Global Warming.

[.VX]

Let us all gather 'round and discuss the evidence for and against Climate Change.
...
I think that it's real, and that humanity needs to do something about it.

[odin_dax]

Overall climate change is a fact, but I don't it's the immediate threat people say. It is true that there are plants and animals that won't have time to adapt, but we will be able to, and so will more species than not. The impact humans have on climate change is just the acceleration of it. Given that all we've done, the best we can do is slow down the long-term effects, but to reverse anything is a near impossibility.

The only course, really, is to do all we can now and assist life as much as we can. Ultimately, nature decides.


P.S. I'm not voting. I think a middle answer is a more appropriate choice.

[Th0r]

I've added two more voting options. A 'Yes and No' option and a 'To a degree' option.

After voting please elaborate on your reasons for voting.

[RoundElephant]

I just believe we should be pursuing cleaner energy sources. At our current rate I don't think most coastal cities will survive the next couple centuries.

[crazy white guy]

To a degree

History tells of a lot of similar things happening. Things like world wide droughts and global water levels rising. I don't think global warming is anything new. its probably been happening for as long as there has been an earth. we only think its a big deal now because its the first time in history that we have had instruments capable of measuring accurately enough to see a change. We cant prove the temperature 500 years ago, so its virtually impossible to prove that this is a new phenomenon.

I will admit that human intervention has had an effect. It'd be blasphemy to think that we didn't have any effect whatsoever.

[.VX]

I think that Global Warming is a natural process, but would usually happen at a rate that most, if not all animals can adapt. We're still at a stage where we can slow it down to a managble level.

Also, what is 'Yes and No' supposed to mean? You either think that it's a threat to a degree, or you don't.

[DrNo420]

We are going through a normal climate shift and the hysteria that surrounds it use to be funny to me now it just pisses me off because of all the restrictions that are being imposed on emissions and whatnot. 97% of all CO2 emissions are from forest fires and volcanoes and most forest fires are caused by lightning strikes......so its rather egocentric to think we are that significant.


"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero. "

[Micro]

... 97% of all CO2 emissions are from forest fires and volcanoes and most forest fires are caused by lightning strikes......so its rather egocentric to think we are that significant.


Bullshit.

It might have been that 1000 years ago but now is now and the chinks produce ~30% of worlds CO2

[JSQC]

Global warming, in my opinion, is naturally occuring cycle that has happened in the past and will happen again.

Theories suggest that jurassic species were in part made extinct by global warming induced climate changes, and I don't care what scientist says what, I doubt a trex ever flew around in a 747.

While there may be hypothesis to suggest global warming exists and further hypothesis to suggest the human race may be expediting the rate at which it is affecting us, there is no sound reasoning to suggest this is a phanomenon occuring for the first time, or that something similar has not happened at one or more occasions in history.

Personally I find the whole thing to be media scare mongering, allowed by governments simply as a money making scheme.

[Th0r]

I've moved the thread to Wierd Science, since I feel Global Warming is a topic related to regular science.

[.VX]

97% of all CO2 emissions are from forest fires and volcanoes and most forest fires are caused by lightning strikes.

Have yout got a source for that? Because I'm pretty sure that that's bullshit.

I've moved the thread to Wierd Science, since I feel Global Warming is a topic related to regular science.

That's why I made it, to encourage the Sciences forum.

[odin_dax]

"Western states such as California, Colorado, and Alaska have proven to be breeding grounds for wildfire throughout the past decade. It is estimated that two-thirds of forest fires are started accidentally by people, almost one quarter are intentionally set, while lightning causes 10%."

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/forestfire1.html



"Man produces 150 times more CO2 than volcanoes each year."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/faq

"However, emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently more than 130 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes, amounting to about 27 billion tonnes per year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

[odin_dax]

SINCE THIS IS A SCIENCE FORUM, REMEMBER TO USE SOURCES. WE STARTED THIS FORUM IN THE HOPES OF CREATING ACADEMIC DISCUSSION, NOT MORE BULLSHIT OPINION. DON'T UPSET THE MODS ON THIS ISSUE.

SINCE THIS THREAD STARTED BEFORE THE SCIENCE FORUM WAS UP, IT IS OKAY, BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE NUMBERS ANYWAY, USE SOURCES. DRNO AND MICRO, LOOKING IN YOUR DIRECTION.

JUST A REMINDER.

[Vein]

If our ozone depletes completely and water raises 50 feet, humans will not be extinct.

[odin_dax]

If our ozone depletes completely and water raises 50 feet, humans will not be extinct.

Maybe not in the short term. Sources?

[crazy white guy]

Maybe not in the short term. Sources?

If its a 'IMO' comment. No citing is needed.

People can and probably will survive everything that comes our way. We are like cockroaches in that way. I would cite the fictional account "the road" that outlines a TSHTF scenario where no food can be generated due to a nuclear catastrophe. Human still managed to live for years afterward and with enough time would be able to create artificial environments (as we already do) to create food.

