That's because we know El Nino is natural and not "man made".
[QUOTE=Glaber;20260460]Ah, but they left out trees from Russia that showed cooling.[/QUOTE]
That's because tree rings are being shown to be inaccurate.
As if it even fucking matters, because even if you factor in the trees into the results you still get almost exactly the same outcome.
[QUOTE=Spartex;20252722]Finally, now can we please stop persuing electric vehicles and get back to nice meaty V12 petrol engines.[/QUOTE]
Take a flight down to Mexico City and you'll feel the air pollution, your eyes burn from the smog. Went there on vacation, ungodly horrid.
Regardless of whether or not global warming is real theres no excuse for polluting the air.
[QUOTE=Glaber;20261794]That's because we know El Nino is natural and not "man made".[/QUOTE]
Uh, yes. And that's why the reduction in warming in the last decade or so isn't proof that global warming isn't real. I'm glad to see we agree.
[editline]03:22AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;20261818]Take a flight down to Mexico City and you'll feel the air pollution, your eyes burn from the smog. Went there on vacation, ungodly horrid.
Regardless of whether or not global warming is real theres no excuse for polluting the air.[/QUOTE]
I believe us Los Angelians used to call them "smog tears".
Used the be you could see the fucking cloud trailing the freeways.
[editline]03:24AM[/editline]
And why do any of you motherfuckers keep talking about Al Gore?
He's not a fucking scientist. We all understand this. We know he's a politician who's full of shit. He didn't come up with the fucking idea of global warming. He is completely unrelated to the validity of the theory.
Regardless of whether humans are directly causing climate change or not, I can't imagine that pumping C02, Methane, and all the horrible pollutants that we do into the air is healthy for the earth. Nor can I imagine cutting down gigantic swaths of the rain forest down is healthy either. Humans beings have a duty to take care of our planet.
Whether climate change is as big as some say, we still need to be very careful. The Earth is our home and I would rather die than live in a world that is being ruined by some greedy shits who don't want to invest in healthier technologies.
Like that comic said earlier, what is to lose from creating a better healthier earth?
Global warming is real, anyone who says is false needs to do more research.
Now, who wants to contribute to the society and buy carbon credits to make up poisoning the Earth?
It'll all go to green-friendly projects.
[i]I promise[/i]
:smug:
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;20261914]Global warming is real, anyone who says is false needs to do more research.
Now, who wants to contribute to the society and buy carbon credits to make up poisoning the Earth?
It'll all go to green-friendly projects.
[i]I promise[/i]
:smug:[/QUOTE]
Anyone who buys carbon credits needs to be shot in the foot for being so dumb.
Why does everyone have the idea that Global Warming and Global Warming paraphernalia are completely inseparable?
Do the science labs have a special line of green beakers or some shit?
[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;20261946]Anyone who buys carbon credits needs to be shot in the foot for being so dumb.[/QUOTE]
Don't listen to this man. He's obviously a extreme right-wing conservative whose very oil hungry and wants the whole Earth to be rotting.
The carbon credit prices will start at $50 dollars, donate more to create more Earth friendly power generators. I do not make a single penny.
[i]I promise[/i]
:smug:
[QUOTE=Glaber;20261088]~snip and paste~
got Mark's Source!
[url]http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Oh yes, I remember now. Since 1960, trees stopped having a correlation with other data. While everything else was showing the hockey stick, it was steadily going down. There's been a debate on this for quite some time, many causes were debated to be drought, acid rain, pollution, etc. Dr. Michael Man, is famous for the reconstruction of the global temperatures, 'hockey stick graph.' The graph uses a bunch of indicators, ice cores, coral, historical records and tree-rings. Now, tree-rings were accurate indicator, and followed the rest of them since we've been recording them in 1880. But as I said, in 1960 they started to diverge from the rest of the other indicators. Pollution had it's toll on them. What they did was phase them out and use more accurate instrumental data.
The more you know.
[quote=ocregister]RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.[/quote]
Got a counter for that too. But wait, there's more!
[quote] U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.[/quote]
[quote] AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Glaber;20262281]Got a counter for that too.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't trust Russia to feed my cat, why are we trusting them now, exactly?
And even if that were true, that's just half a degree. What, do you think the climate scientists are laughing twirling their mustaches thinking, "Those fools, haha! They think the globe is actually half a degree warmer than it really is! My evil plans are COMPLETE! MWAHAHAHAA"?
