no they don't

3/15/2007 11:41:08 AM

Quote :

"Images show the ice melting more and more each year. The longer ice melts the faster is melts (especially with temp rising as well). also the more the ice melts the more the water rises and the more open land/ocean. ice reflects light and solar radiation much more than what it leaves behind."

You're aware that in the past the Vikings used Greenland for farming, and that it was a much warmer place than it is now. What was the global warming cause then?

Not to mention the South Pole has been getting colder in years past. Or the fact that the southern hemisphere's average temperature has only been rising at a rate of 0.025 celisuis degrees per decade. So I guess in a few hundred years they'll really have cause for concern.

3/15/2007 11:59:52 AM

global warming is not a man made event.....we are just accelerating the cycle.

3/15/2007 12:01:42 PM

no proof

3/15/2007 12:11:05 PM

We don't know enough about the cycles to know if we're accelerating them or not

3/15/2007 12:56:44 PM

Quote :

"Eventually the rest of us are going to have to trample you fuckers and do what's needed without your asses."

BridgetSPK

Unfortunately, I think this quotation crystallizes the real agenda of most global warming alarmists.

3/15/2007 1:01:14 PM

look folks, you can randomly say "we don't know" and "there is no proof" that humans are causing global warming, but the fact is that the vast majority of evidence says you are wrong.

3/15/2007 6:08:44 PM

except it doesn't.

3/15/2007 7:09:27 PM

Ah, but he just said the evidence showed we were wrong, not what we were wrong about.

3/15/2007 7:35:42 PM

Like, can we ever really know anything, maaaaan?




We're talking about policy decisions. Policy decisions are based on likely scenarios, not absolute certainty. So when making these decisions that will have a huge impact on all our lives, do we rely on 98% of the scientific community, or a handful of obscure Canadian scientists posting on the internet?

3/15/2007 8:36:23 PM

Things I hold to be true.

1) Since 1950 the earth has gotten warmer.
2) Since 1998, the earth's temperature has stabilized and is changing at a rate statistically = 0
3) Over the next 100 years, the earth may get warmer, colder, or stay the same.
4) A warmer earth has many advantages (Northwest passage, for example) and negatives
5) Animals have gone extinct without human interaction. (Wolly Mammoth, Dinosaurs, etc)
6) The Earths temperature is a cycle. At worst, we are accelerating a warm period. Why spend $$$$ now just to extend civilization for another 100 years or so.
7) The polar ice caps on Mars are also melting. Did our CO2 go all the way to Mars? (I know both theory's for why the ice caps on Mars are melting, one suggests that Earth's global warming has little to do with man made global warming)
8) There IS NOT consensus among scientists on Global Warming.
9) Global Warming is a HEAVILY Politicized issue.


10) There is MORE than enough evidence to support either side of this issue.
11) The odds of coinvinving someone they are wrong on global warming are roughly zero.


12) At the end of they day, Humans will adapt or die.
13) This post won't change any ones ideas.

3/15/2007 8:41:34 PM

I made a point-by-point rebuttal, but it's pointless.

1. Resignation is not an adequate response to potentially serious threats to humanity.

2. Just because a handful of scientists think there's a convincing argument to counter climate change, doesn't mean it's so. There is a consensus, then there are some Canadian scientists posting on the internets. Fallacy of equal time anyone?

3. There's a high likelihood of changing people's minds... just not those of partisan hacks who think 98% of all scientists are involved in a vast left wing conspiracy.


[Edited on March 15, 2007 at 8:58 PM. Reason : .]

3/15/2007 8:53:07 PM

Quote :

"I made a point-by-point rebuttal, but it's pointless. "

Yeah, pretty much


It doesn't really matter, at the end of the day I'll keep my stupid ideas, and you'll still have yours.


[Edited on March 15, 2007 at 9:05 PM. Reason : ^edited too]

3/15/2007 9:04:06 PM

Resignation is lame.

3/15/2007 9:10:08 PM

Quote :

"There is a consensus, then there are some Canadian scientists posting on the internets."

thats so wrong its almost funny.

3/15/2007 9:13:26 PM

Quote :

" 2. Just because a handful of scientists think there's a convincing argument to counter climate change, doesn't mean it's so. There is a consensus, then there are some Canadian scientists posting on the internets. Fallacy of equal time anyone?"

You don't hear anyone arguing against climate change saying, "No one believes that global warming exists." People (not scientists) have been trying to say that every scientist in the world believes in man-made global warming. That's not the case.