[odin_dax]

If its a 'IMO' comment. No citing is needed.



When I say this, I'm not always talking directly to you, crazy....

I would normally agree, but he did not say that. People running their mouths and throwing around bullshit or opinion in a SCIENCE forum is the main reason I was against opening one up. It's one thing to say something that is commonly believed/accepted, then sources aren't needed, but if someone says that humans could survive without the ozone layer or that nearly all co2 is produced by volcanoes, I want someone to back that up with sources in their original post to save time from writing BS requests for info AND so readers don't feel like jackasses believing baseless shit. THIS IS A SCIENCE FORUM.

I hope to be proven wrong...

[.VX]

If our ozone depletes completely and water raises 50 feet, humans will not be extinct.

If our ozone layer got anywhere near depleting completely we'd all die. If the sea levels raise fifty feet we'll survive.

[Th0r]

We are going through a normal climate shift and the hysteria that surrounds it use to be funny to me now it just pisses me off because of all the restrictions that are being imposed on emissions and whatnot. 97% of all CO2 emissions are from forest fires and volcanoes and most forest fires are caused by lightning strikes......so its rather egocentric to think we are that significant.


How many major forest fires occur every year?

How many Volcanoes erupt every year?

Not to mention the main gas emitted from Volcanoes is Sulphur Dioxide and not CO2, as I learnt today.

[DJ Poppinfresh]

If the ozone layer goes, We're fucked. I think that's been established.

If the sea rose to any extent, we would be fine, but it WOULD be a major inconvenience.


But on the issue of whether humans are responsible or not, cannot be truely proven, although, seeing as the fundamental ingredient in the greenhouse effect is Carbon, it's highly likely that we are.

If anyone contributing to this thread doesn't understand what the greenhouse effect is or how it works, go wiki it or something, because having that set before you, I don't understand how people can argue about Cows farting being the primary factor.


I chose Yes, because natural selection cannot work that fast, and the slow evolution of man will not be able to keep up.

[7eleven mafia]

It may have some effect but Al Gore likes to blow it out of per portion

[.VX]

An Inconveniant Truth is rubbish, I'll agree there.

[odin_dax]

An Inconveniant Truth is rubbish, I'll agree there.

Basis?

[odin_dax]

It may have some effect but Al Gore likes to blow it out of per portion

As opposed to Michael Moore, who just flat out lies.

[RoundElephant]

It may have some effect but Al Gore likes to blow it out of per portion

I had to watch that in school =(, my male teacher started crying at the polar bear part.

[.VX]

Basis?

He strays from the point too much, the entire point was "the world is getting hotter, things will die, we should do something about it". That didn't need to be dragged out so much, and I don't give a fuck about how he grew up.

[Th0r]

In an effort to get things going again I've resurrected the thread.

In terms of greenhouse gases CO2 makes up less than 1% of all greenhouse gases IIRC, with 95% of greenhouse gases being Water vapour. Effectively what people are alleging is that a compound which makes up less than a percent of a series of gases deemed to be having a huge detrimental and destructive impact on the World.

And Volcanoes are a small source of CO2. Although apparently most CO2 originates from plant matter dying, releasing the CO2 they've absorbed into the atmosphere.

The video footage of the ice melting is almost always the same. I've watched footage from the seventies and sixties of ice breaking up and it always has and always will be like that.

Besides climate change occurs all the time.

The LIA (Little Ice Age.) is one such example. Rivers such as the Thames and the Neva were frozen over for long periods of time.

On top of that there was a time within the last millennia where there were vineyards in the North of England on the English/Scottish border.

The climate will change and consequently we will continue to adapt to the climatic changes.

Those that fail to adapt will become subjects of history. Extinct specimens.

I doubt Polar Bears, penguins and other animals will die. The whole shit Gore spews about animals becoming extinct is to get people crying and upset. Buying economic cars, giving money to 'charities' and most importantly paying taxes. I'm going off topic, so I'll stop the rant.

But Polar Bears, Penguins and whatnot survived the Holocene Climatic Optimum (You'll NEVER, EVER hear about that in High School science classes.) where it was almost 10?C in some parts of the Arctic at some points in the year.

A lot of what you hear regarding 'climate change' is bullshit.

I'm going to compile a list of sources for you guys to enjoy also.

[odin_dax]

You're wrong, Th0r.

While it may be true people are taking advantage of global warming by selling products, issuing taxes and accepting donations, such opportunities are true of every event in history.

I assume you're not a scientist. Naturally occurring CO2 levels can't be controlled by man. There is no point discussing something that has existed since long before humans. The CO2 added by man has a cumulative effect. It's like knocking over one domino, then that one knocks over 2, those two knock over four, and so on.

You're right, climate changes all the time, but those are exceptions. Those periods of time are temporary, and brief regional trends don't discount global warming by man. Even today, we experience colder winters and cool summer, then have warm winters, etc. There are examples that one might use to say that global warming doesn't exist, but global warming warms temperatures over a period of time. Overall, if you look at temperature data over the past few decades, you will see a steady increase.