[QUOTE=FHamster;20252717]Is the "Going Green" fad over yet?[/QUOTE]
Yes because even if the earth is not getting warmer it's a bad idea to take care of the only planet we have. Don't shit where you eat.
[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;20262314]I wouldn't trust Russia to feed my cat, why are we trusting them now, exactly?
And even if that were true, that's just half a degree. What, do you think the climate scientists are laughing twirling their mustaches thinking, "Those fools, haha! They think the globe is actually half a degree warmer than it really is! My evil plans are COMPLETE! MWAHAHAHAA"?[/QUOTE]
Ohh, but it's not just Russia. Go back and re read the completed post.
Oh and KmartSqrl, I rather go Organic than Green. For one thing, Organic food is much tastier.
[QUOTE=Glaber;20262370]Ohh, but it's not just Russia. Go back and re read the completed post.
Oh and KmartSqrl, I rather go Organic than Green. For one thing, Organic food is much tastier.[/QUOTE]
Where the fuck are you getting all of this "gate" shit?
[QUOTE=Glaber;20262281]Got a counter for that too. But wait, there's more![/QUOTE]
It doesn't really show the data, it just sounds like hearsay from me. I wanna see this data they're "hiding." They hardly have a case when they don't have proof themselves.
[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;20262412]Where the fuck are you getting all of this "gate" shit?[/QUOTE]
Here: [url]http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html[/url]
Yea, I know, unoriginal. tell me about it.
And organic food is entirely impractical you fool. You can only feed four billion people with organic food, it's not fucking practical.
[editline]04:01AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glaber;20262422]Here: [url]http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html[/url][/QUOTE]
The orange country Register opinion section.
Well, that sure beats scientific peer review. :downs:
[QUOTE=Glaber;20262370]Ohh, but it's not just Russia. Go back and re read the completed post.
Oh and KmartSqrl, I rather go Organic than Green. For one thing, Organic food is much tastier.[/QUOTE]
Actually, it isn't. When they did a double-blind taste test. With organic and non-organic foods. Organic lost every time With looks, taste and smell. It's also not as healthy for you, has less nutrients and more suggestible to disease and mold. Which could increase the chance of stomach cancer. It tasting "better" is just a trick of the mind, like with Coke and Pepsi. They taste the fucking same, but people can 'taste' the brand.
[QUOTE=T-Minus10;20262485]Actually, it isn't. When they did a double-blind taste test. With organic and non-organic foods. Organic lost every time With looks, taste and smell. It's also not as healthy for you, has less nutrients and more suggestible to disease and mold. Which could increase the chance of stomach cancer. It tasting "better" is just a trick of the mind, like with Coke and Pepsi. They taste the fucking same, but people can 'taste' the brand.[/QUOTE]
And by eating it you're being a fucking societal leech.
[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;20262424]...Well, that sure beats scientific peer review. :downs:[/QUOTE]
[quote]PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC's climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.[/quote]
From that same opinion piece
[QUOTE=T-Minus10;20262485]Actually, it isn't. When they did a double-blind taste test. With organic and non-organic foods. Organic lost every time With looks, taste and smell. It's also not as healthy for you, has less nutrients and more suggestible to disease and mold. Which could increase the chance of stomach cancer. It tasting "better" is just a trick of the mind, like with Coke and Pepsi. They taste the fucking same, but people can 'taste' the brand.[/QUOTE]
Eh, I just like some rabbit shaped cereal that's labeled organic.
Would you mind linking those 16 articles, I'm sure your well thought out and educated webpage should have those.
[QUOTE=Glaber;20262551]From that same opinion piece
Eh, I just like some rabbit shaped cereal that's labeled organic.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://donstuff.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/circular-reasoning1.jpg[/img]
Does it matter if it's labeled organic or not? :downs:
[QUOTE=doommarine23;20262610]Does it matter if it's labeled organic or not? :downs:[/QUOTE]
No, but it matters if it's organic or not.
[QUOTE=Glaber;20252680]World Not Warming:
[url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece[/url]
No Warming since 95:
[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html[/url]
Poster's comments: Contradicts Bill Nye, doesn't it?[/QUOTE]
Actually, no.
