Global Warming...the Movie
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 19:58
VIEWED: 9891
PAGE 5 of 12
Yeah, another bright light of intelligence. 
The fun just never ends.
Quote:
Originally posted by badkarma00:
Al Gore invented Global Warming. And the internet. And pants. And the hanging chad. (note sarcasm)
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In science, Theory can be FACT.
Originally posted by badkarma00:
Global Warming is a theory, hunger in America is a FACT
Beyond that, if hunger is a fact in America, so is the highest Obesity rate in the world, obviously some people are eating too much and not leaving enough for everyone else.
Greedy fat bastards.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One of the issues I have with "man made" global warming is the relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature. It's difficult to see in the graph below, but the data actually shows that CO2 rises lag temperature increase. In other words, it's not CO2 that raises temperature, it's the other way around, an increase in temperature results in a rise in CO2. Ive heard a few scientists try to explain this fact away, but have yet to hear an explanation that makes sense to me.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." Al Gore has manipulated the statistics to cause panic among those not scientifically literate. Another example of his lies is his statement that sea levels will rise up to 20 feet over the next 100 years. Even the UN panel on global warming only predicts a maximum rise of 20 inches.
I recently heard a well known physicist say in a documentary on String/Brane Theory that the consensus in the physics community is beginning to be that there is some validity to String Theory. He followed by saying that the fact that most believe without convincing evidence almost certainly means that they are all wrong.
Even if the evidence eventually shows that Global warming is "man made", All Gore's "lies, damned lies and statistics" aren't helping to convince those with a sceptical scientific mind. I can see why Gore's Global warming propaganda might be bought by the uneducated masses, but the fact that so many educated scientists have been convinced with so little evidence is scary to me.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What's not to make sense? The implication is that naturally CO2 levels appear to follow warming because it's functioning as a feedback mechanism, but that doesn't mean CO2 can't cause warming. In fact over a hundred years of research supports the greenhouse effect, and we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. How does the functioning of a natural cycle refute that we know CO2 works as a greenhouse gas? That's what doesn't make sense to me.
Originally posted by Kirkules:
One of the issues I have with "man made" global warming is the relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature. It's difficult to see in the graph below, but the data actually shows that CO2 rises lag temperature increase. In other words, it's not CO2 that raises temperature, it's the other way around, an increase in temperature results in a rise in CO2. Ive heard a few scientists try to explain this fact away, but have yet to hear an explanation that makes sense to me.
Quote:
A good example can be found in the last Inhofe hearing. There, Bob Carter pointed out that during the past few hundred thousand years, changes in temperature have preceded changes in carbon dioxide. Carter concluded that the relation between carbon dioxide and temperature is unclear.
This is hogwash, of course. While Carter is correct that temperature changes precede CO2 changes, this is well understood and in no way undermines the idea that increasing CO2 will lead to global warming. By presenting a misleading account of this physical phenomenon, Carter is acting to politicize science.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/21/184725/60
Quote:
What most scientists think happens is that the orbital variations cause a small initial warming. This small initial warming leads to CO2 being released, which then leads to further warming.
Thus, CO2 indeed lags the initial warming. However, that does not mean it's not playing a crucial role in the warming. In fact, its role in warming is pivotal.
In making the argument that CO2 is causing global warming, I tend not to talk about this long-time-scale correlation. As you can see from this post, while the correlation looks simple, the causality is more complicated than one might initially think. There's a much better argument anyway, which I laid out in my last post. And there are other problems -- e.g., we do not know with great confidence exactly what mechanism causes CO2 rise in response to the slight orbital-caused warming.
In summary, in the parlance of climate scientists, we would say that CO2 was acting as a "feedback" over the time period in the figure above. In the past century, however, humans have taken over the carbon cycle and now dominate the year-to-year atmospheric changes. Thus CO2 has now become a "forcing."