Global warming also affects current climates. Jet streams will change. Northern Europe will be a lot colder in the future because of global warming in a 100 years or so.

Al Gore isn't wrong. He's not a scientist, but a spokesman. Listen to his section on birds. You don't know how global warming will ultimately impact polar bear, penguin or even human populations. Sea plant life has been impacted. Survival of the fittest will determine who survives and who doesn't, but with the domino effect I mentioned earlier, species may not have enough time to adapt to these changes.

I don't think polar bears or penguins will become extinct because man will prevent that.

If you think global warming hasn't had an impact, look at glaciers around the world. Look at the lack of snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro. Look at the levels of ice thickness, not how much ice is there. Look at the summers in the Arctic.

It's more than just regional, it's global. It's real, but I doubt very much will get done to do anything about it.

[lcnostra]

There is no denying that global warming is, in fact, occurring. The implications of climate change, however, are unclear. I think a lot of the environmental campaigns out there are alarmist and try to pass off pure speculation as fact. While it's important that we move toward cleaner energy, the actual threat of global warming has not really been conclusively determined.

I'm all for helping the environment, but I can't stand hysterics that place things out of context and blow them out of proportion. There are too many people who will read and believe anything, sign anything, and pass of pseudo-science as fact.

Yes, global warming is real. It has already been shown to have a gradual effect on the mating routines of some birds, along with some other effects that odin has posted. To be completely honest, I'm not going to be alive long enough to witness the real impact of global warming. Would it be selfish to say that what happens after I die is not exactly something that concerns me too much?

[odin_dax]

There is no denying that global warming is, in fact, occurring. The implications of climate change, however, are unclear. I think a lot of the environmental campaigns out there are alarmist and try to pass off pure speculation as fact. While it's important that we move toward cleaner energy, the actual threat of global warming has not really been conclusively determined.

I'm all for helping the environment, but I can't stand hysterics that place things out of context and blow them out of proportion. There are too many people who will read and believe anything, sign anything, and pass of pseudo-science as fact.

Yes, global warming is real. It has already been shown to have a gradual effect on the mating routines of some birds, along with some other effects that odin has posted. To be completely honest, I'm not going to be alive long enough to witness the real impact of global warming. Would it be selfish to say that what happens after I die is not exactly something that concerns me too much?

I was a skeptic at first, but now I accept the fact that it's happening. Like I said, the effects on species over the long term remains to be seen.

I agree that we won't be around to see the full impact, but my nephews and nieces will, as well as my children if I ever have any.

[Th0r]

Would it be selfish to say that what happens after I die is not exactly something that concerns me too much?

No.

You aren't going to be around to face the consequences so what's the point in giving a dam?

Secondly there's a lot of evidence, (Scientists have indeed suggested) that a lot of the temperature readings that we base the theory of global warming on were done incorrectly.

I have been informed, reliably I might add that in order for us to ascertain what exactly is going on in terms of temperature tests need to be carried out in the atmosphere above the tropics.

Some scientists, my fathers friend who has spent fifteen years carrying out experiments in the Arctic for instance said and produced evidence that the Earth was changing by monitoring the temperature at the Arctic and not the tropics.

The evidence needs to be being overseen and well documented with pictures and video and full reports need to be compiled.

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) need to stop pissing scientists around and need to stop being so biased towards other ideas.

If they present some evidence that firstly there's a significant climate change occurring that will have implications spanning thousands of years THEN will I believe the theory we have at the moment.

When there is a clear and definitive link between a rise in CO2 and a rise in temperature which is well documented, well backed up and is not being subliminally placed in my mind by the likes of Al Gore, moronic politicians who undoubtedly want to use climate change to benefit their politics, moronic Greenpeace losers who lie on national TV then I will believe and accept the theory.

As for bird populations and whatnot how do you think we reached the point we stand at today. You mentioned 'Survival of the Fittest'. We reached this point where we have humans capable of unravelling how the World began. We have reached a point where we have birds capable of travelling vast distances. Animals and other species that evolved amazingly.

They evolved through Natural Selection and like you said survival of the fittest. The ones who can't adapt die. Dodo's, Baiji's and many other animals have become extinct but most of those which populate the World will not die because they've arrived at this point already.

I'm not denying as such that the Earth as a whole is heating up.

See, I've been to glaciers in the Arctic Circle area which have receded massively. But on the other hand the glaciers change and often glaciers form elsewhere. It's all part of adaptation and change.

Global warming also affects current climates. Jet streams will change. Northern Europe will be a lot colder in the future because of global warming in a 100 years or so.

Northern Europe has at times been extremely cold and at times extremely hot. We'll survive and it won't in my opinion be an issue for Europe if that's the case.

XxXxX

There are other theories which offer an explanation to global warming.

The theory of cosmic rays having an impact has yet to be proven but certainly is an interesting theory.

You might find 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' an interesting film, that is of course if you'd find it interesting. Watching that was the basis for me to conduct my own investigation based on previously existing sources.

XxXxX

Also I apologise for the points being skewed in terms of where they approach Odin's argument. You'll have to bear with me.

[thief]

I guess its time to post that email Th0r and or link...

[Th0r]

I guess its time to post that email Th0r and or link...

Argh yes, of course.

I'll provide a little background. The emails were leaked from Hadley CRU (Climatic Research Unit) after a Russian hacker gained access to the servers. (Of course the MSM was compliant in reminding everyone how it's illegal to hack into servers. (I would prefer it if they talked about how blocking freedom of information requests is illegal, if not highly questionable.))

Hadley CRU has been at the forefront of climate research since Maggie Thatcher decided she needed a reason to dump coal power and has been instrumental in shaping policies of European Governments as well as the Governments of North America.

It is therefore of the greatest importance that the information being pumped out by Hadley CRU is 100% correct.

For many years scientists debating AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming.) have requested the raw data that Hadley CRU use to base their conclusions on. Of course, they've been knocking a receiving no answer.

Surely if the data was accurate, reliable and ultimately correct there would be no problem handing it over to be analysed.

Oh no.

XxXxX

In the emails released they praise the death of a global warming sceptic, John Daly, describing it as 'cheering news'.

The scientists who allegedly are dedicated to saving the planet couldn't give a fuck about someone who opposed their views from a scientific perspective and criticised their raw data.

They're sick. They only care about the money they take and NOTHING else.

Another email which shows the scientists in their true colours is where they talk about 'beating the crap' into a sceptic. Like I said these people are sick and vile.

There is also the encouragement of deletion of emails (Which I believe is illegal.) and the most damning evidence of all...

I?ve just completed Mike?s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith?s to hide the decline.

This is the second time manipulation of evidence has happened.

Michael Mann; geo-physicist whose Tree Ring proxy theory was influential in the creation of the famous Hockey Stick Graph (Now known to be false.) is believed to have forged the graph. This came to light after historical evidence tripped him up.

And now this...

The people who are influential in the decision making of governments World wide have been exposed as liars.

As is typical they try to pass it off using what I'd describe as semantics.

There's a lot more too it than this I might add.

[iceniner]

The fact is, there is no substantial debate regarding anthropogenic climate change. It's a done deal and the evidence is irrefutable the same way that research into nuclear fission is irrefutable: it's based on precisely the same foundation in mathematics and physics.

The current brouhaha is a hurricane in a teapot generated by oil company spin doctors. It should tell you something that after 20 years the best they can come up with is a comparatively minor misstep in one study out of literally thousands. Show me some papers from reputable peer-review journals if you expect to be taken seriously. Until then, "climate skepticism" will remain in the same league as flat-earthism. Just to make it easy and to prevent people going on wild goose chases (not that anyone would actually try to provide reputable backup for opinions like these) there are no such papers. Why? Because "climate skepticism" is junk science.

The overwhelming majority of "skeptics" on this issue do not have the qualifications necessary to form a meaningful opinion about it one way or another. Furthermore, the foundations of geophysics are not in question whatsoever: it's the same scientific method that brought us electricity, chemistry and nuclear weapons.

Why don't you see blue collar joes getting all up in arms about research into protein folding?

I'll tell you why: because they don't have a fucking CLUE what they're talking about. They only get angry about things they're told to get angry about.

[odin_dax]

Did you see the new EPA report that was buried by the agency? Did you see the difference in projected temps and actual temps (a lot lower)?

Do you have any proof that oil spin doctors are the cause?

What do you say to the fact more and more people are speaking out against the global warming threat?

Prove that there are no papers on "climate skepticism."

[iceniner]

Did you see the new EPA report that was buried by the agency? Did you see the difference in projected temps and actual temps (a lot lower)?

There are numerous climate models. Some of them are extremely disturbing. Others are less so. Did you see the Pentagon report from IIRC '07 that said that it was possible that the last living humans might be up near the poles in 50 years?

Do you have any proof that oil spin doctors are the cause?

This has been an ongoing thing for two decades now and has intensified dramatically even in the last year. There is not only one cause for "skepticism" about anything, but in this case many of the people drumming up the furor are paid for by oil company think tanks. Here's just one little snippet.

Speaking of fake videos created by ExxonMobil-friendly spin doctors, according to Free Press and the Center for Media and Democracy, in June 2006 , the broadcast PR firm Medialink Worldwide put out a video news release (VNR) titled, "Global Warming and Hurricanes: All Hot Air?" Apparently, the segment was aired over WTOK in Mississippi. The firm identified "TCS Daily Science Roundtable" as the client behind the segment. But Medialink didn't disclose that TCS Daily is a website published by Tech Central Station. As PR Watch-er John Stauber reports, ExxonMobil gave the Tech Central Science Foundation $95,000 in 2003, for "climate change support.

What do you say to the fact more and more people are speaking out against the global warming threat?

I say that in reaction to ramped up media bombardment, more insurance salesmen and plumbers think that they're geophysicists. People either completely uneducated in science or in very different fields suddenly believe that they're qualified to weigh in on an issue they manifestly know nothing about.

Prove that there are no papers on "climate skepticism."

As you well know, that's not how empirical evidence works.

If you have papers from reputable journals, I already invited you to show them. Since the predominant scientific viewpoint (overwhelmingly so) is in favor of anthropogenic warming, it's the responsibility of "skeptics" to provide peer-reviewed research supporting THEIR position.

The bottom line is this: "Skeptics" are demanding that their poorly-supported research be treated as science. Fine. Let it get in line with the rest of the science to go through peer review. If it can do so, great. If it can't, also fine. The way that the scientific method works is that if you expect to overthrow a dominant theory, you need to provide evidence that overwhelms the evidence in favor of the dominant theory. This is extremely unlikely to happen based on just how substantial the anthropogenic warming evidence is. But that's how it works.

Best of luck to them. If they're able to do it, I will support them. Until then, I'll support the vast majority of people with climate science and geophysics Ph.D.s.

[odin_dax]

Fair enough.

[Wherry]

I think that's a serious problem!

[Leshrac]

It's a money-making scam just like the "doomsday ozone hole scare" in the 90's. (which is now "healing" itself despite the fact that nearly all 'ozone-safe' bullshit has been abandoned)

Temperature in the middle ages were overall 8?c higher on the entire planet. There were vines all across europe and everything was groovy.

It's a naturally occuring phenomenon that will happen with or without us. Fact is more than 95% of all C02 emissions are from volcanoes, ocean evaporation and forest fires.

The human impact is estimated to be no more than 3% and the last 2% are attributed to sun radiations.

It's funny that the earth survived countless millenias of ice ages, infernal periods (> 1000?c) of atmosphere, magnetic bombing, tectonic changes, massive events of cataclysmic proportions and that some lunatics think they're actually doing jack shit by recycling plastic bags and putting filters on their cars...

My favorite comic said it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4
________
Zombie fund advice (http://www.insurance-forums.org/zombie-fund/)

[Saturday]

I think the issue is not that the earth won't survive, it's that we won't survive.

The real questions is if we, as humans, even have the capability to make such catastrophic changes in the weather.

I believe that there is purposefully a lot of misinformation about global warming, on both sides, and, on both sides, I am sure there are people arguing purely from a standpoint of making profit.

All I know is two things... If we have the power to permanently change the chemistry of a planet and its atmospheres, then it seems logical that we would have the power the change it back. This is possibly the best evidence for why human "green" efforts could help, but also it is the beginning of a great argument for why we have no capability of making changes on such a large scale, in such a short amount of time.

[FraggleRockSniper]

Environmentalism used to be about the environment. At some point, the socialists co-opted it and now the "green movement" pretty much for anything that will grow the government and oppress people.

[RoundElephant]

Environmentalism used to be about the environment. At some point, the socialists co-opted it and now the "green movement" pretty much for anything that will grow the government and oppress people.

How does this oppress the people? Our governments are Republics so that they can avoid mob rule( i.e. make decisions that have short term pain and long term gain that the population would never do so by itself). If they have the data proving that the copious amounts of greenhouse gases our nation is spewing forth will endanger the lives of our children and the stability of the government itself, it is their duty to do something about it.

[FraggleRockSniper]

How does this oppress the people? Our governments are Republics so that they can avoid mob rule( i.e. make decisions that have short term pain and long term gain that the population would never do so by itself). If they have the data proving that the copious amounts of greenhouse gases our nation is spewing forth will endanger the lives of our children and the stability of the government itself, it is their duty to do something about it.

Governments have a monopoly over the initiation of force. And that's never right. The governments are also the biggest pollutors, so all the environmentalists who bash business for polluting are hypocrites, because governments do it more. ie iraq, afghanistan, and business has incentive to recycle (reuse products, save money, while governments don't care because they can print up your money all they want; ie counterfeit) government money is counterfeit btw

All nations are nothing but tax farms, the lines on the map are illusionary.

[RoundElephant]

Governments have a monopoly over the initiation of force. And that's never right. The governments are also the biggest pollutors, so all the environmentalists who bash business for polluting are hypocrites, because governments do it more. ie iraq, afghanistan, and business has incentive to recycle (reuse products, save money, while governments don't care because they can print up your money all they want; ie counterfeit) government money is counterfeit btw

All nations are nothing but tax farms, the lines on the map are illusionary.

You're wrong. The citizens pollute more than the government. Generally speaking, those that are pro environment are usually anti-war.

And there is very little fiscal incentive to recycle, that's why you see ultra conservatives like Glenn Beck priding themselves in how wasteful they are.

[TheAssociate]

All shit has cycles right, the economy, seasons, the warming and cooling of the planet. The planet is currently warming - Global Warming. If we all died, the rate at which the planet would be warming on this day would be less; I think that’s a fair assumption. Now talking of threats to the earth’s inhabitants, I believe the 2012 scenarios are relevant to arguments on global warming and rather interesting. The Mayans were an inelegant race like the ancient Egyptians, mystical technologies, so I want to give them benefit of the doubt. Anyone interested it this, here is a couple of links:
-http://www.hardenedstructures.eu/2012.html
-http://www.december212012.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7684
-http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread540191/pg1

[TheAssociate]

Btw The Pyramid Code is some interesting shit:
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlSssnh4b7Q (part one)

[iceniner]

pretty much for anything that will grow the government and oppress people.
This is why the US government is run by oil barons.

The Mayans were an inelegant race like the ancient Egyptians, mystical technologies, so I want to give them benefit of the doubt.
Inelegant meaning primitive.

Your "benefit of the doubt" is unsupported drivel. Thinking the earth will end in 2012 is like thinking the world will end on Leap Year.

Unfortunately, I have to side with the vast majority of climate scientists and educated people (those with actual evidence and critical thinking skills) on the subject of warming. The science is pretty much unassailable.

[RoundElephant]

Unfortunately, I have to side with the vast majority of climate scientists and educated people (those with actual evidence and critical thinking skills) on the subject of warming. The science is pretty much unassailable.

Another issue iceniner and I agree on!

[iceniner]

http://www.nazi.org/nazi/images/nazi-logo.png

[RoundElephant]

Are you part of the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party?

Don'tt libertarianism and socialism contradict one another?

Why do Nazis always refer to themselves as national socialists when they adhere to fascist ideology?

[Th0r]

Don'tt libertarianism and socialism contradict one another?

Why do Nazis always refer to themselves as national socialists when they adhere to fascist ideology?

Neither here nor there, really.

The media here have almost completely stopped reporting on Climate Change and the Green douchebags got some real negative press last year in the UK for making a short film that showed 'dissenters' being blown up. The 'dissenters' included young children. Pretty fucking sick if you ask me.

[iceniner]

Doesn't matter, really-- it's a done deal and no matter how people stick their heads in the sand (see: bowing and scraping to corporate masters) we're now seeing the beginnings of long-term climate disruption with the apparent shift of the Gulf Stream.

[Raverous]

Nevermind.

[Bossman8867]

I am no expert and don't claim to be but I believ that Global Warming is bunch of BS and a scam to get money from people by telling them to buy "green" products. I've lived in central North Carolina for the past 16 years, we tend to have mild Summers and slightly cold Winters. But for the past three years it's been getting colder and colder, to the point where we've been averaging one ice storm per year at least. "Global Warming" IMO is just another way for Big Brother to scare the common man.

[Saturday]

Bossman, "Global Warming" does not mean that the temperature is going to increase. It has now been dubbed the more appropriate "Climate Change" and actually manifests itself in more extreme weather, not purely hotter weather, although that will eventually happen.

It's fine to have an opinion, but an uninformed opinion is not excusable.

[Bossman8867]

Bossman, "Global Warming" does not mean that the temperature is going to increase. It has now been dubbed the more appropriate "Climate Change" and actually manifests itself in more extreme weather, not purely hotter weather, although that will eventually happen.

It's fine to have an opinion, but an uninformed opinion is not excusable. Global Warming is a sham, and if you're stupid enough to believe in it or any of that shit about climate change then so be it. Yet another misinformed ignorant jackass walks the Earth.

[Beyond]

Global Warming is a sham, and if you're stupid enough to believe in it or any of that shit about climate change then so be it. Yet another misinformed ignorant jackass walks the Earth.

I'd be curious to read your citations and supporting evidence so, please, post them. Thanks in advance.

[Bossman8867]

I'd be curious to read your citations and supporting evidence so, please, post them. Thanks in advance. While I am no expert in this particular field by any means. I have noticed that the whole Global Warming scare came out of nowhere practically. I've also noticed that on the news anything about Global Warming seems strictly biased, and every claim they make such as the whole climate shift theory has no hard evidence to back up such claims. Every answer for Global Warming isn't a straight one. All science data and facts have absolutely no hard evidence to support them at all. Furthermore, I also don't take anything Al Gore supports very seriously at all. Also if you would like a little more evidence then please do some research on Maurice Strong who helped create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and involved in the UN oil for food scandal. He is a billionaire oil investor who stands to make billions more from the carbon credit scam. Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Program He Is Now Pushing Through Congress. In short, While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president. Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.

And that my friend was only the beginning...

The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Obama cohorts Al Gore and Maurice Strong. Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as “the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.

Wake up, all this "Global Warming" hogwash is load of BS. It's all a scam to make money. PERIOD.

[Beyond]

While I am no expert in this particular field by any means. I have noticed that the whole Global Warming scare came out of nowhere practically. I've also noticed that on the news anything about Global Warming seems strictly biased, and every claim they make such as the whole climate shift theory has no hard evidence to back up such claims. Every answer for Global Warming isn't a straight one. All science data and facts have absolutely no hard evidence to support them at all. Furthermore, I also don't take anything Al Gore supports very seriously at all. Also if you would like a little more evidence then please do some research on Maurice Strong who helped create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and involved in the UN oil for food scandal. He is a billionaire oil investor who stands to make billions more from the carbon credit scam. Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Program He Is Now Pushing Through Congress. In short, While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president. Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.

And that my friend was only the beginning...

The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Obama cohorts Al Gore and Maurice Strong. Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as “the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.

Wake up, all this "Global Warming" hogwash is load of BS. It's all a scam to make money. PERIOD.

Not even going to bother reading because like I said, I'd like to see either citations or supporting evidence, not your dictation. You'll soon learn that anecdotal evidence is hardly welcomed on this forum, especially in serious debates. We prefer statements be backed by facts, figures, and/or other corroborating evidence.

Try again.

[Saturday]

While I am no expert in this particular field by any means. I have noticed that the whole Global Warming scare came out of nowhere practically. I've also noticed that on the news anything about Global Warming seems strictly biased, and every claim they make such as the whole climate shift theory has no hard evidence to back up such claims. Every answer for Global Warming isn't a straight one. All science data and facts have absolutely no hard evidence to support them at all. Furthermore, I also don't take anything Al Gore supports very seriously at all. Also if you would like a little more evidence then please do some research on Maurice Strong who helped create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and involved in the UN oil for food scandal. He is a billionaire oil investor who stands to make billions more from the carbon credit scam. Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Program He Is Now Pushing Through Congress. In short, While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president. Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.

And that my friend was only the beginning...

The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Obama cohorts Al Gore and Maurice Strong. Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as “the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.

Wake up, all this "Global Warming" hogwash is load of BS. It's all a scam to make money. PERIOD.


Unfortunately, almost every single climate scientist and mostly anyone with an advanced degree believes that Climate Change is very real. Your uneducated guess is not going to cut it, especially when challenging me and my intellect. And to call me stupid and uninformed is clearly a form of projecting.

I will explain, because I know that you do not know what projecting is. It means that your confusion and lack of information on the subject-matter has somehow caused you to react with certainty and with this new-found lack of knowledge, you turn around and call me the uninformed person who is making assumptions and is being duped, when in reality you are merely describing the symptoms of your own ineptitude.

[Bossman8867]

Unfortunately, almost every single climate scientist and mostly anyone with an advanced degree believes that Climate Change is very real. Your uneducated guess is not going to cut it, especially when challenging me and my intellect. And to call me stupid and uninformed is clearly a form of projecting.

I will explain, because I know that you do not know what projecting is. It means that your confusion and lack of information on the subject-matter has somehow caused you to react with certainty and with this new-found lack of knowledge, you turn around and call me the uninformed person who is making assumptions and is being duped, when in reality you are merely describing the symptoms of your own ineptitude. Okay, since you've claimed to be the smartest person in this thread, I'd like for you to show me relevant data, along with facts to back it up that the Earth is going through a "Climate Shift" and that "Global Warming" is contributing to it. So instead of berating me for MY supposed "lack of knowledge" why don't you make us all aware of the climate shift with some proof. Or is that too hard for you to accomplish? Because without actual proof plus figures to back it up, there's not a snowball's chance in Hell of me believing what you're trying to force down my throat.

[odin_dax]

Let me take a crack at it....

I'm the smartest person in this thread.

[Beyond]

Okay, since you've claimed to be the smartest person in this thread, I'd like for you to show me relevant data, along with facts to back it up that the Earth is going through a "Climate Shift" and that "Global Warming" is contributing to it. So instead of berating me for MY supposed "lack of knowledge" why don't you make us all aware of the climate shift with some proof. Or is that too hard for you to accomplish? Because without actual proof plus figures to back it up, there's not a snowball's chance in Hell of me believing what you're trying to force down my throat.

That's not how it works.

You have the burden of proof since it you that a) first made the claims and b) were previously asked to produce proof that corroborated said claims.

You can't ignore the requests and then expect to be taken seriously when you press someone else for evidence. That's not the way it works, hot shot.

[Bossman8867]

That's not how it works.

You have the burden of proof since it you that a) first made the claims and b) were previously asked to produce proof that corroborated said claims.

You can't ignore the requests and then expect to be taken seriously when you press someone else for evidence. That's not the way it works, hot shot. Hmm.. I see somewhat of a point in that. But what I would to know is why instead of presenting facts of his own the other member decided to insult me. Quite frankly I'd like to see him produce some evidence of his own because I think he has about as much proof as I do. Put the mudslinging aside and produce some hard, irrefutable proof.

[Saturday]

OK, I will start by making the obvious clear: I never once claimed to be the smartest person in the thread. Asserting that I am smarter than you in no way was an attempt to beat my chest or challenge the intelligence of others, it is just something that may have become clear through a few back and forths on the thread. Also, I am also an asshole, so if you throw insults at me and challenge me and expect me to not insult you back and then prove that you are wrong; you have another thing coming. Think about what this forum is about largely, you are surrounded by a hodge-podge of dodgy characters.

On the subject of proof, you seem to be trying to call my bluff, as if I am just saying you are wrong just because I like to. I am calling you out for being wrong, because you are wrong and you are being arrogant about it. My arrogance may be a little disgusting, but at least its on the right side of the argument.

Now, without further ado... With several links included for your viewing pleasure... Proof that I am right and you are wrong:


http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html#

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-scientists-sure


Did you really want this to happen? Now I am just the asshole, smacking the dunce with an obvious stick. I take no pride in this and only take pleasure in it because I can't imagine what kind of nonesense you might try to cook up to dig yourself out of the shithole you've burried yourself in.

I have read every single one of these articles and you can not call into question their legitimacy (or at least, I would love you to try). They support exactly what I was saying, in terms of the overwhelming majority of support from people who ACTUALLY know what they are talking about believe that climate change is real... and not only that, that it has been influenced by human activity (both of which you seem to be oblivous about). I don't need to give my opinion, because over 97% of scientists have already decided that you are wrong. I have also, in the past, done some research from the persepctvie of trying to prove that climate change is not true. I warn you that most of these arguments are either crackpots, funded by energy or chemical companies, or they are so theoretical that they blow even the most leftist theories on the environment out of the water.

Now, I suppose you should read some of these articles, particularly NASA's page of evidence. If these are not sufficient, I can do a little scratching around and come up with another half-dozen articles or studies. I can make the next batch all peer-reviewed if you like...

[Bossman8867]

One of the things that strikes me odd is that you seem to have an insatiable thirst to prove someone wrong. The fact that you're debating has borderlined on harassment is appalling. I'm. A new comer here, I don't appreciate the welcome I've received not only that but I wonder if other new comers have been put through what I have. You seem to have nothing to do in your free time to but look around in threads for an argument. Seriously, your long drawn out debates are getting very old. And as a matter of fact I won't say anything else in this thread regarding global warming, I think its pathetic someone can't voice their opinion without getting berated for it. So here, accept my surrender and I hope you savor it because from now on I'm done responding to your attempts to start future arguments. Its obvious you do this for kicks so enjoy it. I'm out, good day.

[Saturday]

Well, it wasn't gracious and it got ugly, but I appreciate you admitting you have nothing of substance to contribute.

You just did a combo of insulting me after I called something "nerdy" and then you bravely barrelled into the environmental issue empty-handed. Its nothing personal, and I promise you I don't really spend that much time doing this or thinking about it. And my thirst is not insatiable. You are wrong, I gave you evidence to show you this, and you've given the closest thing to an admission of incorrectness that your pride will allow.

And this debate was not drawn out. A couple insults were exchanged, I injected the only pieces of actual information that exist in the debate and it swiftly ended. Grow a thicker skin. I will try to act less like a cocky dickhead, but I don't plan to let people slide when they are going around peddling nonesense (and then calling me full of shit).

ALSO, how is this harrassment? YOU ASKED ME TO PROVIDE YOU WITH EVIDENCE. As for the gloating, it comes with the territory, sorry.

[odin_dax]

Saturday wins.

I'm tired of this broke record shit from boss. Yes, everyone has an opinion, but opinions shouldn't be claimed as fact, and they should be founded on something. You have nothing. So what if people take advantage of the situation? There are people making money off every situation in every market. That's the way the world works. I'm no fan of Al Gore and the tax credit bullshit, but that doesn't prove global climate change is all a big scam. Sorry.

Critical thinking skills are required here. Powdering your ass is not going to happen. Defend the claim or shut the fuck up. Use that advice for all threads on all boards on the internet. That is rule #2.

Rule #1: Don't needlessly piss off the old-timers by anxiously establishing your new presence on a board.

[Beyond]

One of the things that strikes me odd is that you seem to have an insatiable thirst to prove someone wrong. The fact that you're debating has borderlined on harassment is appalling. I'm. A new comer here, I don't appreciate the welcome I've received not only that but I wonder if other new comers have been put through what I have. You seem to have nothing to do in your free time to but look around in threads for an argument. Seriously, your long drawn out debates are getting very old. And as a matter of fact I won't say anything else in this thread regarding global warming, I think its pathetic someone can't voice their opinion without getting berated for it. So here, accept my surrender and I hope you savor it because from now on I'm done responding to your attempts to start future arguments. Its obvious you do this for kicks so enjoy it. I'm out, good day.

Please don't come back.

[NewSpeak]

To a degree.

Global warming, especially the current cycle of human-influenced warming, is a slow and steady process, one that's very easy to set aside as "some random bullshit long-term effect".

So, while it may not be a threat to me, or even my descendants two or three generations down the road...it's still a problem that needs to be addressed rationally, with real solutions like alternative/renewable energy streams, controlled nuclear fusion (one can dream, right?), et al.