41

1/13/2010 7:54:12 PM

Quote :

"Absorptions of radiation by the ocean doesn't have an effect on air temperature but it has the largest possible effect on climate."

Alright, fine. Where is the resulting increase in ocean temperatures? Non-existent. W00t!

Quote :

"Several models show that even if we STOP 100% of carbon exaust globally, its too late to keep the arctic from melting since CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100 years."

The only models that show this bullshit number are the IPCC's. Every other reputable study has shown residence times for CO2 on the order of a decade, at most. And most of those put the number at around 5 years. 100 years? Bullshit.

Quote :

"There are way too many dynamics behind the atmosphere and weather of the planet to simplify things to just air temperature."

But we can definitely simplify down what drives every thing to just one parameter, CO2, right?

Quote :

"A liberal bias would be the media deliberately stating carbon tax/cap and trade need to be implemented or something like that."

What about the media loudly hailing Mann's original hockey-stick study but failing to even mention when it was discredited?

Quote :

"I would caution you against disparaging the importance and effects of trace gases in our atmosphere. . ."

I would caution you against ignoring the other major gases in our atmosphere and only focusing on a minor trace gas as a main climate driver.

1/13/2010 8:20:21 PM

Quote :

"I would caution you against ignoring the other major gases in our atmosphere and only focusing on a minor trace gas as a main climate driver."

Yeah, that's right, that 78% Nitrogen is such driving force in our atmosphere. . .

1/13/2010 9:03:22 PM

Water vapor has a lot more direct impact on temperature than CO2

1/13/2010 9:09:15 PM

^ we have a winner!

1/13/2010 9:10:41 PM

Quote :

"Alright, fine. Where is the resulting increase in ocean temperatures? Non-existent. W00t!"

Like I've already stated. Heat can be absorbed and not result in a temperature increase. When you melt ice heat is absorbed and that ice cools the ocean when it falls in.

Quote :

"And most of those put the number at around 5 years. 100 years? Bullshit."

No. Some have began to argue than most co2 from fossil fuels (47%) is gone after 5-15 years but they still think the other 43% sticks around 100-500 years. 100 years is a the low end of the ranged. Most believe it to be an average of 200-300 before all of it is gone.

Quote :

"But we can definitely simplify down what drives every thing to just one parameter, CO2, right? "

No. Which is exactly why the earth isn't warming at an exponential rate.

Quote :

"What about the media loudly hailing Mann's original hockey-stick study but failing to even mention when it was discredited?"

means vs ends. The main point of that graph still stands. If I use a lie to prove a false theory its a lot worse than a lie to prove an undeniable truth.

1/13/2010 9:18:36 PM

whats this undeniable truth you speak of

1/13/2010 9:20:59 PM

carbon dioxide traps outgoing IR-truth1
we are releasing bookoo amounts of carbon dioxide-truth2
ice caps are melting more and more recently-truth 3
there are severe consequences to ice caps melting-truth 4

1/13/2010 9:50:08 PM

lol, yeah those are all wrong.

1/13/2010 9:54:46 PM

Quote :

"Like I've already stated. Heat can be absorbed and not result in a temperature increase. When you melt ice heat is absorbed and that ice cools the ocean when it falls in."

Yes, but that is NOT the case for water. Water cannot absorb heat and not increase in temperature, unless it is at the boiling point. Our oceans are CLEARLY not at the boiling point. High school physics, here, buddy.

Quote :

"No. Which is exactly why the earth isn't warming at an exponential rate."

Well then, explain why all of the climate equations touted only have one parameter to them: CO2.

Quote :

"means vs ends."

BULLSHIT. 1) In science, "still getting it right" doesn't make invalid methodology suddenly valid. 2) You said there was no media bias, yet clearly there was, as illustrated by my point.

Quote :

"If I use a lie to prove a false theory its a lot worse than a lie to prove an undeniable truth."

If you have an undeniable truth, then why lie? Surely there should be copious amounts of evidence.

Quote :

"ice caps are melting more and more recently-truth 3"

False. There is no evidence of such a thing. The ice extent in the Arctic is within the margin of error and is following yearly and decadal trends. The Antarctic ice sheet is increasing.

1/13/2010 10:03:46 PM

Quote :

"Water vapor has a lot more direct impact on temperature than CO2"

*GASP* You don't say!











Sadly, you've still missed the point.

[Edited on January 13, 2010 at 10:07 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2010 10:05:39 PM

great post

1/13/2010 10:07:29 PM

Quote :

"Yes, but that is NOT the case for water. Water cannot absorb heat and not increase in temperature, unless it is at the boiling point. Our oceans are CLEARLY not at the boiling point. High school physics, here, buddy."

have you ever heard of a melting point? middle school science, buddy. Ever wonder why people put ice in drinks?

Quote :

"Well then, explain why all of the climate equations touted only have one parameter to them: CO2."

because that is the only one humans are adding 27billion tons to each year

Quote :

"BULLSHIT. 1) In science, "still getting it right" doesn't make invalid methodology suddenly valid. 2) You said there was no media bias, yet clearly there was, as illustrated by my point. "

The media are not scientists nor did they say they "still got it right". Its just not worthy of bashing because their point still stands. Of course the desperate right will still try to nitpick small details and miss the central, obvious point.

Quote :

"If you have an undeniable truth, then why lie? Surely there should be copious amounts of evidence."

Its not an undeniable truth that humans are in control but some despartely want to prove that so they can have proof that us stopping emmisssions will reverse the process. Thats a huge uncertainty and the evidence for taht could only be circumstantial.

Quote :

"The Antarctic ice sheet is increasing."

Its also increasingly unstable and melting in areas touching water. The only thing saving it for now is that it sits on land and not in the ocean like the arctic but the warming from the loss of the arctic cap would surely cause the western antarctic shelf to follow soon after.

Positive feedback loop.

Quote :

"Water vapor has a lot more direct impact on temperature than CO2"

Yes it does but it only stays in the atmosphere 3-7 days and humans aren't adding as much to the water cycle.

Also remember the important thing is that increased co2 leads to an increase in water vapor and you've already stated the significance of that.

1/13/2010 10:26:13 PM

Quote :

"have you ever heard of a melting point? middle school science, buddy. Ever wonder why people put ice in drinks?"

you weren't talking about ice originally. you were talking about water. the temperature of water is also not uniformly at the freezing point. thus, it stands to reason that if lots of heat were being introduced in to the ocean, we ought to see an increase in temperatures.

Quote :

"because that is the only one humans are adding 27billion tons to each year"

So, then, you are essentially saying that CO2 is the only thing that matters. it is more important than every other gas, even in a trace amount.

Quote :

"ts just not worthy of bashing because their point still stands. "

Ummm... When much of the literature is based on that study or based on studies that were based on that study, I'd say it's a pretty huge fucking point. Any fraudulent science is worth bashing. ALL fraudulent science is worth bashing.

Quote :

"Its not an undeniable truth that humans are in control"

So, you are backtracking. got it.

Quote :

"Its also increasingly unstable and melting in areas touching water."

There's nothing unstable about it. The glaciers are moving towards the see and calving under their own weight. And, of course ice is melting in water that is above the freezing point. What else would you expect?

Quote :

"but the warming from the loss of the arctic cap would surely cause the western antarctic shelf to follow soon after. "

Except, there is no evidence for the loss of the arctic cap, as I already stated. Don't let facts get in the way of the truth though, right?

Quote :

"Positive feedback loop."

Yes. A massively steady system has so many positive feedbacks. That's quite a credible theory.

Quote :

"Yes it does but it only stays in the atmosphere 3-7 days and humans aren't adding as much to the water cycle. "

What does that matter? There's tons more of water vapour, and it is a more important GHG than CO2. As in, the effects of CO2 dwarf anything that CO2 could ever possibly add.

Quote :

"Also remember the important thing is that increased co2 leads to an increase in water vapor "

Only if increased CO2 actually increases temperature to any significant degree on earth, a notion that has yet to be proven. I like the circular logic though...

1/13/2010 10:43:46 PM

Quote :

"you weren't talking about ice originally. you were talking about water. the temperature of water is also not uniformly at the freezing point. thus, it stands to reason that if lots of heat were being introduced in to the ocean, we ought to see an increase in temperatures. "

I was always talking about ice melting and flowing into the ocean, causing a cooling effect short term.

Quote :

"So, then, you are essentially saying that CO2 is the only thing that matters. it is more important than every other gas, even in a trace amount."

Yes because thats where the variation is taking place. If we were constnatly boiling water on large scales all over the planet and water vapor stayed in the atmosphere for decades then yes, it would be a variable but its not.

Quote :

"Ummm... When much of the literature is based on that study or based on studies that were based on that study, I'd say it's a pretty huge fucking point. Any fraudulent science is worth bashing. ALL fraudulent science is worth bashing. "

scientifically, yes but not by the media unless its newsworthy. Don't confuse the media as scientists.

Quote :

"So, you are backtracking. got it. "

Go back and look at my 4 truths. Never did I say anything different. In fact, I said that its likely too late to slow things down at this point even if we haulted fossil fuels 100% today and I said we might as well prepare to adapt to upcoming changes.

Quote :

"There's nothing unstable about it. The glaciers are moving towards the see and calving under their own weight. "

"Large parts of the WAIS sit on a bed which is below sea level and slopes downward inland.[4] This slope, and the low isostatic head, mean that the ice sheet is theoretically unstable: a small retreat could in theory destabilize the entire WAIS leading to rapid disintegration."

Quote :

"Except, there is no evidence for the loss of the arctic cap, as I already stated. Don't let facts get in the way of the truth though, right?"

11.2% from 2000-2010

Quote :

"What does that matter? There's tons more of water vapour, and it is a more important GHG than CO2. As in, the effects of CO2 dwarf anything that CO2 could ever possibly add. "

and thank goodness or the entire earth would be frozen over. It is however, a very small change that has a lot at stake for society and CO2 can carry out that very small change. Human society is very vulnerable to minute changes in temperature.

Quote :

"Only if increased CO2 actually increases temperature to any significant degree on earth, a notion that has yet to be proven. I like the circular logic though..."

Well glaciers have melted. Not just at the poles but significantly everywhere on the planet.

1/13/2010 11:06:20 PM

Quote :

"I was always talking about ice melting and flowing into the ocean, causing a cooling effect short term."

So, ice is melting at the poles and cooling all of the world's oceans enough to remove any heating effect that we should be seeing from CO2? Really?

Quote :

"Yes because thats where the variation is taking place."

So, there are no other variations occurring right now? Really? We've conclusively narrowed down every single factor in our climate and shown that CO2 is the only thing that is changing?

Quote :

"If we were constnatly boiling water on large scales all over the planet and water vapor stayed in the atmosphere for decades then yes, it would be a variable but its not."

You don't get it. The ratio of CO2 to H20 is not changing significantly enough to make CO2 dominate the effects of water vapour whatsoever. We don't have to boil water. The fact that the ratio is 20% to .003% suggests that water will always have far more of an effect than CO2. And that doesn't even begin to account for the strength of the GHG of H20 alone versus CO2.

Quote :

"scientifically, yes but not by the media unless its newsworthy."

wasn't I talking about the science at that point? yes.

Quote :

"Go back and look at my 4 truths."

You don't have 4 truths. I'll say it for the 3rd time. Polar ice is within the margin of error. As in, we can't say definitively if it is decreasing at all.

Quote :

"11.2% from 2000-2010"

Source?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_nov_09.pdf
Pages 19-22 beg to differ.

Quote :

"Well glaciers have melted. Not just at the poles but significantly everywhere on the planet."

The fact that we are only 150 years out from the Little Ice Age wouldn't have any effect on that, would it? Melting glaciers are NOT proof of CO2-induced warming.

Quote :

"It is however, a very small change that has a lot at stake for society and CO2 can carry out that very small change. "

Again, PROOF? There is none. There is only conjecture backed up by models which still fail to predict what is actually happening. Again, such a steady system as our climate cannot have such a fickle parameter to it as CO2. It flies in the face of logic and what we know about steady systems

1/14/2010 12:27:06 AM

I'd recommend people (on both sides of the argument) ignore pack_bryan and mambagrl's posts...it'll only make this thread worse to respond to these uneducated and ill informed trolls hacks.

1/14/2010 12:03:12 PM

^

translation: "i'm a dumbass that's just been schooled by common sense and practical technology and lost all credibility and respect in this thread and have no serious reply to the matter"

i will be loling ur ass in 1 year when they start building those c02 scrubbers.



[Edited on January 14, 2010 at 2:06 PM. Reason : --]

1/14/2010 1:51:52 PM

More proof of data manipulation and bias:

Quote :

"NOAA appears to play a key role as a data gatherer/gatekeeper for the global data centers at NASA and CRU. Programmer E.M. Smith’s analysis of NOAA’s GHCN found they systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler. The thermometers in a sense marched towards the tropics, the sea and to airport tarmacs. * Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change had probably tampered with Russian climate data. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory and that the Hadley Center had used data from only 25% of such stations in its reports so over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global temperature calculations. The data of stations located in areas not used in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century. * In Canada the number of stations dropped from 600 to 35 in 2009. The percentage of stations in the lower elevations (below 300 feet) tripled and those at higher elevations above 3000 feet were reduced in half. Canada’s semi-permanent depicted warmth comes from interpolating from more southerly locations to fill northerly vacant grid boxes, even as a pure average of the available stations shows a COOLING. Just 1 thermometer remains for everything north of latitude 65N – that station is Eureka. Eureka according to Wikipedia has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to the flora and fauna abundant around the Eureka area, more so than anywhere else in the High Arctic. Winters are frigid but summers are slightly warmer than at other places in the Canadian Arctic. * China had 100 stations in 1950, over 400 in 1960 then only 35 by 1990. Temperatures reflected these station distribution changes. CRU’s own Phil Jones showed in 2008 peer review paper that contamination by urbanization in China was 1.8F per century. Neither NOAA nor CRU adjusts for this contamination. NASA to their credit, makes an attempt to adjust for urbanization, but outside the United States, the lack of updated population data has NASA adjusting cities with data from other cities with about as many stations warming as cooling (see here). * High elevation stations have disappeared from the data base. Stations in the Andes and Bolivia have vanished. Temperatures for these areas are now determined by interpolation from stations hundreds of miles away on the coast or in the Amazon."

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf

[Edited on January 15, 2010 at 10:56 AM. Reason : and it continues]

1/15/2010 10:54:51 AM

Nice, a paper from the SPPI, the Exxon front group. It asserts that NOAA eliminated higher elevation readings because they show cooling. Maybe those sensors don't provide consistent readings due to some atmospheric or environmental phenomenon that occurs at higher altitude.

It would be nice to know whether this is even true, and if so, NOAA's explanation for this. The problem is the paper doesn't cite anything but denier blogs and the Heartland Institute, so it's a big denier circle jerk.

1/15/2010 2:36:42 PM

while you have a valid point in questioning why, attacking Exxon for supporting the study means nothing. the gov't invests waaaaaaaay move moeny every year in studies trying to prove global warming. whats the difference?

[Edited on January 15, 2010 at 3:05 PM. Reason : all the gov't sees is green, as in our money]

1/15/2010 3:03:58 PM

Standardizing their sensor stations is not only expected but more than justifiable on NOAA's part. That the article claims that NOAA intentionally used sensors near airport tarmacs, which seems highly unlikely considering they're not a bunch of idiots, makes me wary.

1/15/2010 3:16:32 PM

You can't just remove weather stations for the f*ck of it.

Ultimately, now that we have satellite info to rely on this isn't as important. However its needed to know how to compare where we are now with the past.

1/15/2010 3:34:42 PM

Haha. Danny Glover just attributed the earthquake in Haiti to none other than global warming. lol

Quote :

"[quote]Nice, a paper from the SPPI, the Exxon front group."

Hey, nice ad hominem, dude. Care to address what was actually written? probably not.

Quote :

"Maybe those sensors don't provide consistent readings due to some atmospheric or environmental phenomenon that occurs at higher altitude. "

riiiiiiiight. I know exactly what the "environmental phenomenon" is: cooler temperatures. Maybe NOAA would like to explain what the "phenomenon" is...[/quote]

1/15/2010 6:00:57 PM

Quote :

"Care to address what was actually written? probably not."

Um, what? I did address what was written.

Quote :

"I know exactly what the "environmental phenomenon" is: cooler temperatures."

You do? That sure is keeping an open mind. Why bother with what NOAA's explanation is? We both know you'll just dismiss it anyway.

1/15/2010 6:51:42 PM

no, you didn't address what was written with that statement. You attacked the messenger.

Quote :

"You do? That sure is keeping an open mind."

Dude, you are the one who posed the conjecture. And it is an absurd one. There's not much different about measuring AIR TEMPERATURE between places of different altitude. It is suspect, at best.

1/15/2010 6:57:02 PM

Finally finished the new Freakanomics. Sounded to me like the whole global warming problem was fixed right there. If global warming gets bad or if the bad effects occur without much warming then bam, install some pipes and bad effects go away. And it can all be fixed for less than Al Gore is currently spending to spread awareness of the problem. If only he stopped wasting his money and actually bothered to fix the problem.

[Edited on January 16, 2010 at 5:17 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/16/2010 5:16:48 PM

^the only answer to the problem involves increasing gov't power and taxes, don't you know?

1/16/2010 6:52:28 PM

Another comment on the corruption of data taking at GISS and NOAA:

Quote :

"Climategate goes American: NOAA, GISS and the mystery of the vanishing weather stations By James Delingpole For those who haven’t seen it, here’s a link to US weatherman John Coleman’s magisterial demolition of the Great AGW Scam. I particularly recommend part 4 because that’s the one with all the meat. It shows how temperature readings have been manipulated at the two key climate data centres in the United States – the NASA Goddard Science and Space Institute at Columbia University in New York and the NOAA National Climate Data Center in Ashville, North Carolina. (Hat tip: Platosays) This is a scandal to rank with Climategate. What it shows is that, just like in Britain at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) temperature data records have been grotesquely distorted by activist scientists in order to exaggerate the appearance of late 20th century global warming. They achieved this – with an insouciant disregard for scientific integrity which quite beggars belief – through the simple expedient of ignoring most of those weather station sited in higher, colder places and using mainly ones in warmer spots. Then, they averaged out the temperature readings given by the warmer stations to give a global average. Et voila: exactly the scary “climate change” they needed to persuade bodies like the IPCC that AGW was a clear and present danger requiring urgent pan-governmental action. The man who spotted all this is a computer programmer called EM Smith – aka the Chiefio. You can read the full report at his excellent blog. In the 70s, the Chiefio discovered, GISS and NOAA took their temperature data from 6,000 weather stations around the world. By 1990, though, this figure had mysteriously dropped to 1500. Even more mysteriously this 75 per cent reduction in the number of stations used had a clear bias against those at higher latitudes and elevations. Here’s an excellent example of this: Bolivia. Notice that nice rosy red over the top of Bolivia? Bolivia is that country near, but not on, the coast just about half way up the Pacific Ocean side. It has a patch of high cold Andes Mountains where most of the population live. One Small Problem with the anomally map. There has not been any thermometer data for Bolivia in GHCN since 1990. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set. So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data from the last 20 years? Easy. GIStemp “makes it up” from “nearby” thermometers up to 1200 km away. So what is within 1200 km of Bolivia? The beaches of Chili, Peru and the Amazon Jungle. Not exactly the same as snow capped peaks and high cold desert, but hey, you gotta make do with what you have, you know? "

And so it goes...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022474/climategate-goes-american-noaa-giss-and-the-mystery-of-the-vanishing-weather-stations/

1/18/2010 1:02:07 PM

well, we have to get those numbers from somewhere...

1/18/2010 4:37:37 PM

Quote :

"Danny Glover just attributed the earthquake in Haiti to none other than global warming"

Plate tectonics and continental drift didn't affect the earth until the industrial revolution. Pangaea and Gondwonaland and all that shit must've shifted to become the current land/sea makeup of Earth by some other process. Danny Glover's comments are making geologists question their entire field.

1/18/2010 5:42:46 PM

Quote :

"Haha. Danny Glover just attributed the earthquake in Haiti to none other than global warming. lol "

when did he do this?

1/18/2010 5:46:37 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/15/danny-glover-haiti-earthq_n_425160.html

1/18/2010 5:48:27 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/15/danny-glover-haiti-earthq_n_425160.html

1/18/2010 5:48:36 PM

^ Glover doesn't say global warming caused the earthquake there. It seems to me that he's saying that haiti shows just how badly poor countries are able to respond to disasters, and their poor response is reflective of how poor countries around the world are going to fall on their face if natural disasters that might happen due to climate change occur.

But, i get it's more hilarious to pretend he was saying earthquakes cause global warming, carry on.

^^^^^^^

Quote :

" the Great AGW Scam"

lol, i can tell it's a credible article already

I'm curious though... the article there alleges that this is all part of a conspiracy to trick the IPCC into doing who knows what, that started back in the 70s, but the IPCC didn't exist back then...? And in the 70s, there was lots of rumblings about global cooling?

And if you're trying to get a feel for what changes in climate happen as a result of atmospheric chemistry, why WOULDN'T you pare out the stations that are affected differently? I can't imagine any honest, intelligent person could be convinced by such a poorly written article. It's almost like you don't care about truth or reason.

[Edited on January 18, 2010 at 5:57 PM. Reason : ]

1/18/2010 5:51:31 PM

ummm... he said that the failure at Copenhagen caused the earthquake, dude. it's implicit in what he said. jesus

1/18/2010 5:55:06 PM

^ wow. Did you even read the link? it's not implicit at all.

1/18/2010 5:58:31 PM

You must not have watched the video and heard Glover himself say it

Or maybe the evil neocon website The Huffington Post's headline of "Danny Glover: Haiti Earthquake Caused By Global Warming" is somehow misleading to you?

1/18/2010 6:02:55 PM

^ haha not everyone worships their media outlets like you and the rest of the right does. I'm sure it easy to swallow what someone else thinks, than thinking for yourself.

The video makes it even clearer that Glover wasn't saying global warming causes earthquakes. He was talking about how the response was a new kind of internationalism where countries help each other out, and the perils Haiti faces from this natural disaster are perils any poor country would face, and this new spirit of helping each other out is a good thing that we should nurture.

Seriously, this is not that hard to listen, use just a TINY bit of critical thinking skills, and try to understand what you are being shown.

1/18/2010 6:14:56 PM

I'm basing my opinion of what he literally said

You're basing your opinion off a lot of things you imagine he probably meant, or wish he meant, but nothing remotely close to what he says. Where do you get that his speech is about nurturing some new spirit of helping people out?

Quote :

"When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I’m sayin’?"

1/18/2010 6:23:04 PM

^ you're basing your opinion on what you imagined that he said. Actually, you're basing your opinion on what the media is telling you to think.

YOUR perspective requires presuming Glover meant something he didn't say. Mine requires taking his words at face value.

Quote :

""What happened in Haiti could happen to anywhere in the Caribbean because all these island nations are in peril because of global warming," Glover said. "When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I'm sayin'?""

No where there does it say "climate change causes earthquakes" "republicans cause earthquakes" "copenhagen causes earthquakes" or anything along those lines captain literal.

And we all know people only communicate using literal meanings right? No one ever uses colloquialisms or sarcasm or figures of speech (although in this case, glover isnt even doing those things).

^ you should watch the video that has his audio recordings

where does it say that copenhagen causes earthquakes? he's clearly talking about the devastation as a result of the disaster.

[Edited on January 18, 2010 at 6:33 PM. Reason : ]

1/18/2010 6:28:49 PM

Quote :

"What happened in Haiti could happen to anywhere in the Caribbean because all these island nations are in peril because of global warming,"

So you're saying when he says "what happened in Haiti" he is referring to the aid and outreach and assistance that everyone is giving, and not the earthquake happening. Ok, I'll play along.

What island nations are in peril because of global warming? If he's not saying earthquakes are a result of not getting anything accomplished in Copenhagen, what is he saying? Why bring up a failed summit like Copenhagen to try and promote something positive?

1/18/2010 6:32:34 PM

^ that's because people are taking it out of context for the comedic value of someone saying that man makes earthquakes. It's funny that way, and people like comedy. This is what the media is all about. I bet most of those people, when given the full context of glovers statement, wouldnt idiotically maintain that glover was saying climate change caused earthquakes, as you are doing.

And it's ironic that you are now citing a "consensus" when it's clear the actual evidence is against you, in the same thread that you've been trying to argue that the consensus is wrong (while the evidence is STILL against you).

It's like you don't consider evidence.

[Edited on January 18, 2010 at 6:37 PM. Reason : ]

1/18/2010 6:36:40 PM

i removed the google / consensus thing from my post for a reason...besides, it was a 100% consensus and apparently you couldnt find one single source that disagreed

let me ask you a simple question...was Copenhagen a failure or a success?

Quote :

"what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen"

what did we do at the climate summit Danny?

1/18/2010 6:38:30 PM

Quote :

"So you're saying when he says "what happened in Haiti" he is referring to the aid and outreach and assistance that everyone is giving, and not the earthquake happening. Ok, I'll play along. "

haha, and now the back pedaling begins. Firstly, i have no desire to discuss glover. I never have, nor do i, consider him an expert or authority on anything except acting in movies. I just thought it was odd how Glover was clearly saying one thing, and the media claimed something else, and the lemmings like you and others latched on to this to feed your delusion about climate science.

Secondly, he was talking about the abject destruction that was due to Haiti have a piss-poor infrastructure and emergency response services, like wealthier countries have (and for the record, i've already said this, i'm just repeating because I know you don't have the best reading comprehension).

1/18/2010 6:43:52 PM

What did Danny Glover mean when he said "what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen"?

1/18/2010 6:45:40 PM

^ he was talking about the fairly weak resolutions that came out of copenhagen, including no plan to help poor countries to deal with the devastation that could be wrought from disasters related to climate change.

Or he may be talking about the Earthquake machine that Dr. Victor von Doom unveiled to the world while demanding that we all work as his slaves to help him build the worlds largest smoothie machine.

1/18/2010 6:48:35 PM

Quote :

"When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I'm sayin'?"

So in other words:

When we look at the Copenhagen climate change summit, and see how we failed to reach resolutions to provide emergency care and disaster relief to 3rd world countries...what?

What is the response? What is what happens? They have shitty infrastructure? Lots of people volunteer time and/or money to help them out? Tell me what Danny is saying since you seem to know.

1/18/2010 6:55:04 PM

^ copenhagen doesn't do much to help poor countries prepare for disasters. Are you arguing that Haiti couldn't have been more prepared than they were for a disaster?

1/18/2010 6:57:10 PM

You can always be more prepared for something. I'm wondering what Glover is saying is the result of 'what we did at the climate summit'

What is the "this is the response, this is what happens"

What is he referring to? You're obviously saying he's not talking about an earthquake...is he talking about all the relief Haiti has received as a result of the international help and human spirit that should be nurtured that you mentioned earlier? Or is he talking about a lack of relief and aid to Haiti because the climate summit didn't provide enough support for countries like Haiti?

cause you've said both, even though they completely contradict each other

[Edited on January 18, 2010 at 7:05 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2010 6:59:59 PM