3/15/2007 9:16:19 PM

I'm still waiting for an article from a respectable source questioning whether or not humans are affecting climate change

3/15/2007 9:38:33 PM

^ No source would satisfy you.

3/15/2007 10:12:38 PM

Quote :

"2) Since 1998, the earth's temperature has stabilized and is changing at a rate statistically = 0"

wrong. 2003 2004 2005 were all the hottest years on record and 2006 liekly broke that record yet again.

3/15/2007 11:17:40 PM

^^ All I'm looking for is any serious questioning of the consensus in any respectable venue.

You all haven't produced anything since I asked for it weeks ago.

3/15/2007 11:42:24 PM

^ Bullshit! I presented you with quite a few peer-reviewed papers--and you said there were none--but you sniffed and declared them invalid. It's typical--really.

Here is the link again--for your edification:

http://friendsofscience.org/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20SHORT%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf

[Edited on March 16, 2007 at 12:03 AM. Reason : .]

3/15/2007 11:54:15 PM

Just give them 5 to 10 years, thell find another thing to freak out about. itll be like Dioxin poisons or Some weird shit we havent hearda bout.

Its somethign new thats going to destroy humanitity every 5-10 years, Its OIL OMG (we have only had a 20 year supply of oil since 1920s), OZONE (instant death to walk outside). Astroides (THEY ARE GOING TO HIT US ANY DAY NOW), and now global warming.

See back in the day when we had real things to worry about, like, starving, or you know, not getting killed by invading armies, or nuked, we didtn come up with stupid shit every 10 years and declare it was goign to end humanitity, because frankly we had enough problems.

Now we sit, happy, and we have to figure out ways for us to die. So we take an issue, it might even be a real issue, blow it up, declare it the end of life as we know it, say our kids will be living in hell, and spend a shitton of money towards it until its no longer the cool way for humanity to end and find something new.

Ohh yea,

And if we really want to go for the money shot, we decalre that we "PREVENTED HUMANITITIES DEMISE" just to you know, make it seem that we didnt waste all that money.

[Edited on March 16, 2007 at 7:47 AM. Reason : dd]

3/16/2007 7:45:50 AM

wow Boone...great point-by-point rebuttal...you got through 3 of the 13 points before stopping with your "a few canadan scientists on the internet" point that seems to work so well for you when you run out of other "omg save the planet" rhetoric

Quote :

"Policy decisions are based on likely scare tactic alarmist worst-case scenarios, not absolute certainty. So when making these decisions that will may or may not have a huge an impact on all our lives, do we rely on 98% 10000% of the scientific community, or a handful of obscure Exxon-funded whale-eating BP-stock-owning Shell-oil-investing Canadian scientists posting on the internet?"

omg i'm going to scare you into believing in global warming

3/16/2007 9:24:29 AM

Nobody likes Canadians.

3/16/2007 10:08:21 AM

http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/03/12/chinese-pollution-makes-us-storms-worse

3/16/2007 11:44:09 AM

^^^I think there is some truth to global warming, but why be scared of it.....it's going to take centuries for us to have widespread events bad enough to threaten our existence.....which is why people should quit arguing about it and look for reasonable solutions.

Even if you don't think its "real" ( ).....there is still no reason to not actively seek better alternatives.

3/16/2007 11:53:22 AM

^well according to ^^that it sounds like China has some work to do, not us

Quote :

"but why be scared of it"

i dunno, why do people try to scare everyone about it?

3/16/2007 11:57:36 AM

Quote :

"wrong. 2003 2004 2005 were all the hottest years on record and 2006 liekly broke that record yet again."

That is probably the most false thing posted in this thread thus far.

3/16/2007 12:04:37 PM

^^for the same reason that others try to say we can pump all the pollution in the air we want, w/o any ill consequences....

and when I say we, i'm referring to the human race....so yes china has some work to do as well.

^i'm not so sure about that:

Quote :

"Winter Warmest on Record Worldwide By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID AP Science Writer Posted: Mar. 15 2:25 p.m. Updated: Mar. 15 5:40 p.m. WASHINGTON — This winter was the warmest on record worldwide, the government said Thursday in the latest worrisome report focusing on changing climate. The report comes just over a month after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said global warming is very likely caused by human actions and is so severe it will continue for centuries. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the combined land and ocean temperatures for December through February were 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit above average for the period since record keeping began in 1880. The report said that during the past century, global temperatures have increased at about 0.11 degrees per decade. But that increase has been three times larger since 1976, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center reported. Most scientists attribute the rising temperatures to so-called greenhouse gases which are produced by industrial activities, automobiles and other processes. These gases build up in the atmosphere and trap heat from the sun somewhat like a greenhouse. Also contributing to this winter's record warmth was an El Nino, a periodic warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean. It was particularly strong in January - the warmest January ever - but the ocean surface has since begun to cool. The report noted that in the Northern Hemisphere the combined land and water temperature was the warmest ever at 1.64 degrees above average. In the Southern Hemisphere, where it was summer, the temperature was 0.88 degree above average and the fourth warmest. The late March date of the vernal equinox noted on most calendars notwithstanding, for weather and climate purposes northern winter is December, January and February. For the United States, meanwhile, the winter temperature was near average. The season got off to a late start and spring-like temperatures covered most of the eastern half of the country in January, but cold conditions set in in February, which was the third coldest on record. For winter, statewide temperatures were warmer than average from Florida to Maine and from Michigan to Montana while cooler-than-average temperatures occurred in the southern Plains and areas of the Southwest. For Alaska, both February and winter were warmer than average but far from the record warmth of 2003 and 2001, respectively. "

[Edited on March 16, 2007 at 12:06 PM. Reason : .]

3/16/2007 12:05:16 PM

well the real life Aristotle thought the Earth didnt move...so its no surprise that the TWW Aristotle comes with a bunch of bullshit of his own

3/16/2007 12:07:52 PM

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/2006_warm.html

3/16/2007 12:09:15 PM

only trusted scientists make accurate claims based on data like

Quote :

"2006 liekly broke that record yet again"

3/16/2007 12:17:34 PM

You can't trust anything from the IPCC.

these are nice though:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/

Aristotle, this one's especially for you: http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba337/ba337.html

[Edited on March 16, 2007 at 12:20 PM. Reason : k]

3/16/2007 12:19:27 PM

but saying it was the "hottest year on record" sounds a lot scarier than saying it was probably the hottest year of the last ~150 years even though the planet is 4 billion years old...that doesnt really scare me as much

3/16/2007 12:26:26 PM

Nobodys saying our existance will be threatened. We aren't destroying earth we are just changing it. Nations like United Sates and europe will just spend some money to ajust and they won't really be affected. An 80 foot retaining wall is in the plans for Manhattan. Nations like Bangladesh will have 80% of their populations habitat under water. What will they do? What will Subsaharan Africa do as the sahara doubles in size?

What will Asia and South America do when the Andesian and Himalayan water supplies melt?

Weather patterns are changing. Areas that always got alot of rain are no longer getting it while some areas are now getting too much?

3/16/2007 12:42:34 PM

Nobodys saying our existance will be threatened. We aren't destroying earth we are just changing it. Nations like United Sates and europe will just spend some money to ajust and they won't really be affected. An 80 foot retaining wall is in the plans for Manhattan. Nations like Bangladesh will have 80% of their populations habitat under water. What will they do? What will Subsaharan Africa do as the sahara doubles in size?

What will Asia and South America do when the Andesian and Himalayan water supplies melt?

Weather patterns are changing. Areas that always got alot of rain are no longer getting it while some areas are now getting too much?

3/16/2007 12:45:59 PM

Quote :

"The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that human activities are responsible for nearly all earth’s recorded warming during the past two centuries. "

the articles just basically say that the earth has natural heating and cooling cycles, which is accurate.

Quote :

"global warming is not a man made event.....we are just accelerating the cycle."

anyone who says that humans are the sole source for warming is just as crazy as the ones who say we have no affect on the environment.....Why does it have to be one end of the spectrum or the other?

3/16/2007 12:46:27 PM

Quote :

"An 80 foot retaining wall is in the plans for Manhattan"

You sure the environmentalists would let that pass? I mean that would have an adverse effect on the local ecology

3/16/2007 1:37:44 PM

80 feet? Last I heard they said the ocean was going to rise a couple feet, tops (the rise during the 20th century was measured in inches).

3/16/2007 1:59:42 PM

Quote :

"^ Bullshit! I presented you with quite a few peer-reviewed papers--and you said there were none--but you sniffed and declared them invalid. It's typical--really."

It's typical that your Alzheimer-ridden brain doesn't remember my response.

It was a bibliography of studies that might cast doubt on climate change; if only we could read them to make sure the titles weren't taken out of context by the clearly biased editor.

