Who still believes in Global Warming?

[Z_Wipf]

al gore is fat?

[Indecent]

Scientist had a field day trying to get more grant money and government favor by manipulating, distoring, and deleting data to prove its existence

Except they didn't..

The researchers are guilty of a lot of things (FOIA violations, not releasing data, etc) but they didn't play with the numbers that they have. Their process has been verified by (I believe) 4 independent researchers/groups, and the scientists at the center of the controversy have been cleared of any wrongdoing by their respective universities.

Of course, this is coming out too late and a lot of people still believe the details they originally heard/read regarding the "climategate" scandal.

[thechaoz]

put that temp chart next to the solar activity of the sun chart and you have your answet

[Carseller4]

[Pokerjoe]

I can't believe my grandchildren will die because of Statnerdian and Shrutian stupidity. But they are. It's good there are Statnerds and Shrutes in the world ... for poker, and betting exchanges and such. But why do they get the vote?

Oh, well. It's old news that teabaggers suck balls.

[The Madcap]

I was having dinner with some academic types the other night. One of them had a PHD from some prestigious university. Ivy League. Princeton, Yale, something like that. He had gotten a grant to study global warming. He was researching temperatures around the United States. And he rattled off this list of temperature data from places like NYC, LA, Dallas, Chicago, Boston, etc., and how all these major cities had seen a drastic rise in their average temperatures. I butted in and asked him about the smaller towns surrounding these major cities. Whether or not he had collected data from more rural places with the same regional climate. He said no. Then I asked him if he had considered that the 2-3 degree temperature change in the last 100 years in NYC or Dallas might be due to the huge increase of asphalt, concrete, metal, and other massive latent heat producing sources that have been growing exponentially in the last century. Before even taking the time to consider the point, he started prattling off on some political bullshit trying to deflect the issue, so I waved him off, stood up, dropped a beaner on the table to pay for my dinner and drinks and said, "The next time you're in New York, get a temperature reading in downtown Manhattan, then head about ten miles outside the city and take another. At that point you can decide to return your grant money or become a hack." Then I left. I woke up next to his date.

[fishmonger]

Global warming is a government invention. It was invented to give weed smoking hippies something to care about so they wouldn't get in the way of everyday hard working americans.

And the the only thing worth recycling is metal. Everything else that is recycled actually produces more pollutants than if we were not to recycle the original product.

[The Madcap]

I thought the point of the weed was to get them to not care about anything so they wouldn't get in the way of everyday hard working Americans. Caring about global warming is already starting to get in the way of everyday Americans very soon. Higher taxes on gas/oil, green mandates for government buildings, cap/trade legislation, etc.

The real joke to me is that all the crazy hippies that have been protesting nuclear power for decades are all of a sudden starting to support nuclear power because it doesn't give off co2. What a bunch of hosers.

[BWest]

I love when someone takes one event (snow in Panama), and presents it as undisputable evidence of their position on a topic. It helps me to very quickly determine their moron index. I need to find a more expansive method as several people have hit infinity. I always was taught that you carefully listen to both arguments and then make an informed decision. A few posters here have their ears plugged in to the babbling heads that program their thinking. Read something for a change!

[cornerkick]

I'm not a scientist to say whether it exists or not, but I'm not an idiot either to think all the smoke we release and all the trees we cut are actually helping nature.

[subs]

ice-holes ice-holes fergin ice-holes man

[losturmarbles]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admits they just guess the numbers.

[Kemalettin]

its all because of united states

[DwightShrute]

Global warming is Bush's fault

[The fiddler]

I think that the globe is in fact warming...but the CO2 emissions contribute to the problem less than 1%. We will either adapt somehow or die.

[guitarjosh]

Sea levels have risen and fallen about 100 feet over the course of the human race being in existence. We'll be fine if it goes up another foot in the next century.

[gangeriver]

its all because of united states

Certainly! they refuse to Kyoto Protocol.incredible! they live for money/economy
meanwhile China is not innocent either.
I guess, our grandchild will curse to us.

[curious]

Except they didn't..

The researchers are guilty of a lot of things (FOIA violations, not releasing data, etc) but they didn't play with the numbers that they have. Their process has been verified by (I believe) 4 independent researchers/groups, and the scientists at the center of the controversy have been cleared of any wrongdoing by their respective universities.

Of course, this is coming out too late and a lot of people still believe the details they originally heard/read regarding the "climategate" scandal.

