you know more about climatology than tens of thousands of people who spent years of their life gaining a degree, and decades studying the climate, I don't think you really have the footing to come in here and say what you are.

No, but aren't you also forgetting there are scientists who don't agree that it's entirely humanities fault as you put it?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;18611848]No, but aren't you also forgetting there are scientists who don't agree that it's entirely humanities fault as you put it?[/QUOTE] yes: a tiny, tiny fraction, many of whom are bankrolled by corporate think tanks like the CATO institute regardless, what makes those few scientists who disagree any more valid than the ones who do believe it is real and anthropogenic? deniers will post a chart by one scientist supposedly showing that global warming isn't real, but when someone posts a chart by an entire scientific institute that contradicts it, they refuse to believe or consider it. You're choosing who you want to believe, rather than believing them based on merit. Yes, there are some scientists who don't believe that global warming is real or man made, but they are a small minority with much less evidence to their side.

Oh, I have no doubt it's real. It certainly is. Is it all our fault? No. It isn't. Key word, all. Yeah, we affect it, not enough that we've suddenly fucked ourselves into a corner.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;18612012]Oh, I have no doubt it's real. It certainly is. Is it all our fault? No. It isn't.[/QUOTE] see, here you go again "I believe in it, but I don't believe it's our fault" But the people who are saying that it is real are also the people that are saying that it is man made. Your argument makes no sense from a logical standpoint because you're choosing to believe half of what a group of people are saying, but totally refusing to believe the the other half of their argument, despite the fact that their argument is a whole, not two separate parts, with equally valid evidence for all sides of it. if you read the sources I posted rather than just replying immediately, you'd see that there is just enough evidence for it being man made as there is for it existing. [editline]09:35PM[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;18612012] Key word, all. Yeah, we affect it, not enough that we've suddenly fucked ourselves into a corner.[/QUOTE] how do you justify saying this? how is it right that you believe what the scientists say when they say "global warming is real", but then totally ignore them when they say "...and it is man-made"? It's like saying "Yeah, I believe evolution is real. But I don't believe it happens in nature." Both parts of the theory are indivisible from one another, they're two aspects of the same scientific theory. You can't just subtract one from the other on a whim.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18612082]see, here you go again "I believe in it, but I don't believe it's our fault" But the people who are saying that it is real are also the people that are saying that it is man made. Your argument makes no sense from a logical standpoint because you're choosing to believe half of what a group of people are saying, but totally refusing to believe the the other half of their argument, despite the fact that their argument is a whole, not two separate parts, with equally valid evidence for all sides of it. if you read the sources I posted rather than just replying immediately, you'd see that there is just enough evidence for it being man made as there is for it existing. [editline]09:35PM[/editline] how do you justify saying this? how is it right that you believe what the scientists say when they say "global warming is real", but then totally ignore them when they say "...and it is man-made"? It's like saying "Yeah, I believe evolution is real. But I don't believe it happens in nature." Both parts of the theory are indivisible from one another, they're two aspects of the same scientific theory. You can't just subtract one from the other on a whim.[/QUOTE] Because the earth totally can't have climate cycles...

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;18612836]Because the earth totally can't have climate cycles...[/QUOTE] stop it. you're embarrassing yourself yes the earth has climate cycles, but again, if you had actually read any of the articles I had linked, you'd see that what is going on right now isn't one of them. It is far too rapid, and directly in proportion to the advent of the usage of fossil fuels.

[QUOTE=Kondor;18591698]I don't see what's wrong about saying global warming is worse than it is[/QUOTE] The Goverment/s feeding false data is wrong. I don't care if they're inflating the number of violent murderers or the impact of global warming, just because the data's subject is alarming or bad doesn't change the fact we're being mislead. Note: I'm not really on either side of the climate change discussion, it's most likely happening but I frankly don't care too much, if my country switches to all renewable energy or makes new recycling quotas I'd stick to them I just don't see a point in me, a single person with no political power getting worried when it's not in my control.

but the data isn't false so your argument is sorta moot v:shobon:v

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18611476] [QUOTE=fritzel;18605436]Rouge scientist syndrome.[/QUOTE] learn to spell "rogue" and then get out [/QUOTE] hahahahhah, you're all "IMA GRAMMA NAZI YO ASS" and "IT'S NOT ROUGE IT'S ROGUE ROLF" in fact it's rougue. [QUOTE=smurfy;18604462]I'm quite surprised about FP's climate change denial stance, I thought we were a sensible bunch. [editline]08:54PM[/editline] [img]http://imgkk.com/i/Y-p.png[/img] I see what you mean bro[/QUOTE] are you trying to gun me down or support me? anyway, yes. my numbers were off my general point still stands. if this graph really is legitimate (i don't even know if those graphs i quoted were pulled out of a donkeys ass), then i am not mistaken. we didn't burn anything at year 1000. neither at the earlier mini-warm period, or the one before that. i can promise you, worse heat periods has passed by than this one. i still think going green is a fantastic idea, if people could get off their asses they wouldn't need to spin this shit up. they're not looking at the past on purpose, and it fucking works. and could you get a legend for that graph? it looks like the black line's just been plastered on by some "mr. Epic" to make it look like epic truth.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;18639539]hahahahhah, you're all "IMA GRAMMA NAZI YO ASS" and "IT'S NOT ROUGE IT'S ROGUE ROLF" in fact it's rougue. [/QUOTE] that's the english spelling you tit

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18611476]lol yes, you, internet forums poster schrollbach, knows more about climatology than all of those scientists with their bullshit "college degrees."[/QUOTE] was referring to the CRU "fudging" numbers to more clearly point out the heating not so much doubting their abilities, just fyi.