Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
The Leader's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
Old Mar 15th, 2010, 06:58 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post
Thank you for proving my point.
What is your point?
__________________
JUST DANCE!
Reply With Quote
  #77  
TheCoolinator TheCoolinator is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mean Streets of New York
Old Mar 15th, 2010, 07:12 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
What is your point?

Read

V

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supafly345 View Post

The republicans have already proposed their own version of Cap and Trade that is almost exactly the same as the D's.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
The Leader's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
Old Mar 15th, 2010, 07:17 PM       
So you're not even sure what your point is then?
__________________
JUST DANCE!
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Blasted Child Blasted Child is offline
Lethal fresco
Blasted Child's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Old Mar 15th, 2010, 07:18 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
A solid case? Blasted Child, all he does is post links to biased websites. That and he clearly doesn't understand what the theory of global warming actually is or rudimentary science.
Is it just me or has i-mockery suddenly turned very strict when it comes to debating standards?
Usually when we debate stuff over the internet, we link to articles. What is coolinator supposed to do, record himself as he travels with a weather balloon to collect the data?
We're all laymen here, all we can do is refer to stuff.

I think at least a few of the articles he linked to deserve some merit, and I like to consider myself equiped with a fairly critical set of eyes, but still, sure, everything can be dismissed as biased.

This being said, I'm still skeptical towards the conspiracy movement and the climate deniers, and heck, I agree that coolinator comes across as a tad sanctimonious, but hey he's probably young and going through a phase.

dunno, just thought this debate turned out a bit one-sided.
__________________
I dream of houses
Reply With Quote
  #80  
TheCoolinator TheCoolinator is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mean Streets of New York
Old Mar 15th, 2010, 07:23 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blasted Child View Post
What is coolinator supposed to do, record himself as he travels with a weather balloon to collect the data?
LOL


Quote:
dunno, just thought this debate turned out a bit one-sided.
Don't worry about it, I'm used to it. I got what I wanted to say out and we all enjoyed a nice conversation.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
The Leader's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
Old Mar 15th, 2010, 07:26 PM       
But that's just it, I don't know what you had to say. You haven't presented any argument.
__________________
JUST DANCE!
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Supafly345 Supafly345 is offline
Slim Goodbody
Supafly345's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: More like DIEwan
Old Mar 15th, 2010, 08:04 PM       
That is true, I feel I haven't been able to make any substantive rebuttals because no pointed arguments have been made. All I've been able to pick up is that there is a conspiracy somewhere.

I think his point was that using political motivation as his reason to deny global warming is invalid? Vaguely implied?
__________________
"Quote from some guy I think is funny."
-Some guy I think is funny
Reply With Quote
  #83  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
The Leader's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
Old Mar 15th, 2010, 08:12 PM       
I thought his point was that using political motivation as a reason to deny global warming was valid.
__________________
JUST DANCE!
Reply With Quote
  #84  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
The Leader's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
Old Mar 15th, 2010, 08:15 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blasted Child View Post
Is it just me or has i-mockery suddenly turned very strict when it comes to debating standards?
Usually when we debate stuff over the internet, we link to articles. What is coolinator supposed to do, record himself as he travels with a weather balloon to collect the data?
We're all laymen here, all we can do is refer to stuff.

dunno, just thought this debate turned out a bit one-sided.
To address this, the problem is that few if any of his sources could be regarded as valid. That and I am trying to debate with him except I have no idea what his point is and he isn't really... Posting anything... It's like the same stuff over and over and he still hasn't stated what he means.
__________________
JUST DANCE!
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Colonel Flagg Colonel Flagg is offline
after enough bourbon ...
Colonel Flagg's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Old Mar 15th, 2010, 08:18 PM       
Tu orum visita mentes.
__________________
The future is fun,
The future is fair.
You may already have won!
You may already be there.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Colonel Flagg Colonel Flagg is offline
after enough bourbon ...
Colonel Flagg's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Old Mar 15th, 2010, 08:19 PM       
OK, I'll shut up.
__________________
The future is fun,
The future is fair.
You may already have won!
You may already be there.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Colonel Flagg Colonel Flagg is offline
after enough bourbon ...
Colonel Flagg's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Old Mar 15th, 2010, 09:05 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blasted Child View Post
Is it just me or has i-mockery suddenly turned very strict when it comes to debating standards?
Usually when we debate stuff over the internet, we link to articles. What is coolinator supposed to do, record himself as he travels with a weather balloon to collect the data?
We're all laymen here, all we can do is refer to stuff.

I think at least a few of the articles he linked to deserve some merit, and I like to consider myself equiped with a fairly critical set of eyes, but still, sure, everything can be dismissed as biased.