Really? The guy who produced the first hockey stick chart was caught red handing cooking data. He accidently put the computer program that he used to create the hockey stick chart on the internet. No matter what data was fed into this program it produced the hockey stick chart. Numerous people have validated this. The guy was laughed out of his field.

EVERYONE associated with presenting the global warming hysteria propaganda knows that the hockey stick chart is bogus but they use it anyway.

Oh, and you believe the universities who are investigating their own researchers (who bring in grant money), you really think that those investigations are unbiased?

[Willie Bee]

Wow, I'm shocked that all of the brainpower in this thread up to now hasn't resolved the issue. Carry on, my sheep, carry on.

[curious]

I build scientific models for a living, and just from a modeling perspective there are problems with saying that global warming is more than pure conjecture.

Here is the problem with the global warming theory. Well there are couple of problems.

First, the GWH (global warming hysterics) claim that the global temperature is rising. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a global temperature. How would you measure a "global temperature"? There are dozens of variables for any specific spot that you would take a reading from. Time of day, day or year, elevation, is it cloudy or sunny that day, is the wind blowing that day, is that spot a rural area, an urban area, is it on land, on sea, on a lake or river...? Obviously you can't use just one reading from one spot. So, how many readings are enough to have a sample size that actually means anything? Anyone reading this forum should know that sample size is important in establishing statistics. Many variables can affect the sensor itself. Then there is difference in elevation, season, day/night, longitude/latitude...

To have a sample size which had any meaning (statistically speaking) you would have to take readings from millions of spots, you would have to cover numerous elevations at the same spot, the readings would have to be taken in the daytime, at night, different times of the day, different seasons of the year. You would have to account for bright sunshine, cloud cover, precipitation, etc, etc.

Then you would have to also take readings in the ocean (the temperature of the ocean is FAR more important than the temperature on land). And again you have the same issues.

Now, let's say that you took readings from millions of locations. Now what? What will you compare these readings to? There is no historic record to compare to. Sure, you can take some ice cores and guess, but that data can't be assumed to be "factual". Humans have kept records for what? One hundred years? Two hundred? You can use anecdotal evidence to a degree. Such as the presence of Viking dairy farms in Greenland, and the presence of vineyards in northern England (during the medieval warm period). But one hundred years is nothing in geologic time.

The second problem is that the GWHs claim to be able to predict the future. Really? Building a prediction model for any subject is not a trivial task. Anyone who reads this forums understands how difficult creating a prediction model is. I have built prediction models that work in fields that are relatively straight forward, and by "work" I mean that they are sort of accurate, with a within a fairly wide acceptable range. I built a prediction model for retailers to use to know how much stock of any given item to have on hand in the next 24 hours, the next week, the next month, etc. It works very well. Building it was not a trivial task. The variables involved in that model are pretty straightforward, most have well known values, there is some guesswork in what the customer volume will be but you can look at trends and how different variables like weather to cut down some of that guesswork.

Compare modeling the global atmosphere and the bodies in the solar system that affect our atmosphere. There are thousands of variables, many of those variables are not well understood in terms of their impact on atmospheric conditions, and each of these variables has not one reading, but millions of readings all over the planet. But, even assuming that you could figure out how all these variables work, how they should all be weighted, what the impact on the atmosphere is of each one of them, now you have a new problem. How will you model the Sun? And Sirius A and Sirius B? Radiation gain from the Sun, Sirius A and Sirius B (especially Sirius B) affects the earth's climate far more than anything man can do (or not do).

I'm going to be generous and say that the GWHs are smart enough to build these models consisting of thousands of variables with measurements taken from millions of locations (I'm having a hard time not laughing out loud when typing this), now you have a new problem. There is not enough computer power available on the planet to run such a model.

No, the GWHs have conjecture, they do not have anything approaching fact. They cannot model the climate/atmosphere, they cannot predict the future. They cannot even say for sure if the current climate is anomalous or not.

Now, let's be even more generous and say that establishing global temperature using a few readings in urban areas only is a basis for "knowing" that there is a problem, and that the GWHs are smart enough to build a climatic model that actually means something and that they are correct in screaming "THE GLOBE IS WARMING, THE GLOBE IS WARMING..."

Now they have a new problem. Is that really a bad thing? When Greenland was warm enough to support Viking dairy farms, it was much warmer than it is now. Yet, life of all kinds, including human life, thrived. There was no big catastrophe. The same is true of northern England in the same time period. Warmth, throughout Earth's history, has always been a good thing for life.

