Quote :

"I don't consider it 100% fact"

then how come you consider anyone else who doesnt consider it 100% fact either an ignorant redneck or somebody who gets paid by oil companies

Quote :

"The very attempt to silence all who disagree about global warming ought to raise red flags"

2/20/2007 10:51:27 AM

I don't consider it 100% fact, but it's theory that has yet to be refuted. Showing that Iceland got several degrees warmer in the 1920's isn't a scathing rebuke of climate change.

2/20/2007 10:51:47 AM

Quote :

"but it's theory that has yet to be refuted"

how are you going to be convinced that it can be refuted when you pull the "exxon's payroll" card everytime somebody even implies that its refuted?

let alone all the articles on page 9 of this thread that DO refute the theory

[Edited on February 20, 2007 at 10:54 AM. Reason : .]

2/20/2007 10:54:22 AM

Quote :

"then how come you consider anyone else who doesnt consider it 100% fact either an ignorant redneck or somebody who gets paid by oil companies"

I only consider people ignorant rednecks or imply that they are oil industry cronies if they are unwilling to admit that scientists have better understanding of science than non-specilaists, or at least admit that there is a possibility that they are wrong. You have already dug in your heels and chosen your side. I am at least open to divergent opinions, but only when presented with a valid factual base.

2/20/2007 10:58:02 AM

Quote :

"let alone all the articles on page 9 of this thread that DO refute the theory"

The articles on page nine offer theories as to how natural processes augment climate temperature. I don't see anything that can't be revised or even discredited by peer review. I am as skeptical of the science supporting global warming theory as the science that opposes it.

Many, if not all of the journals mentioned are not very selective in their publishing standards. I'm sure that I could get published in almost any of them.

2/20/2007 11:10:55 AM

well at least you are open to opinions

because you sure as hell werent 24 hours ago when you said this

Quote :

"We are past this point. There is an extremely strong consensus in the scientific community. The rest of the world is looking at ways to adequately address this phenomenon. We here in America are trying to convince the so called "skeptics" that it even exists. George Bush has a 34% approval rating. That means that 34% of people still think he is doing a good job, although this administration has started a war on false pretenses, run up a huge spending deficits, violated the constitution repeatedly and appointed unqualified, partisan hacks as political appointees to head our nations regulatory agencies. People like TreeTwista are like the people above. They do not study policy. They do not care about cause and effect. They do not care how they are manipulated. No degree of evidence or reason will ever convince them to think otherwise. You might as well just discount them as the mindless automatons they are, and hope they will be content driving their Mustang, drinking Budweiser and listening to the newest Toby Keith album, and that Bush will not appoint them to be the head of FEMA in the future."

at least you are learning something

2/20/2007 11:13:25 AM

Quote :

"I am as skeptical of the science supporting global warming theory as the science that opposes it. "

ahahaha are you serious? after you said this?

Quote :

"We here in America are trying to convince the so called "skeptics" that it even exists"

talk about pulling a 180

[Edited on February 20, 2007 at 11:15 AM. Reason : .]

2/20/2007 11:14:27 AM

Quote :

"You have already dug in your heels and chosen your side. I am at least open to divergent opinions, but only when presented with a valid factual base."

i think im about to die from laughter

I have already dug in my heels and chosen my side? Me, whose whole stance from the begininning was NOT choosing a side and thinking "I dont know if humans are causing catastrophic global warming or not" yet I have dug in my heels? Being skeptical = choosing a side?

And you are "open to divergent opinions?" Like when I suggested yesterday that I wasnt convinced global warming was definitely caused by humans and catastrophic and you compared it to denying the holocaust?

Hey here's your first post of the thread...it sure is the epitome of openmindedness!!!

Quote :

"Scuba Steve Dot Agitator 3239 Posts user info edit post I think it has been said that refuting proof of global warming is the same as refuting proof of gravity. 99.9% of all scientists agree on it, its just a couple crackpot theorists at Bumfuck U. the oil companies have embraced to help protect their revenue stream, regardless of the consequences of their actions. 10/18/2006 7:58:13 PM "

wow...just wow

2/20/2007 11:23:01 AM

Well, I have been studying this issue for several years on the graduate level (since 2002). The rest of the world has come to a consensus and is addressing the problem. Even Bush mentioned it being a major problem in the State of the Union address (I almost had an aneurysm) although I doubt he will do anything about it. The science is there, it has been peer reviewed and generally accepted by the vast majority of credible scientists. I'm sure that somebody can present research that cigarettes don't cause cancer or CFC's don't destroy the ozone, but I'm sure its flawed methodologically or statistically.

The worst thing that could possibly come of this is we enact cleaner air standards, start driving cars based on sustainable energy, have less dependence on foreign oil, keep hundreds of billions of our own dollars within the US economy instead of sending to the middle east, and have no more wars based on control of natural resources.

Whats the downside?

2/20/2007 11:25:29 AM

we gotta die from something

2/20/2007 11:26:23 AM

^^one of the downsides could be wasting billions of dollars on something that we cant control...course we dont know if its something we can control or not, or how much we could possibly control it

im still curious how you have been studying the issue for several years but it wasnt until last night/this morning that you truly became openminded about it to some extent

[Edited on February 20, 2007 at 11:29 AM. Reason : .]

2/20/2007 11:29:33 AM

Quote :

"one of the downsides could be wasting billions of dollars on something that we cant control"

Like "losing" $12 billion is cash in the Iraq war? Like spending a half a trillion dollars on no bid contracts and a war that was supposed to pay for itself? I think the government is more than willing to take that risk.

[Edited on February 20, 2007 at 11:35 AM. Reason : .]

2/20/2007 11:34:18 AM

yes just like that

you want to waste another dozen billion on something useless?

YOU GO TO SPEND YOUR MONEY ON THE WAR, WE SHOULD GET TO SPEND SOME ON GLOBAL WARMING

so basically even though you're 100% against the wasteful spending in the iraq war, you're perfectly happy with more wasteful spending...k

[Edited on February 20, 2007 at 11:36 AM. Reason : .]

2/20/2007 11:36:07 AM

No, just refuting your juvenile argument that "a couple billion dollars" is too much to spend. I didn't say we were wasting it. If anything, it is an investment that will mitigate hundreds of billions if not trillions in future government bailouts of national flood insurance policy holders and private businesses.

2/20/2007 11:39:47 AM

Quote :

"If anything, it is an investment that will mitigate hundreds of billions if not trillions in future government bailouts of national flood insurance policy holders and private businesses"

thats assuming we have catastrophic damage...so i think you actually meant "if anything, its an investment that could save money in the long run, going under the assumption that we are quickly destroying the planet"

kinda like assuming iraq had WMDs since you like to compare this to iraq

I am pleased at your progress though...you're finally to an intellectual point where you're not calling anyone who is skeptical of global warming a holocaust denier

[Edited on February 20, 2007 at 11:46 AM. Reason : .]

2/20/2007 11:43:53 AM

Spare me your semantics. Bringing up an argument I made 5 months ago in another phase of the argument does not shed light on anything.

Global warming is a global concept, studied globally. The Iraq WMDs was due to faulty US intelligence and political manipulation in the US.

Disproving a globally accepted, peer reviewed scientific consensus is extremely difficult because all of the concepts have been tested and retested by thousands of separate parties and confirmed. When its you vs. the world, the world always wins.

2/20/2007 11:51:28 AM

Quote :

"Bringing up an argument I made 5 months ago in another phase of the argument does not shed light on anything"

except that up until sometime last night / this morning you were convinced that global warming was all but fact and that any skeptics were rednecks with incomes from Exxon

in other words, that YOU had made up your mind long ago that global warming is definitely real yet you're supposed to be some objective scientist...LOL

2/20/2007 11:55:13 AM

The entire world has made up its mind that it is real, as has the US Congress. They are already implementing plans and policies to address it (such as the Kyoto Protocol). You are still arguing against its existence, which is a position that has been discredited a long time ago.

By the way, the world is round and the earth isn't the center of our solar system. We have moved past that a long time ago as well.

2/20/2007 12:10:30 PM

Quote :

"The entire world has made up its mind that it is real"

Quote :

"You are still arguing against its existence, which is a position that has been discredited a long time ago."

those comments seem like how you really feel, though they are in contradiction to your comments from a mere hour ago!

Quote :

"You have already dug in your heels and chosen your side. I am at least open to divergent opinions"

Quote :

"I am as skeptical of the science supporting global warming theory as the science that opposes it. "

so are you as skeptical of the science supporting global warming as the science that opposes it?

or are any skeptics the same as holocaust deniers?

flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop

Quote :

" as has the US Congress. They are already implementing plans and policies to address it (such as the Kyoto Protocol). "

just so you know...we DID NOT adopt the kyoto protocol...so...you're dumb

[Edited on February 20, 2007 at 12:43 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2007 12:36:46 PM

Quote :

"brilliant contribution...nice job of being specific with your disagreements if someone completely disagrees with someone is it impossible for them to be slightly specific in what exactly they disagree with?"

I just think he's nuts.

2/20/2007 4:29:59 PM

well this thread is certainly more about climate change and gore's movie than it is about him

so unless you want to comment on something he has said...the concise personal attacks dont really help anything

2/20/2007 4:48:43 PM

You're going to take 98% of scientists' word for it instead of this one organization?

How silly

2/20/2007 5:57:26 PM

Consensus = Groupthink

2/20/2007 9:18:41 PM

2 + 2 = 5

2/20/2007 10:21:40 PM

So what relevance does flip-flopping have here?

Going against the scientific consensus purely for ideological reasons = Republicanism

It's also a trait common amongst really old people

2/20/2007 10:23:48 PM

Quote :

"So what relevance does flip-flopping have here?"

Hey Boone did you read how I completely pwnt Scuba Steve for flip flopping? No you probably didnt even though its on the current page of this thread

but even if you did you wouldnt even notice it considering you didnt even notice it yesterday when I finally taught you what a peer reviewed scientific journal (a term you love to throw around) meant

It was funny as shit though when you thought that most climate change scientific reports had some type of over-simplified conclusion like "humans cause global warming"

the only thing more hilarious than seeing how much you flip flopped and got pwnt during the last couple pages of the thread is the fact that you were too oblivious to even realize it...classic shit right there...i'm talking george bush "fool me once" classic blunder shit...gg

2/20/2007 11:11:02 PM

^^ Fucking weak. Is that the best you've got, boy? Why don't you go prematurely ejaculate on someone--or more likely in your own hand?

How about addressing the points that have been made? That's a bit more difficult than ad homs, isn't it? You demanded peer-reviewed papers, so I produced them. Let's hear it, genius.

^ WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Boone-head is a stupid fucker!

PS: "amongst"

[Edited on February 20, 2007 at 11:24 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2007 11:17:31 PM

i dont know if Boone is actually as stupid as you say

I mean if he wants to actually address aspects of any of the articles that have been recently posted, then maybe we are misjudging him

of course if his only retort is something to the effect of "thats a strawman...probably because you are an idiot and its pointless to discuss this with you" then we OBVIOUSLY know he is just full of shit since he isnt even capable of discussing the articles we post even though he asks for them...

boone: post me an article that disagrees with global warming and i will believe you...thats all you have to do
hooksaw: *posts link to multiple articles that satisfy boone's asking criteria*
boone: nice strawman...only people with financial interest in oil companies would dare to question the absolute fact that is global warming...you are clearly on Shell and Exxon's payroll

2/20/2007 11:27:14 PM

^^it's more funny how you treat every thread as a competition.

2/20/2007 11:27:19 PM

sarijoul i gave you some shit about "defending the gays" in one of those sports talk threads

but overall and honestly, i respect you...even though we may disagree on many of the things we argue about, i respect the fact that you are capable and willing to actually discuss the issues instead of just resorting to personal attacks in an attempt to change the subject

respect

2/20/2007 11:29:29 PM

^^^ Yeah, I piled on because he called me old--and unfortunately, he used "amongst."

^^ You got me--I am very competitive. And I admit that I am much more aggressive than a man my age should be--but I'm workin' on it.

Truth.

2/20/2007 11:56:57 PM

You've still not shown me a respectable article casting doubt on anthropogenic climate change. Of course there are academic jounrals debating the minutiae of climate; none of them are doubting the overall picture, though. All the circle-jerking between you and hooksaw in the world doesn't change that.

Hooksaw showed me a bibliography of uncheckable sources assembled by an anti-Kyoto interest group. For once would you all stop pretending like Canadian editorialists trump the scientific community.

So please, stop shifting your position around long enough to produce a comprehensive article that doubts human impact on climate.

2/21/2007 6:51:04 AM

in fairness, real scientific journal articles rarely make this broad of a claim, especially with a matter as complicated as climate change. nearly every article will be minutiae, but the sum of these articles is what the "consensus" is. unfortunately these sorts of review papers are the only ones that provide a broader picture. unfortunately this review doesn't provide much context or real variety in sources. i would like to see a review from a journal about anthropogenic climate change. i'm sure they're out there.

2/21/2007 10:19:13 AM

R: The "Inconvient Truth" is that Gore lost the 2000 election!
D: Wow its not like that joke is old as shit.
R: Yeah true
D: Hey George Bush is an idiot! Theres an original one!

2/21/2007 12:29:26 PM

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2798.htm

2/21/2007 1:35:36 PM

^how far does "on record" go back? like 130 years or somethin iirc?