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/20/21248/499
Quote:I personally don't care what Al Gore has to say on the subject. Also if Al Gore is so unscientific and is using lies to support his position, it's hard to see how ignoring the science, and going after the self promotion of some assine politician while ignoring the actual issue, can't only harm ones own position as much, if not more than "An Inconvenient Truth" is supposed to harm the 'opposition'.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." Al Gore has manipulated the statistics to cause panic among those not scientifically literate. Another example of his lies is his statement that sea levels will rise up to 20 feet over the next 100 years. Even the UN panel on global warming only predicts a maximum rise of 20 inches.
Quote:That's a rather gross simplification. The question is, which String Theory? Many Physicist see the overarching umbrella of String Theory as having a great deal of potential, and there is certainly some evidence to suggest it could replace Quantum Me
I recently heard a well known physicist say in a documentary on String/Brane Theory that the consensus in the physics community is beginning to be that there is some validity to String Theory.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
As you can see from this post, while the correlation looks simple, the causality is more complicated than one might initially think.
In summary, in the parlance of climate scientists, we would say that CO2 was acting as a "feedback" over the time period in the figure above. In the past century, however, humans have taken over the carbon cycle and now dominate the year-to-year atmospheric changes. Thus CO2 has now become a "forcing"
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm supposed to accept that some magic feedback mechanism is causing CO2 rise to lag temperature, but I just have to take the "experts" word for this because the mechanism is not yet understood. Also, because they don't understand the feedback mechanism it must be a result of humans taking over the carbon cycle. I think if you look at the temperature data you will see that we have been in a relatively stable temperature range for the last 10-15 thousand years. This anomalous stable period is much more interesting to me than the small recent temperature variation. Looking at the data it's not surprising that we would see temperature change. What is more surprising is that the relatively stable temperature period that we are currently in has lasted so long. This does seem to be a anomaly given the temperature data for geologic time periods. It would be great if climatologists could explain how this stable temperature period is related to CO2 given the fact that it began thousands of years before industrialization.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm afraid it's a bit technical, Kirk. How well do you understand chronoton particle interaction?
Originally posted by Kirkules:
It would be great if climatologists could explain how this stable temperature period is related to CO2 given the fact that it began thousands of years before industrialization.
Geordiisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't see any support for the conclusion that it's not understood, nor that it's blamed on Human action because it's not understood. In fact the very opposite is true, the feedback isn't being blamed on Humans at all, it's being suggested that the feedback is a natural process. The claim has never been made that Human activity is the only source of CO2.
Originally posted by Kirkules:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm supposed to accept that some magic feedback mechanism is causing CO2 rise to lag temperature, but I just have to take the "experts" word for this because the mechanism is not yet understood. Also, because they don't understand the feedback mechanism it must be a result of humans taking over the carbon cycle.
In the natural cycle, the idea is that warming is started by another factor, probably orbital perturbation. The solubility of gases is inversely proportional to temperature, meaning if the temperature of the oceans is doubled, the amount of CO2 gas dissolved in them will be halved. So obviously as Ocean temperatures increase, atmospheric CO2 will increase. This is well understood. We also know that CO2 is a green house gas, it causes warming through the greenhouse effect which is similarly well understood. Put the two together: CO2 rises because of increased temperature, raised atmospheric CO2 causes increased temperatures, which releases more CO2, and so on.
The feedback mechanism is understood, it's merely two well known and understood mechanisms tied together in an obvious and straight forward fashion.
The difference between now and the past natural cycles is that us Humans are pumping out CO2, as well as the natural release. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we know greenhouse gases cause warming.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
im not gonna bother with any further exchanges with you. like i said Citizen, im not a trained scientist, not even in school to be one(im studying theology). i am however, entitled to think for myself. anyone can search through and find understandings in science which have changed, i didnt post any because its not my field, id be posting things i have no prior acquaintance with. you could easily search yourself, but its easier to lambaste and degrade my intelligence by making me out to be ignorant. as far as im concerned, youre just another goosestepping drone of the neo-scientific dictatorship, that presumes to tell everyone what to think and believe, based on current understandings; just like you know whether a Creator exists( or not), or how all living species crawled from a pre-biotic soup or raw elements.