The GWHs are screaming that the melting of the Arctic Sea icecap is going to cause a flood of Noah proportions. This is not the case, what you REALLY have to get worried about is if the Greenland ice cap melts, and it is not melting, it is growing. Of course the GWs are screaming that the Greenland ice cap is melting. So, let's give them the benefit of the doubt (again).

Here is what we are talking about (taken from some GWHs own words): “If this activity in northwest Greenland continues and really accelerates some of the major glaciers in the area — like the Humboldt Glacier and the Peterman Glacier — Greenland’s total ice loss could easily be increased by an additional 50 to 100 cubic kilometers (12 to 24 cubic miles) within a few years”.

A friend of mine had a response to this EMERGENCY WARNING:

… you can say “Well, if it does increase by the larger estimate of 100 cubic km per year, and that’s a big if since the scientists are just guessing, that would increase the loss from 0.007% per year to around 0.010% per year, meaning that the Greenland Ice Cap would only last until May 23rd, 12010.”

So, in 10,000 years we have a problem. And that is IF, and it is a big IF, the rate of melting increases by 40% and stays that way for 10,000 years.

Now remember, for the Greenland ice cap to melt in 10,000 years there has to be a 40% increase in melt loss. Pure conjecture.

So, if you live in Florida and you are thinking about buying that second home in the Rockie mountains to escape the flooding, don't worry, you have 10,000 years before you have to worry about it.

[Willie Bee]

So, if you live in Florida and you are thinking about buying that second home in the Rockie mountains to escape the flooding, don't worry, you have 10,000 years before you have to worry about it.

At least that should give some of the posters here plenty of time to pay off the second home mortgage.

[statnerds]

so 'hide the decline' and 'numbers trick' mean 'fukk it is getting hotter'?

funny my thread lead pipe lock here told you that it would be unusually hot this summer, but usual for a summer following a strong El Nino, and you lib fuks would start this global warming shit again. too bad Al was buy trying to get a happy ending in every hotel in America.

everything is emotion with you fukks and you have zero logic. you can never debate cause you don't have the truth or facts, you have insults. any questions is met with denier, racist, sexist, xenophobe, islamaphobe....fukk's sake do you people ever address facts and questions?

i have a few questions, and also suggest it is time you butt wipes starting keeping score...

Question: was the Artic Ice Cap going to be gone in summer of '08?

sane folks: 1
lib nutjobs: 0

Question: shouldn't temps rise during global warming instead of cooling as they did since '03?

sane folks: 2
lib nutjobs: 0

Question: didn't oceans only have 10 years left before extinction....starting in 1985?

sane folks: 3
lib nutjobs: 0

Question: didn't humans and cfcs cause the hole in the ozone layer? (I don't forget your outlandish claims, but you guys sure do)

sane folks: 4
lib nutjobs: 0

Question: does anyone of you libs know the statistical probability of every mistake and error being made, to always support the position of global warming? amazing they never go the other way...

sane folks: 5
lib nutjobs: 0

Question: is it still global warming or is it climate change or is it something different by now?

sane folks: 6
lib nutjobs: 0

Question: what will you guys do when temps are cooler next summer?

XP is up and it is good!!!!

sane folks: 7
lib nutjobs: 0

feel free to answer none of these. instead select a label to apply to me and run back and tell your lib friends how clever you are.

[The Madcap]

I am a firm believer that you shouldn't define what you stand for based upon what others say, as the saying goes, "He who bases his principles on the actions of his enemy has already been defeated." But when it comes to global warming, it's getting harder and harder for me to not just be a skeptic simply because of all the whacko supporters.

They want us to get rid of air conditioning for heaven's sake.



Well I'm sorry there Stan, but you come and try living down south in the heat and humidity for a few years with no A/C and see if you don't snap into a homicidal rage one August.

[losturmarbles]

If anyone has some time, some of the articles from the link to the blog I posted earlier are pretty good and informative.

JoNova, click the tags on the left hand side to look at some other posts

[curious]

I am a firm believer that you shouldn't define what you stand for based upon what others say, as the saying goes, "He who bases his principles on the actions of his enemy has already been defeated." But when it comes to global warming, it's getting harder and harder for me to not just be a skeptic simply because of all the whacko supporters.

They want us to get rid of air conditioning for heaven's sake.



Well I'm sorry there Stan, but you come and try living down south in the heat and humidity for a few years with no A/C and see if you don't snap into a homicidal rage one August.