Quote :

"wow Boone...great point-by-point rebuttal...you got through 3 of the 13 points before stopping with your "a few canadan scientists on the internet" point that seems to work so well for you when you run out of other "omg save the planet" rhetoric "

Wow Treetard, way to fail at reading comprehension.

Quote :

"I made a point-by-point rebuttal, but it's pointless."

In other words, the words beneath that sentence were not a point-by-point rebuttal.

And I'm still waiting. Like an article in Nature maybe? I'm sure they would have something about your argument if it was legitimate.

Quote :

"You can't trust anything from the IPCC. these are nice though: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/ http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/"

Hold on, I think I have some Heritage Foundation articles you can use




[Edited on March 16, 2007 at 2:26 PM. Reason : Ironically enough, the NCPA has recieved $400,000 from Exxon]

3/16/2007 2:23:20 PM

Quote :

"It was a bibliography of studies that might cast doubt on climate change"

Way to finally pay attention to the concept of possibility and not definites...now apply what you've learned to your thoughts that humans definitely cause catastrophic global warming and you might learn something else

Quote :

"Ironically enough, the NCPA has recieved $400,000 from Exxon"

Quote :

"Exxon Mobil Corp paid $29.6 Billion in Income Tax last Year. The USA FY2006 Federal Budget was about $2.6 Trillion and will have tax receipts of about $1.9 trillion. $29.6B/$1.9T = 1.55% While not perfect, we can estimate that Exxon Mobil accounts for about 1.55% of every federal dollar spent. The United States Has Funded $14.5 Million of the $91.2 Million (about 16%) Raised By IPCC (Includes Franc to Dollar conversion of .8) The IPCC spent about $4.9 Million in 2006 ($4.9 Million) * (16%) * (1.55%) = $12,213 (2006 IPCC Spend) * (% US Contribution) * (% Exxon Mobil of US Tax Reciepts) = $12,213 Therefore, Exxon Mobil Corp funded about $12,213 of IPCC last year! "

Ironically enough, Exxon funded the IPCC...looks like the IPCC immediately loses all credibility by your preset standards

[Edited on March 16, 2007 at 3:04 PM. Reason : pwnt]

3/16/2007 3:01:17 PM

if your doctor told you your child might be allergic to peanuts are you going to keep him from eating peanuts or give him peanuts and see what happens?

3/16/2007 3:11:07 PM

wow what a great analogy

if your doctor told you that breathing will destroy the Earth, would you stop breathing or keep breathing and see what happens?

3/16/2007 3:14:40 PM

yep, page 3 is usually when SB threads start the inevitable fall to the shitter.

3/16/2007 3:16:31 PM

RUN FOR YOUR LIFE! Oh. . .wait.

3/16/2007 3:19:19 PM

I'd like to see Boone's comments on the IPCC receiving funding from Exxon (although indirectly)

I mean his main vice seems to be denouncing any shred of credibility that an organization has if they receive funding from Exxon...so lets see how he explains this one

He'll probably call me "Treetard" and ignore that his precious IPCC gets money from the evil Exxon

[Edited on March 16, 2007 at 3:26 PM. Reason : .]

3/16/2007 3:21:45 PM

its funny you draw the analogy between cutting down c02 emmissions and stopping breathing.(yes i know we breathe out co2)

would cutting co2 emmissions really be so hard?

3/16/2007 4:07:50 PM

that analogy was supposed to be dumb, just like your doctor/peanuts analogy

3/16/2007 4:09:02 PM

Quote :

"now apply what you've learned to your thoughts that humans definitely cause catastrophic global warming and you might learn something else"

Who's said definitely? Very probably is all anyone can say.

But apparently high probability isn't good enough when making decisions.

The Treetard Doctrine: No proactive policy can be made until 1) we develop a time machine and 2) there are no dissenting opinions in Canada

Quote :

"I'd like to see Boone's comments on the IPCC receiving funding from Exxon"

Is this one of these times where I'm failing to discern "sarcasm" from your stupidity? Hell-- as a state employee, I receive funding from Exxon, then. I'm trying to think of a single person or organization in the United States that doesn't receive funding from Exxon, using your reasoning.

3/16/2007 4:46:55 PM

Quote :

"as a state employee, I receive funding from Exxon"

so you're admitting you dont have any credibility

lol state employee hahaha...that History degree sure worked out for you

3/16/2007 4:49:52 PM