^^ pssst. I'm not even a Christian (anymore). Too bad satire is lost on you both. What do my hobbies have to do with me or this discussion? I also kiteboard, play hockey and play tennis. Do those activities have any bearing on my views as well?



[Edited on October 11, 2007 at 1:18 AM. Reason : .]

10/11/2007 1:17:36 AM

Quote :

"fully clean energy"

impossible

10/11/2007 1:18:37 AM

I support nuclear power

hooray futurism

10/11/2007 1:26:30 AM

Quote :

" If you do a little research you'll see that in the past few years they've decided they didn't like their margins of error for anything past the last 100 years so they reconstructed the graph to allow for more error, thus making it seem colder and giving the "hockey stick" graph posted. Also, notice the spike comes in to play when the siberian weather stations went down. "

You must be a little confused. The data from that plot is generated from 7 different studies. It's unlikely that one single person said "hey, lets increase error to cause higher temps." Not to mention that merely increasing your error bounds won't cause that affect on the data. And also that the black line there is direct temperature measurements (not proxy data) so it's pretty hard to fake that.

Quote :

"http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/images/sunspot-lenght-&-teperature.gif"

That's an interesting image that's worth further investigation though. If you look at how they generated that data ( http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html ) you'll see that it's not the most robust of data. The most concerning aspect is that they use a fairly weak 2nd order binomial low pass filter (which has a somewhat large amount of "ringing") , as well as combining this with an 11-year average of the temperatures, rather than a continuous average. To be fair, it's fairly understandable why they would do this (technology limitations of the time the study was done), but on its own, the study only points at the direction to look at.

This study: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/10/3713 Uses better AND more complete data (they estimate solar irradiance from magnetic flux proxy data rather than estimation sun spot from magnetic flux data and then trying to correlate that to irradiance).

Quote :

"explain the cyclical nature of the earths climate long before the industrial age.. "

Why?

No scientists is saying that the earth's climate doesn't vary naturally. They're saying that in the past 50 years, human causes account for at least as much, if not a bit more than natural causes. So it's natural causes + human causes now, not just natural causes (as the last image I just posted shows). You'd have to be an idiot to think people were claiming nature has no effect. It's nature+people. IOW, nature AND people. Do you understand?

Quote :

"explain whats happening on the other planets then.... "

What about other planets? Some of them are cooling, some of them are warming. They each have their own natural cycle causes by a great many factors (albedo, orbit, mass, chemical composition, satellites/parent planets, interstellar radiation -- since some don't have our magnetosphere/atmosphere to shield them, etc.). It's asinine to presume that our climate and there climate is comparable in the way you're suggesting.

To be clear, i'm not trying to assert that we're all doomed because we burn too much gas. I'm saying that most of the data now is pointing in a certain direction, and we have to be careful about how we invest our energy, collectively, as the stewards (or heirs, if you prefer) of the planet.

10/11/2007 1:33:27 AM

^ well said

10/11/2007 1:44:50 AM

Quote :

"I support nuclear power hooray futurism"

I suppose that response works for you in leu of actually admitting that you were an ill-spirited jackass by jumping to erroneous conclusions about someone.

10/11/2007 1:52:22 AM

nah I just wanted to ruffle some feathers

ya big queer

10/11/2007 1:53:33 AM

why dont all the hardcore protectors of earth who are so adamant into preventing further global warming because it is bad for the planet address the inevitable asteroid strike since that will be much more disastrous...i guess you really dont care about the planet

10/11/2007 2:06:51 AM

Hey, if it is natural then let it happen. It isn't so much about being hardcore in terms of saving planet Earth (even though that ends up being what happens in most cases) but the preservation of the natural process. Much like I am staunchly opposed to the idea of mesoscale weather modification.

10/11/2007 2:11:32 AM

if there is a big asteroid coming at earth and humans have the technological ability to prevent a catastrophic disaster, i'll be 100% for preventing it and i'll be damned if i give a fuck about "preserv(ing)...the natural process"

10/11/2007 2:18:36 AM

Survival is a very basic instinct. I can agree with the logic of it.

And your question in return will be "what is the logic in seeking to protect the natural process instead of your own existence?"

10/11/2007 2:27:48 AM

The true cause of global warming.

[Edited on October 11, 2007 at 2:43 AM. Reason : a]

10/11/2007 2:43:34 AM

the better question is how much do we even know about the natural process? what is it? what does it entail? what are all the influencing factors? what longterm and short term trends exist and why? what internal and external influences affect "the natural process"? we know a small amount spanning a minimal amount of time.

^surprisingly enough, that graph is actually accurate

[Edited on October 11, 2007 at 2:46 AM. Reason : .]

10/11/2007 2:45:58 AM

I am not sure if you mean that to be natural processes in and of themselves or temperature/weather. I am going to take that to mean the former and if so then is that not what a Naturalist studies? Or for that matter science in general?

10/11/2007 2:50:07 AM

Quote :

"To be clear, i'm not trying to assert that we're all doomed because we burn too much gas. I'm saying that most of the data now is pointing in a certain direction, and we have to be careful about how we invest our energy, collectively, as the stewards (or heirs, if you prefer) of the planet."

moron

Well, that's the fucking rub, isn't it? A hell of a lot of the global warming fanatics are saying just that.

Robert Kennedy, Jr.: If you disagree with him about global warming, you're one of the "corporate toadies" or you're a "traitor."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Heku9oTLysg

An Inconvenient Truth DVD cover and poster: "By far the most terrifying film you will ever see." Really? No alarmism in the art or the quotation, right?



And many more.

In any event, you should really watch these videos instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_21b7mdJz2M&NR=1

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ruuux4AuHfQ

(Please imbed.)

[Edited on October 11, 2007 at 3:06 AM. Reason : .]

10/11/2007 3:04:23 AM

I suppose I forgot one thing in my post earlier. We are a vital part of the equation to solving the question for which the answer is 42. So I must digress about what we "should" and "should not" be doing.

10/11/2007 4:35:21 AM

PLEASE DO NOT TRY AND USE ALGORES BULLSHIT AND PRETEND IT TO BE FACTUAL.

heres what a judge in britain had to say about it yesterday.

Quote :

"This article was first produced following an interim judgement of the High Court, since which time the full judgement has been given. In his full judgement the Judge listed nine inaccuracies rather than the 11 from the interim judgement - two appear to have been grouped together and another omitted. In the interests of clarity we have accordingly revised the details below. The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. The Court found that the film was misleading in nine respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film. In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children. The inaccuracies are: * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct. * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years. * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming. * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case. * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm. * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility. * The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim. * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration. * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim."

[Edited on October 11, 2007 at 9:10 AM. Reason : .]

10/11/2007 9:09:34 AM

ahahahahha

al gore

ahahahahhaha



french fried 'taters! mmmm-hmmm!

10/11/2007 9:15:11 AM

Geothermal energy is where it's at.

10/11/2007 9:25:05 AM

^ You and I may not agree on hurricanes but you are making a lot of sense here.

10/11/2007 6:45:03 PM

STAGED



FAKE











FAIL

10/11/2007 6:45:23 PM

Quote :

"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 artic 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."

man the grim reality of global cooling really fucked us up in the 80s since we didnt prepare

[Edited on October 11, 2007 at 6:55 PM. Reason : .]

10/11/2007 6:50:49 PM

thread is over. TreeTwista10 is here again and must be right. I always know i can count on you and shred any shadow of a doubt on issues of all subjects. Thank you for gracing everyone here with your intellect and finally solving the debate.

[Edited on October 11, 2007 at 7:03 PM. Reason : l]

10/11/2007 7:02:49 PM

HUR do you think we should cover the icecaps with black soot? I mean "The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meterologists 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 roductivity for the rest of the century"

10/11/2007 7:10:09 PM

I know its just natural variations of the weather cycle and within an expected deviation of climate but i do not exactly consider 93* in the 2nd week of October as very much evidence of "global cooling"

10/12/2007 2:55:44 AM

You missed the point. He's pointing out that the same people bitching about global warming today were bitching about global cooling 30 years ago and were warning us of a coming ice age. That article is from 1975.

By the way... its 48 degrees outside right now.

10/12/2007 2:57:44 AM

I hate it when idiots watch a documentry and then want to spread "their ideas".

10/12/2007 4:06:33 AM

everything seemed to get real quiet in here

10/12/2007 9:57:49 AM

that means we won. global warming is a myth.

10/12/2007 9:33:09 PM

So I've heard it argued that the CO2 concentration actually follows the temperature change instead of the other way around, meaning that this increase in CO2 will not necessarily be followed by a proportional increase in temperature as it has up until this point.

discuss?

10/12/2007 9:42:43 PM

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-4123082535546754758

10/12/2007 9:46:59 PM

^ Spanish. Don't understand.

10/12/2007 9:48:44 PM

those are subtitles. this is the only version i've been able to find still on the internet (copyright laws, youtube/google video keep taking it down)

[Edited on October 12, 2007 at 9:49 PM. Reason : ignore subtitles, the words/titles are still english.]

10/12/2007 9:49:32 PM

you mom is only subtitles!

10/12/2007 9:58:19 PM

shit, you got me

seriously watch the video though, very interesting.

10/12/2007 10:01:26 PM

Quote :

"Everything on the Earth is setup in a balance, food chains, eco-systems, etc etc. Not to sound like a hippy but this is just stating the truth. Trees are not here for us to cut down. Fossil Fuels are not in the ground for us to burn up. Entire forests and eco-systems are not put there for us to destroy and kill thousands of animals and now species; which in turn affects food chains, causing more damage. Minerals, metals, precious stones are not in the ground for us to mine. We take this damn approach that it is our right to take it all and use it for our selfish greed."

Not trying to join the "debate" or anything, but this part of your post really bothered me. You make the base assumption, as many environmentalists do, that humans are somehow not just as much a part of the environment as things that are traditionally considered "natural". Since we are human we tend to see ourselves as something above "nature", when really, being another species on the planet, we are arguably just as much a part of nature as a moose or the Atlantic Ocean. For all we know, humanity's technological and industrial expansion might just be another aspect of this planetary "balance" that exists.

Just playing devil's advocate.

10/12/2007 10:01:49 PM

playing devil's advocate is not a good idea my friend, since if you refuse to completely and blindly believe that humans are causing global warming, you will be labeled as a neocon by people who don't even know what neocon means except that it somehow groups you with George Bush!

10/12/2007 10:03:41 PM

And nevermind the stock market is up 100% over the last 5 years and unemployment is low... George Bush is TERRIBLE

10/12/2007 10:08:00 PM

he had about as much effect on those things as my shoe

10/12/2007 10:11:05 PM

you dont have to give him any credit...as long as you dont blame him when something isnt good

10/12/2007 10:12:56 PM

Quote :

"They are shot with high-powered guns between the eyes at night."

Is it just me, or was that little detail pointlessly graphic?

10/12/2007 10:15:45 PM

I think it would really suck to be suck a mental bitch that you spent half of your time playing out Earth's doomsday scenarios in your head...hopefully those people will die young due to unneeded stress

10/12/2007 10:16:43 PM

No but when sub prime loans go to shit we all know where you point your finger.

Also, if you don't give credit to George Bush (even though he does have a direct effect on our economy via tax cuts, etc) for the economic increase.... why do liberals give soooooooo much credit to Clinton for his economic increase (even though it was predicted to happen no matter who came into office)? Don't be a kerry flip-flopper.

10/12/2007 10:16:44 PM

clinton gets credit for the surplus, not the economy

10/12/2007 10:18:23 PM

*~* WARNING: This topic is now gliding down the "George Bush" debate path. Recommend aborting current discussion trend. *~*


To resume the global warming debate, this is the way I see it, as someone who is almost completely uneducated and uninformed about the entire issue, stated in layman's terms about as much as it possibly can be:

Some long-ass time ago, this planet had an ice age. Now, global warming at its current pace would melt the icecaps of the planet and all the glaciers, ect, causing a slow flooding of the entire planet (or that's what "scientists" claim in the political debates). Now, if the world were to flood slowly, it would result in a global cooling on a massive scale, thanks to so much of the earth being covered in water. Such a massive cooling would result in two major things... 1 - Humans realizing they fucked up (provided that we've been causing it in the first place), and either dieing out or ceasing mass creation of CO2 and trying to adapt by keeping warm while not damaging the environment, and 2 - A second major Ice Age. Given all this, I conclude that warming and ice ages are just a gigantic planetary climate cycle.

(Disclaimer: My entire line of thought might be, and probably is, completely scientifically wrong, and likely includes some degree of logical flaws. However, I am not claiming to give an educated or scientific opinion, simply the view of a bystander who hardly gives a shit about the whole issue. Thus, my opinion should be taken as less than a grain of salt to be agreed with, disagreed with, or proven false.)

[Edited on October 12, 2007 at 10:22 PM. Reason : .]

10/12/2007 10:21:40 PM

Just like any other President of the US, I supported Bill Clinton 100%...when he was President

Quote :

"WARNING: This topic is now gliding down the "George Bush" debate path. Recommend aborting current discussion trend"

while I agree with you in principle, I can only dis you by informing you that you missed 95% of all Soap Box threads, which inevitably turn into the "George Bush debate path" which is a nickname for the "Liberals bash Bush" path

[Edited on October 12, 2007 at 10:23 PM. Reason : .]

10/12/2007 10:22:16 PM

i've been watching/listening to the video while browsing and it parallels this thread pretty well. Right now they're discussing the cosmic ray relationship I posted about earlier. I'm rather entertained.

10/12/2007 10:25:15 PM

Quote :

"I can only dis you by informing you that you missed 95% of all Soap Box threads, which inevitably turn into the "George Bush debate path" which is a nickname for the "Liberals bash Bush" path"

I figured as much, it seems like the kind of place for such topic degeneration.
Might as well try to do my part to stop it, aye?

<Insert happy picture of trees advising people to reduce their carbon footprint>
<Insert semi-alarming and probably outdated pictures of people doing stupid shit with their waste>

[Edited on October 12, 2007 at 10:34 PM. Reason : v See below pictures]

10/12/2007 10:25:17 PM

^







[Edited on October 12, 2007 at 10:30 PM. Reason : /]

10/12/2007 10:29:30 PM

thx for needlessly fucking up the thread, jeff

10/12/2007 10:32:32 PM