The environmental wackos get used by big businesses all the time. Whever there is a big push to outlaw a chemical, Freon for example, check to see if the patents on that chemical are expiring and if the company that makes it is pushing a new "environmentally friendly" product to take its place. Freon is one of the most useful chemicals we have. Without it refrigeration is impossible. The EPA banned Freon supposedly because it "depletes the Ozone", only they never proved this. I find this a bit difficult to believe because Freon is heavier than air. How did Freon get into the upper atmosphere in order to deplete the Ozone? Kind of convenient that at the same time Freon was banned, which coincided with the expiration of Dupont's patents on Freon, low and behold Dupont comes out with a new refrigeration chemical. Far more expensive and not nearly as effective as Freon, but hey, with the ban everyone has to switch to this new product. And Dupont racks in billions of $$ in profits. And the environment is DAMAGED because the new product is not nearly as easy on the environment as Freon was.

But the envrionmental wackos get to pat themselves on the back and sing some more kumbaya and hug some polar bears. That is one I would like to see, trips to the arctic of environmental wackos hugging polar bears.

[Naz18]

Not one legitimate scientist has denied global warming....the part that is debatable is if it's caused by human activity (burning a crap load of stuff)

[The Madcap]

The environmental wackos get used by big businesses all the time. Whever there is a big push to outlaw a chemical, Freon for example, check to see if the patents on that chemical are expiring and if the company that makes it is pushing a new "environmentally friendly" product to take its place. Freon is one of the most useful chemicals we have. Without it refrigeration is impossible. The EPA banned Freon supposedly because it "depletes the Ozone", only they never proved this. I find this a bit difficult to believe because Freon is heavier than air. How did Freon get into the upper atmosphere in order to deplete the Ozone? Kind of convenient that at the same time Freon was banned, which coincided with the expiration of Dupont's patents on Freon, low and behold Dupont comes out with a new refrigeration chemical. Far more expensive and not nearly as effective as Freon, but hey, with the ban everyone has to switch to this new product. And Dupont racks in billions of $$ in profits. And the environment is DAMAGED because the new product is not nearly as easy on the environment as Freon was.

But the envrionmental wackos get to pat themselves on the back and sing some more kumbaya and hug some polar bears. That is one I would like to see, trips to the arctic of environmental wackos hugging polar bears.

Oh, I know right.

Damn busy bodies. I just wish they'd shut the hell up. They've never done one thing useful for this country. Even the crap they take credit for never happens without the people they despise coming to the plate of their own volition and saying, "it's about time to make this change."

Will they ever realize the are the ones CREATING the resentment and resistance of their vision of change? If they'd keep their damn mouths shut they'd get the truly necessary changes made a lot quicker.

[statnerds]

Not one legitimate scientist has denied global warming....the part that is debatable is if it's caused by human activity (burning a crap load of stuff)

all I have to do is name one and you will shut up and go away?

Fred Singer

read a fukkin book once in a while

[statnerds]

Well I'm sorry there Stan, but you come and try living down south in the heat and humidity for a few years with no A/C and see if you don't snap into a homicidal rage one August.

but you and I and every other free citizen in America are the problem, not the elites. not Gore or Bambi or any full of shit celeb. they want you to leave that way, not them. they are much too important to live a sub standard life style. but us peasants, we should just do what we are told and be thankful for any pittance we receive from the mighty muslim in the white house (tweak dem bitches)

[wtf]

I agree if it gets warmer and all this shit melts that is great, just adjust

who fukin cares about some island with 100 people living on it 3 inches above the current sea level, MOVE THEM

every every attempt of credible collection of data to substantiate the GWH position of man made creation to alter the earths temperature has been debunked, remember the satellites with mircowave temperature readings ? they reported the earth was actually cooling

the sun has all the control, and only the liberal elite and willie bee can control the sun

[DwightShrute]

the sun has all the control

I have no doubt you are right

[nasaki]

It always takes away from your already shitty argument, using bullshit phrases like "obama is a muslim" in an argument distracts you twats from the real logic that you would use if you were smart enough and wanted to prove a point! Name calling & offensive language never got anyone jack shit

[itchypickle]

Global Warming is simply the climate at the N Pole with Santa Claus...he's real too ya know.

[curious]

It always takes away from your already shitty argument, using bullshit phrases like "obama is a muslim" in an argument distracts you twats from the real logic that you would use if you were smart enough and wanted to prove a point! Name calling & offensive language never got anyone jack shit

So, then why do you engage in name calling?

[pavyracer]

I always like it in the winter when it gets below freezing or it snows a foot and people saying what global warming? Some people have no idea what the four seasons are for.