2/21/2007 3:39:28 PM

Quote :

"http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2798.htm"

This is what gets me. So many who share the views of Boone, Scuba, et al simply point to articles showing that the climate is getting warmer...thus, 'global warming.' Most people like myself (on the fence or on the other side of the debate) don't refute the view that the Earth is getting warmer. It's the causes that are in question. I've read many articles on the subject, from many sides (journals, groups on both sides of the fence). I don't claim to be an expert, but you're sure as hell not one either. There's very little 'consensus' as to the exact causes for the global warming. And more importantly, there's even less consensus as to whether it will have "OMG catastrophic effects!" Yes, in the past 100 years, the Earth has gotten approximately 1 degree (C) hotter. But the past 100 years has also been arguably the most productive period of advancement in human history. Care to elaborate?

2/21/2007 3:51:37 PM

^i agree with all of that but the fact that you admitted that you are on the fence on the issue is going to cause people like Boone, Scuba, et al to immediately dismiss anything you have to say

Even though they are not experts, they feel that anyone who dares question the causes of climate change and the potential results must be paid off...its a shame they have their minds made up while you and I are still on the fence

2/21/2007 3:58:55 PM

my mind isn't made up, but i think that i'm sure enough that acting to prevent human-induced climate change would be in our best interest.

2/21/2007 4:17:49 PM

i didnt mention you in with Boone and Scuba and its not because i didnt think of you...you seem to go about this a lot more rationally than them...hell you're actually willing to discuss the content of data that opposes your views instead of just taking the "OMG YOU IDIOT" copout

2/21/2007 4:20:00 PM

Quote :

"groupthink: 'the practice of approaching problems or issues as matters that are best dealt with by consensus [emphasis added] of a group rather than by individuals acting independently; conformity [emphasis added].'"

2/21/2007 4:49:29 PM

Who here was alive in 1975?

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

Quote :

"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972. To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City. Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.” Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. “The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines. Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality. "

2/21/2007 9:09:59 PM

Quote :

"seems to be cooling down"

Quote :

"The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the tools scientists have at their disposal now—vastly more data, incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated mathematical models—render any forecasts from 1975 as inoperative as the predictions being made around the same time about the inevitable triumph of communism. Astronomers have been warning for decades that life on Earth could be wiped out by a collision with a giant meteorite; it hasn't happened yet, but that doesn't mean that journalists have been dupes or alarmists for reporting this news. Citizens can judge for themselves what constitutes a prudent response-which, indeed, is what occurred 30 years ago. All in all, it's probably just as well that society elected not to follow one of the possible solutions mentioned in the NEWSWEEK article: to pour soot over the Arctic ice cap, to help it melt."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/

[Edited on February 21, 2007 at 9:51 PM. Reason : ]

2/21/2007 9:46:01 PM

^ I find it more than a bit amusing that communism and global warming are mentioned in the same article from MSNBC--the home of the well-known centrist Keith Olbermann. How objective.

Quote :

"In short, there has been a full court press to convince the public that 'everybody knows' that a catastrophic global warming looms over us, that human beings are the cause of it, and that the only solution is to turn more money and power over to the government to stop us from our dangerous ways of living [emphasis added]."

Thomas Sowell

I recommend Shattered Consensus, edited by Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, which contains essays by ten scientists that are not part of "everybody."

2/22/2007 12:02:28 AM

Don't you have some episodes of "Angel" to watch?

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=462869

2/22/2007 12:06:24 AM

2/22/2007 12:31:56 AM

I've never seen any "facts" that prove that Global Warming is the result of human activity. Global Warming is happening, I'm sure, kind of like it did on Venus. The Earth is doomed, humans will eventually die out, and the sun will expand out to the earth (long after the earth is uninhabitable). But that's not really the point, I guess.

The point, to me, is that Al Gore isn't a scientist. At best, he's an idiot. At worst, he's a lying, corrupt panderer with only a lust for power and a heart desiring the most sinister of things. To take something that Al Gore says as scientific fact, or to think that what he is saying is not politically motivated, is foolish. Doesn't it make sense that he has an agenda?

2/22/2007 12:05:06 PM

Quote :

"Doesn't it make sense that he has an agenda?"

^ Yes, it's called the search for relevance. I mean, if Gore didn't have the global warming issue catapulting him onto the international stage, where would he be? Answer: fading into obscurity--along with the Dan Quayle and most of the other vice presidents/presidential candidates in our nation's history.

2/22/2007 10:09:34 PM

lets just clear up any misconceptions here.

global warming is political. why? becauce if we are responsible for any part of it then the solution must be political. and, thanks to the christian coalitian, all science is political, all belief is unquestionable.

2/22/2007 11:44:37 PM

^ That's great. I don't think anybody brought up Christians--I certainly didn't. Well, never miss a chance to bash 'em, huh? Now, do you dispute my previous post or what?

2/22/2007 11:50:16 PM