What he said was that there hasn't been [i]statistically significant[/i] warming since 95. There's still been warming. If you read his complete answer he says this, but the Daily Mail was trying to trap him into saying it so that they could say there's been no warming, and stupid people would believe it.
This is called "spin."
[QUOTE=T-Minus10;20262596]Would you mind linking those 16 articles, I'm sure your well thought out and educated webpage should have those.[/QUOTE]
All those "gates" are the same article.
[quote=ocregister]It has been tough to keep up with all the bad news for global warming alarmists. We're on the edge of our chair, waiting for the next shoe to drop. This has been an Imelda Marcos kind of season for shoe-dropping about global warming.
At your next dinner party, here are some of the latest talking points to bring up when someone reminds you that Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won Nobel prizes for their work on global warming.
MCT Illustration
ADVERTISEMENT
More from Mark Landsbaum
Mark Landsbaum: What to say to a global warming alarmist
3 hours & 11 minutes ago
Extreme makeover: State Capitol edition
Mark Landsbaum: Focus on 2010: California
Mark Landsbaum: Internet spurred freedom during the 2000s
Mark Landsbaum: California now hobbled; global warming alarmism an all-purpose tyranny
ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"
FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy?
ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.
HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.
More in the link[/quote]
[url]http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html[/url]
Geese, this section is like the freeway of posting
[QUOTE=TH89;20262621]Actually, no.
What he said was that there hasn't been [i]statistically significant[/i] warming since 95. There's still been warming. If you read his complete answer he says this, but the Daily Mail was trying to trap him into saying it so that they could say there's been no warming, and stupid people would believe it.
This is called "spin."[/QUOTE]
what do you mean th89 you magnificent stallion
why would the daily mail try to spin a story
the mere idea is so ridiculous that i must scoff at it! scoff!
[editline]04:20AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glaber;20262652]All those "gates" are the same article.
[url]http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Stop fucking quoting the register
it's a fucking small time orange country newspaper
I wouldn't trust them to tell me the time of day.
So its not the SUV, but the person inside it?
[QUOTE=Wolf_Marine;20258750]Shall we play "Battle of the Graphs?"
[img]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/wteach/Global%20Warming/warming_graph.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
No one disputes that the earth's climate changes naturally. What is important is the rapid change that has occurred only in the last 20 years, which is a huge increase that correlates directly with industrialization and pollution.
The reason I don't like these things:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png[/url]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png[/img][/url]
However, when I read the abstract from direct science:
[quote]
High resolution records of atmospheric CO2 concentration during the Holocene are obtained from the Dome Concordia and Dronning Maud Land (Antarctica) ice cores. These records confirm that the CO2 concentration varied between 260 and 280 ppmv in the Holocene as measured in the Taylor Dome ice core. However, there are differences in the CO2 records most likely caused by mismatches in timescales. Matching the Taylor Dome timescale to the Dome C timescale by synchronization of CO2 indicates that the accumulation rate at Taylor Dome increased through the Holocene by a factor two and bears little resemblance to the stable isotope record used as a proxy for temperature. This result shows that different locations experienced substantially different accumulation changes, and casts doubt on the often-used assumption that accumulation rate scales with the saturation vapor pressure as a function of temperature, at least for coastal locations.
[/quote]
Which refers to (Green in the image)
"(green) EPICA ice core: Monnin, E., E.J. Steig, U. Siegenthaler, K. Kawamura, J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, T.F. Stocker, D.L. Morse, J.-M. Barnola, B. Bellier, D. Raynaud, and H. Fischer (2004). "Evidence for substantial accumulation rate variability in Antarctica during the Holocene, through synchronization of CO2 in the Taylor Dome, Dome C and DML ice cores"
So, in essence, the CO2 PPM measurements from ice [b]might[/b] be off by a great deal.[b] However, I agree that we should try and not pump any more Greenhouse gases into the air, because they do, without a doubt, increase temperature[/b].
As far as temperatures, those are even more variable (in reliability). Also, for all the graphs that cut off at the 1800s, or so. Remember the "Little Ice Age"?
[quote]
A cold period that lasted from about A.D. 1550 to about A.D. 1850 in Europe, North America, and Asia. This period was marked by rapid expansion of mountain glaciers, especially in the Alps, Norway, Ireland, and Alaska. There were three maxima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals.
[/quote]
[url]http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Glossary/?mode=alpha&seg=l&segend=n[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