so when are you due for your nobel prize again? im amazed someone with such knowledge would grace us daily with their presence.. shouldnt you be out saving the world, swapping cars for bicycles, giving speeches to the UN, and informing the lemmings on campuses why they need to be taxed for something they exhale from their lungs? their is plenty of good debate on the subject of MMGW, fortunately for you the globalists have the majority of propaganda published for you to draw from... but in the end, only time will tell. so go ahead and presume to know the immutable truths of the earth and universe, its not my head being swollen with arrogance
anyways, so what is your grand solution? you have apparently diagnosed the problem, man, so what is your solution? youre the new global dictator, whats your plan to save the earth??
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This coming from the guy who basis all his opinions on the Bible, and can't decide how old he is. It's easy to call you ignorant about science, because you're displaying your ignorance about science. You can't even manage basic English, describing you as a moron is an accurate description, not an insult. Also, I think you'll find Bible camp isn't "learning theology" (or rather violent theocracy for you), not that memorising passages from the Bible is particularly impressive...
How about you learn how to be a good Christian, instead of a lousy one as you currently are, before arrogantly assuming you're the only one who knows the truth based on nothing more than the say so of someone who should be on medication. You're the kind of person that gives Christians a bad name.
I'm not a Global Dictator, nor do I wish to be, I'm not you, I'm not the one aiming to subjugate all people under an evil and violent theocratic dictatorship. I'm not the one who wishes to end all those who aren't just like me.
You try to insult me, and describe yourself. Go save the world from the NWO Scientist instead of trolling here you unchristian wannabe theocratic dictator, weaselly troll.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Citizen-
This coming from the guy who basis all his opinions on the Bible, and can't decide how old he is.
we both have our opinions, and theyre just that, opinions. you hold my religion against me, because im not willing to accept current understandings as gospel, and base my worldview on beliefs that will likely change in my lifetime. maybe we should burn all the bibles worldwide.. or just outlaw religion, prohibit it to ones own house, in private where no one has to hear about it. that would be better would it
and whats that supposed to mean? i dont think ive ever even mentioned or made reference to my age
Quote:
It's easy to call you ignorant about science, because you're displaying your ignorance about science.
i never claimed to be an expert. what are you, but someone who passes the knowledge of others off as his own
Quote:
You can't even manage basic English, describing you as a moron is an accurate description, not an insult.
i wont bother picking out your spelling error in the first sentence.. im not so shallow as to form an opinion based on an informal message board, or an unintended mistake
Quote:
Also, I think you'll find Bible camp isn't "learning theocracy", not that memorising passages from the Bible is particularly impressive...
thats your opinion.. thankfully people like you havent completely banned the study of it yet. i would think the studies of astronomy, or biology, or chemistry, or any complex information encoded in nature.. would be futile, without considering what encoded it to begin with. i suppose then you yourself, could design something from a handful of elements.. maybe easier then the earth managed, randomly?
Quote:
How about you learn how to be a good Christian, instead of a lousy one as you currently are, before arrogantly assuming you're the only one who knows the truth based on nothing more than the say so of someone who should be on medication. You're the kind of person that gives Christians a bad name.
what would you know about being a good christian, you have absolutely no respect or appreciation for the the bible. judging by your demeanor, i think, you could learn a thing or two from the scripture "do not judge, or you will be judged. for when you pass judgment on another, you condemn yourself'
Quote:
You try to insult me, and describe yourself. Go save the world from the NWO Scientist instead of trolling here you unChristian wannabe theocratic weasel troll.
hey, look at historical precedent: atheism, secularism, your precious green movement.. the big money of the Rothschild and Rockefellers are behind your movement. you want to side with the population control, forced sterilization, one child policy, mandatory vaccination, global government crowd, be my quest.
you dont know me, and im only a troll because you disagree with me. that reflects more on you then it does me
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME