^^ yeah, its not like we've had some sort of revolutionary technological advancements like computers since the mid 1970's or anything

10/12/2007 12:12:57 PM

apparently you know more than 99% of scientists in 1975 (/typical liberal response to anyone that questions majority)

but seriously...if we were so inaccurate about our predictions just 30 years ago...inaccurate as in...completely wrong...even though everyone back then JUST KNEW they were right (even though they werent)...how in the world can you have faith that data from 30 years ago, or 60 years ago, or 100 years ago, is accurate data? Can't have it both ways...if you're questioning their technology in the 1970s before computers and advanced satellites, its only responsible to also question the data collection methods and data collected

10/12/2007 12:17:25 PM

After conducting a semester long investigation into both sides of the "global warming" argument, we found that humans are contributing to global warming, and contributing a lot more than in the past. Although there are other factors (such as volcanoes, heat island effect, etc.) heating up the earth some the biggest contributor is greenhouse gasses. Although the earth does go through many cycles (Milankovitch cycle, 11 year sunspot cycle) which correlate to the heating and cooling of the earth, there is a drastic increase in earth CO2 levels since the 1970s that cannot be accounted for by just these cycles. In all other times, high CO2 - one of the major greenhouse gasses- levels correlate to higher average temperatures on the planet, spikes in CO2 levels come right before higher global temperatures and we know for a fact that C02 traps heat, and causes higher temperatures. The last time CO2 levels were this high was during the mesozoic.

That being said, there needs to be a lot more investigation done because there is still a lot of debate about specifics.

Oh, and Al Gore is a hypocrital idiot. His movie oversimplified a bunch of crap, and he himself doesn't live a lifestyle that would fit someone trying to stop global warming.

10/12/2007 12:24:01 PM

Quote :

"In all other times, high CO2 - one of the major greenhouse gasses- levels correlate to higher average temperatures on the planet, spikes in CO2 levels come right before after higher global temperatures"

I fixed your innaccuracy/typo for you

10/12/2007 12:34:42 PM

Quote :

"That being said, there needs to be a lot more investigation done because there is still a lot of debate about specifics."

Oh please. This is the most widely studied phenomenon in the history of science. That's just an argument to prevent any real action to be taken indefinitely. The vast majority of conservatives have no idea what constitutes statistically valid research anyway.

10/12/2007 12:40:47 PM

Quote :

""Unprecedented era of the devaluing dollar"? You must not have heard of the 70's and it's triple-digit inflationary periods. And I fail to see how the middle man gets squeezed by tax cuts. When pressed, you liberals always fall back to that class-warfare bullshit."

Liberals? When you start to sound like TreeTwista, you know your argument failed.

The tax cuts by themselves didn't stimulate the economy, the cuts + free money did. That plus having to pay this war debt is going to come back to haunt us.

10/12/2007 12:41:48 PM

I can agree with that. Nevertheless, I really doubt that we would have a surplus under Gore. The economy would likely be in worse shape, and revenue would be down from the Clinton years (in real dollars) regardless of whether we had cut taxes.

10/12/2007 12:45:44 PM

So Twista's just resorted to rehashing lame arguments made 15 pages ago?

The global cooling thing was addressed.

A number of times.

In this very thread.

It was a couple articles and a couple scientists. It's not comparable to today's view of climate change.

Quote :

"but seriously...if we were so inaccurate about our predictions just 30 years ago...inaccurate as in...completely wrong...even though everyone back then JUST KNEW they were right (even though they werent)...how in the world can you have faith that data from 30 years ago, or 60 years ago, or 100 years ago, is accurate data?"

Like, can we really know anything, maaaaan? I once totally talked to this professor once...

10/12/2007 12:52:53 PM

Quote :

"Oh please. This is the most widely studied phenomenon in the history of science. That's just an argument to prevent any real action to be taken indefinitely. The vast majority of conservatives have no idea what constitutes statistically valid research anyway."

so conservatives dont understand research...statistics is now a partisan issue for you as well?

Quote :

"The tax cuts by themselves didn't stimulate the economy"

yes they did...i guess when your parents still pay for everything of yours you dont have a reason to know basic economics

Quote :

"The global cooling thing was addressed. A number of times. In this very thread. It was a couple articles and a couple scientists"

read the newsweek article so you dont sound like any more of a retard..."they are almost unanimous" in their view that the global cooling trend will continue...but if you want to convince yourself that it was only "a couple scientists" be my guest...you already do quite a sufficient job of falsely indoctrinating yourself into obsessing on any liberal talking point

also it'd be nice if you would refresh our memories of how global cooling was already addressed in this thread...unless you want to just claim it was already addressed since you don't know shit about science anyway

thank god Boonetroll isnt a teacher anymore

10/12/2007 1:02:43 PM

Well, if Newsweek says so

How about instead of referencing a page-long Newsweek article over and over again, you provide something substantial.



[Edited on October 12, 2007 at 1:19 PM. Reason : .]

10/12/2007 1:10:10 PM

scuba steve already pointed out that technology is much greater nowadays than it was in the 70s...that nowadays we have a lot better tools to study the climate...so the reason the global cooling consensus didnt hold as much weight as the global warming consensus is because science can do a lot more nowadays...yet how does a computer in 2007 offset shitty data taken in 1912? it doesnt...you like to make fun of the "oh can we really know anything" and it shows us all that you're too much of a simpleton to understand science...if its not in black text on white paper in a history book its too much for you to grasp

and you tell me to add substance? all you do in this thread is troll...if you knew anything your last posts would have contained at least half a sentence worth of substance...stick to posting about political history cause you've proven again and again you aren't cut out to even discuss anything scientific

10/12/2007 1:15:34 PM

Tax cuts don't stimulate economies unless people spend more after the tax cuts. Clinton and Greenspan teamed up to stimulate the economy (with much more success) without the type of tax cuts GW did.

10/12/2007 1:17:35 PM

by that logic, free money doesnt stimulate the economy, unless people spend it

of course people have to spend money to stimulate the economy...and by cutting taxes, they get to keep more of their wages...hence they have more money...to spend

10/12/2007 1:19:42 PM

Quote :

"yet how does a computer in 2007 offset shitty data taken in 1912?"

Why are climate records in question, again?


Oh, and:

And:

Quote :

"lol @ overwhelming consensus of global cooling 30 years ago"

-p.21, Tree

Quote :

"I'd much rather we be sure that it's necessary before we go off doing some crazy shit like pouring soot over the polar ice caps (proposed during the global cooling scare)."

-p.16, burro

Quote :

"Who here was alive in 1975? http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf"

-p.10, KDawg

in response to:

Quote :

"also it'd be nice if you would refresh our memories of how global cooling was already addressed in this thread...unless you want to just claim it was already addressed since you don't know shit about science anyway"

[Edited on October 12, 2007 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

10/12/2007 1:20:14 PM

nice...you control f'd each page for cooling...you pointed out where it was talked about...but how does that have anything to do with your erroneous claim that:

Quote :

"It was a couple articles and a couple scientists. It's not comparable to today's view of climate change"

or since global cooling has been mentioned in the thread I'm "rehashing lame arguments"? the "lame arguments" always made ignoramuses like you not post since you were like "oh shit there was a consensus on cooling just 30 years ago? i dont get it...i better just let this thread die until something new comes out"

Quote :

"yet how does a computer in 2007 offset shitty data taken in 1912?"

Quote :

"Why are climate records in question, again?"

ok so...in the 1975 the technology in science was so bad, that the consensus about climate change was the exact opposite of the consensus in 2007...yet in 1925 for example...long before the shitty technology of the 70s...we have good enough technology to get accurate data? how the hell did that happen?

[Edited on October 12, 2007 at 1:26 PM. Reason : .]

10/12/2007 1:24:08 PM

Quote :

"by that logic, free money doesnt stimulate the economy, unless people spend it of course people have to spend money to stimulate the economy...and by cutting taxes, they get to keep more of their wages...hence they have more money...to spend "

please tell me how Clinton ended up with a surplus and stimulated the economy at the same time.

You may have to ask alan greenspan, but the blatant disregard of (y)our national debt, and the constant tax cuts isn't going to lead us the the economic utopia you may think it would.

10/12/2007 1:25:31 PM

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."

^^From page 10.

[Edited on October 12, 2007 at 1:27 PM. Reason : .]

10/12/2007 1:27:16 PM

^^nobody is talking about economic utopia...but common sense would tell anyone that if they get taxed less, and therefore earn more money, they will have more money to spend...if you have more money to spend at my business, thats more money for my business, and me...its simple really

^yeah i saw that...but what does it have to do with data before the 70s? why dont you tell me something substantial about it since you know so much about it...considering that quote mentions absolutely nothing about old data

according to you, we had great technology for acquiring data up until the 70s...technology declined...then came back up in the 90s and this century...its a shame we couldnt use the great data collection technologies from the 1890s and use them in the 1970s

[Edited on October 12, 2007 at 1:31 PM. Reason : .]

10/12/2007 1:27:59 PM

I've already asked why early data is in question.

10/12/2007 1:31:18 PM

because the early data was gathered with technology inferior to the technology in the 1970s? you're saying in the 70s the technology was inferior to technology nowadays...well what kind of technology do you think we had in the first half of the century to get the data in the first place?

just another example of your failure to understand science...you're fine and dandy with somebody telling you everything in the 70s was wrong because we didnt have the computers to generate models, etc...but it doesnt even enter your mind that all the old data that the computers use for models was gathered with even worse techology?

[Edited on October 12, 2007 at 1:34 PM. Reason : .]

10/12/2007 1:32:42 PM

Quote :

"^^nobody is talking about economic utopia...but common sense would tell anyone that if they get taxed less, and therefore earn more money, they will have more money to spend...if you have more money to spend at my business, thats more money for my business, and me...its simple really"

You don't know dick about economics, so stop even attempting to debate it.

10/12/2007 1:32:59 PM

actually i sustain myself...your idea of economics is "hey dad buy me this"

10/12/2007 1:34:43 PM

Quote :

"because the early data was gathered with technology inferior to the technology in the 1970s? you're saying in the 70s the technology was inferior to technology nowadays...well what kind of technology do you think we had in the first half of the century to get the data in the first place?"

Oh, ok.

I was thinking you were just sucking at reading comprehension. I should have just saved some keystrokes and assumed it to be the case.

1) Nowhere in the rebuttal does it say our raw data was inherently flawed back then-- only our modeling.
2) In regards to raw data, we have much more data. Nothing was said about quality.

10/12/2007 1:37:21 PM

Quote :

"Nowhere in the rebuttal does it say our raw data was inherently flawed back then"

Boone I'm about to ask you to do something you've probably never done before...instead of basing your entire opinion on what you just read in that MSNBC article, why don't you actually THINK for one second...data is needed to make projections...accurate data is needed to make more accurate projections...how accurate do you think our data was 100 years ago when we were still shitting in outhouses? What kind of good projections can you make with the best computers if you're using the worst data?

10/12/2007 1:40:11 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "An overwhelming majority of Americans — 90% of Democrats, 80% of independents, 60% of Republicans — now say they favor "immediate action" to confront the climate crisis." http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1670838,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-full-nation "

Too bad they're not educated on both sides of the story...

10/12/2007 1:44:23 PM

^^

1) You're right; neither indoor plumbing, nor thermometers existed in 1912

2) In 1970 were were limited to first-hand observations of temperature. Clearly this is limited (though not inaccurate, as you claim). Now we have ice core samples to confirm preexisting data and expound on it. Thus, data in the 1970's was very limited compared to today's, but not necessarily inaccurate (hey wait, that's what the article said in the first place! wow!).

Quote :

"Too bad they're not educated on both sides of the story..."

Are you really implying that the anti-climate change viewpoint hasn't received enough exposure?

[Edited on October 12, 2007 at 1:56 PM. Reason : .]

10/12/2007 1:45:19 PM

Quote :

"In 1970 were were limited to first-hand observations of temperature"

what?

btw ice cores have shown the earth going through huge changes before we were around...they havent confirmed anything pre-existing except for precipitation over the last century since thats the only pre-existing data we had...they've shown us brand new things we've never seen like changes over hundreds of thousands of years

Quote :

"data in the 1970's was very limited compared to today's, but not necessarily inaccurate"

oh boy i knew i shouldnt have asked you to think

the data in the 70s is the same data we have now when we're looking at pre-1970s data...we cant use our new computers to go back in time and record data with modern technology

the new data...the most accurate data...is the data from the last few decades...data collection technologies have gotten a lot more sophisticated, not just data extrapolation technologies...hence the data up until the last few decades wasnt necessarily ACCURATE

10/12/2007 1:54:52 PM

10/12/2007 2:00:26 PM

Quote :

"they havent confirmed anything pre-existing except for precipitation over the last century since thats the only pre-existing data we had"

You're saying we didn't have any temperature data prior to drilling?

All those scientists that took expeditions up there never thought to bring a thermometer with them?

Quote :

"the data in the 70s is the same data we have now when we're looking at pre-1970s data...we cant use our new computers to go back in time and record data with modern technology"

We can actually. I take it you're not aware that ice samples also give us temperature data. Did that professor not tell you this that time you totally talked to him? I mean, you go on to mention extrapolation-- from what source do you think we extrapolate from?


And what is it with you clinging onto red herrings the instant you're cornered. Between our inability to quantify war and our imperfect climate data from the 1970's, can we really know anything, maaaaan?



[Edited on October 12, 2007 at 2:11 PM. Reason : well apparently there's a single professor from NCSU who knows the Truth.]

10/12/2007 2:04:15 PM

I like the way you talk

[/slingblade]

10/12/2007 2:12:51 PM

Quote :

"^^nobody is talking about economic utopia...but common sense would tell anyone that if they get taxed less, and therefore earn more money, they will have more money to spend...if you have more money to spend at my business, thats more money for my business, and me...its simple really"

That just isn't the way economics works dude, it isn't just "simple really"

Maybe that's the way people thought before the great depression?

I wished econ was that simple when I was going through all those courses, but it just isn't.

[Edited on October 12, 2007 at 2:51 PM. Reason : ]

10/12/2007 2:29:26 PM

Oh come on terpball, econ is as simple as the insult he'll launch at you with his next post.

10/12/2007 2:39:26 PM

I don't see how anyone could describe our economy, or any economy as "simple"

Someone who has never taken a legit econ class obviously

10/12/2007 3:10:39 PM

Quote :

"please tell me how Clinton ended up with a surplus and stimulated the economy at the same time."

Tech boom.

And if you were paying attention during your "many econ classes" you would know that our economy is largely investment driven. Preoccupation with spending ignores the larger picture and overall health of the economy.

10/12/2007 3:33:23 PM

Yeah, I know our economy is driven by investment, did I say it wasn't? All I said is tax breaks don't always help the economy. Sometimes something like a tech boom sparks it. Did the tech boom come from cutting taxes? It probably was more of a result from government grants - the opposite of cutting taxes.

10/12/2007 3:46:17 PM

Quote :

"I don't see how anyone could describe our economy, or any economy as "simple""

who said the economy was simple? i said the concept of cutting taxes to increase spending is simple...its utterly retardedly simple...give people more money, they're more likely to spend money...spend it domestically and the economy grows

but this thread isnt about the economy if fucking al gore had won in 2000...thats just another one of joe_schmoe's fantasies

this thread is about the impossible struggle of critical thinkers with basic understandings of the scientific process attempting to convince alarmist environmentalists misguided by emotion and self loathing that they dont know what the fuck they're talking about

[Edited on October 12, 2007 at 3:55 PM. Reason : .]

10/12/2007 3:50:19 PM

Back on topic:

http://www.kansascity.com/news/world/story/313405.html

Quote :

"A High Court judge in Britain has criticized former Vice President Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” as being both “alarmist” and “exaggerated.” In a written judgment Wednesday, Justice Michael Burton said the film was riddled with nine scientific errors as he considered whether it should be shown to British school children. For example: he said Gore’s suggestion that the Gulf Stream would one day stop warming up the Atlantic Ocean, thus plunging Europe into an ice age, runs foul of the International Panel on Climate Change’s assessment that it was “very unlikely” to happen. While the judge declined to ban the film, he ordered that it could be shown in schools only with guidance notes to counter the film’s “one-sided” viewpoint."

10/12/2007 3:55:53 PM

Quote :

"yeah, fuck it. im with Hooksaw and Twista now. cause you know, fuck the science"

forgive me, joe, but I would hardly call fudged numbers, biasing the data to your hypothesis, and ignoring major factors in the topic at hand outright anything close to "science."

Quote :

"we wouldn't be down $1Trillion and 4000 soldiers in the quagmire of Iraq."

right, we'd be down $1Trillion to pay for Al Gore's retirement plan and his carbon credits, as well as for some other myriad of bullshit and unConstitutional social programs.

Quote :

"Bin Laden didn't execute an attack on american soil that killed 3000 people and cause an incredible amount of economic damage under Clinton's watch, either."

THE HELL HE FUCKING DIDN'T. Do you REALLY think that OBL did ALL of the PLANNING AND EXECUTING of 9/11 in the 8 MONTHS of GWB's presidency? Give me a fucking break, you partisan hack.

Quote :

"yeah, its not like we've had some sort of revolutionary technological advancements like computers since the mid 1970's or anything"

Only problem with that statement is that one of the main people behind the current GW scare is the same man that was behing the cooling scare. And he is using the same methodologies now as he did then. Hmmm, wonder if the validity of the outcome will be any different...

Quote :

"After conducting a semester long investigation into both sides of the "global warming" argument, we found exactly what we wanted to find, that humans are contributing to global warming, and contributing a lot more than in the past."

There, fixed it for you

Quote :

"The vast majority of conservatives have no idea what constitutes statistically valid research anyway."

Yes, because clearly "statistically valid research" involves biasing data that fits your hypothesis with absolutely no scientific reason for doing so. It also involves ignoring major inputs into the system because they are inconvenient to your hypothesis. And finally, it involves taking an unreasonably small and inaccurate sample set in order to estimate long term trends.

10/12/2007 4:17:01 PM

Quote :

"critical thinkers with basic understandings of the scientific process"

This just in:

99.8% of climate scientists lack the ability to think critically or follow the scientific process.


And are you going to address the fact that you apparently don't even know how climate data is collected?

10/12/2007 4:21:55 PM

This just in. 99.8% of people today think that Columbus was hindered by the widespread belief that the earth was flat. Ironically, though, no one in Columbus' time thought the earth was flat.

Yet another proof that consensus does NOT imply fact. Especially when the "consensus" is a contrived one, made up by supporters of one argument to shut up opponents.

10/12/2007 4:25:45 PM

^^I know full well how climate data is collected.

I also realize the margins of error of any type of isotopic dating. Let alone the inherent problem with ice cores: we can only get them from the poles. In other words, they don't tell us what the climate was like in the eastern United States 100,000 years ago. So no ice cores do not give GLOBAL temperature readings. Did you forget to google that part? I remembered it from school.

and 99.8% of climate scientists huh...sounds about like the percentage of scientists 30 years ago who knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that we were in a period of catastrophic cooling

But computers can make wild guesses faster nowadays so now all the scientists are right unlike 30 years ago when they were all wrong

boone take note from burro

Quote :

"consensus does NOT imply fact"

its basic and fundamental concepts like this that you still fail to understand...its like you're talking about advanced calculus but you forgot to learn how to multiply first

[Edited on October 12, 2007 at 4:28 PM. Reason : .]

10/12/2007 4:27:12 PM

Remember, trust the scientists, because they are scientists! Nevermind the man behind that curtain over there... *cough*religion*cough*

10/12/2007 4:30:48 PM

lou dobbs just said we are in a "500 year drought"

10/12/2007 5:46:51 PM

Quote :

"This just in. 99.8% of people today think that Columbus was hindered by the widespread belief that the earth was flat. Ironically, though, no one in Columbus' time thought the earth was flat."

0.00% of European Historians believe that.

GREAT ANALOGY!

10/12/2007 7:43:43 PM

burro calling someone a partisan hack? hahaha

10/12/2007 8:40:55 PM

Quote :

"burro calling someone a partisan hack? hahaha"

says the troll with an alias named PartisanHack... (lol 132 posts and they suspend the fag for trolling)

every single post this bald fag makes, the hypocrisy is so obvious...its like he was intentionally trying to pwn himself

10/12/2007 10:00:35 PM

Quote :

"^^ Bin Laden didn't execute an attack on american soil that killed 3000 people and cause an incredible amount of economic damage under Clinton's watch, either. i mean jesus, dude, that's pretty weak for a veteran troll such as yourself. surely you can do better than that. I'm disappointed in you."

joe_schmoe

"[U]nder Clinton's watch":

February 26, 1993 - World Trade Center is bombed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/26/newsid_2516000/2516469.stm

On or about January 1, 2000 - millennium attack plots fail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_millennium_attack_plots

January 3, 2000 - Attack on USS The Sullivans fails--attack boat so bomb-laden it sank before reaching target

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_The_Sullivans_%28DDG-68%29

October 12, 2000 - USS Cole is bombed

Quote :

"We will do whatever it takes, for as long as it takes, to find those who killed our sailors and hold them accountable. (President Clinton, October 14, 2000)"

http://usinfo.state.gov/is/international_security/terrorism/uss_cole.html

Why was Bill Clinton angering the Islamofascists? I mean, we could have just negotiated with them, right? Like the doves want us to do now, right? STFU.

10/13/2007 12:49:49 AM

Quote :

"the data in the 70s is the same data we have now when we're looking at pre-1970s data...we cant use our new computers to go back in time and record data with modern technology"

I was under the impression that data collected today could be input to current climate models that could accurately extrapolate data from the past.

10/13/2007 1:06:58 AM

[Edited on October 13, 2007 at 2:25 AM. Reason : ]

10/13/2007 2:24:46 AM

Quote :

"ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works". Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth. His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming. "We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous." At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing." Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming. But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place. However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years. "We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said. During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error. He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed. "The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said. He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science. "It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants.""

10/14/2007 2:20:48 PM