This being said, I'm still skeptical towards the conspiracy movement and the climate deniers, and heck, I agree that coolinator comes across as a tad sanctimonious, but hey he's probably young and going through a phase.

dunno, just thought this debate turned out a bit one-sided.
The way I see it, (and feel free to disagree, for everyone has an opinion) the real problem witrh this highly emotional and politically charged topic is that people begin arguing viewpoints without a clear understanding of the fundamental principles. Thus, they tend to gravitate toward those arguments that most closely align with their beliefs. It's true in science, economics, health care, and, yes, even politics. (hows that for an oxymoron) This isn't factual, it's faith. (Hence the Latin aphorisms)

Coolie and his blogosphere are arguing based largely on faith. So are most of the proponents of the AGW hypothesis. (It's why you need to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.) What both sides either fail to realize or refuse to speak about is that global climate change is documented and real. Causality is the issue over which there is much debate.

Does mankind have an adverse impact on the global climate? Define adverse. We are as much as any animal products of this environment. Yet we have either developed or have been granted (depending on your conceit) the intelligence and/or desire to alter said environment for our own purposes. Does this process pose a danger to the ecosystem? If we continue burning fossil fuels (incidentally generating tons and tons more CO2 than all other pollutants combined (and that can be calculated independently without resorting to faith)), dumping chemical and biological wastes, continue with irresponsible handling of nuclear waste byproducts, then yes, we do. The degree of that impact is what is at issue. Does it matter, on a global scale what mankind chooses to do with the environment, or is it merely a perturbation in a much larger and complex global climatary framework?

I recently looked at a similar situation on a much smaller scale - flooding on the Delaware River. Admittedly, I have a vested interest, but as a scientist, I was also curious. I found that there were two factions (surprise!) - those that want the upstate NY reservoirs (feeding fresh water to NYC) cut back to an 80% capacity to reduce the incidence of flooding downstream, and those that want the reservoirs kept at full or nearly full capacity year round, and use the spillways to regulate flow into the Delaware river.

The data for the river flow was readily available, and after some analysis, yielded a rather surprising result - neither side was completely correct. It seemed the real root cause was more likely increased development along the Delaware and in through upstate NY, and insufficient storm water handling provisions. It remains to be seen if keeping the reservoirs at a level slightly less than capacity during the wintertime will help, but the actual creation of the reservoir system has nothing to do with flooding.

I assume that a similar result would be found for the current issue at hand, if one wanted to analyze the data. That's why I don't like taking sides - it also involves narrowing your worldview, and the science suffers.
__________________
The future is fun,
The future is fair.
You may already have won!
You may already be there.

Last edited by Colonel Flagg : Mar 15th, 2010 at 09:09 PM. Reason: whoops!
Reply With Quote
  #88  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
The Leader's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
Old Mar 15th, 2010, 09:10 PM       
I still have yet to be convinced by either side.
__________________
JUST DANCE!
Reply With Quote
  #89  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
The Leader's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
Old Mar 15th, 2010, 09:12 PM       
CONVINCE ME COOLINATOR
__________________
JUST DANCE!
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Evil Robot Evil Robot is offline
hAS RUG-BURN
Evil Robot's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Non-trendy NYC enclave
Old Mar 15th, 2010, 09:50 PM       
I would like to know why this collinator jerk thinks we all have time to sift through all the crazy articles he posted but did not write nor fully comprehend. I for one am just not going to do that. If he cant explain why his opinions are valid then that only means they are not valid.
__________________
"We're equally proud of our safety record. Not once in our nearly 50 years of operation has an animal pathogen escaped from the island."
Reply With Quote
  #91  
TheCoolinator TheCoolinator is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mean Streets of New York
Old Mar 15th, 2010, 10:13 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Flagg View Post
arguing based largely on faith............. global climate change is documented and real
Oh come on......

I at least gave more examples then that to support my argument. Real examples from real sources from all over the world. Publicly documented confessions of climate scientists changing numbers to create the appearance of a changing climate because of CO2 emissions. Top scientists that have stopped believing in the myth because of lack of accurate data.

You guys have been calling me every name in the book while looking down your condescending elitists noses at me. All of which end in "You don't know SCIENCE" or "You don't know the principles" like it's some magical formula that only trained wizards are taught after years of apprenticeship and on top of that every single article that is literally common knowledge is condemned as "BIASED".

Quote:
If we continue burning fossil fuels (incidentally generating tons and tons more CO2 than all other pollutants combined)
CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 has no affect on the climate. There is no evidence that links CO2 to rising temperatures. The sun controls the heat of the globe as it controls the temperature of every single other celestial body in the solar system.

Al Gore's Carbon Tax will not save the world from the Sun.

Quote:
dumping chemical and biological wastes, continue with irresponsible handling of nuclear waste byproducts, then yes, we do. The degree of that impact is what is at issue.
No, Global Warming proponents don't care about chemicals, wastes, and spend nuclear fuel rods. They only care about Carbon and they center everything on CO2. I've been saying this from the beginning.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leader View Post
CONVINCE ME COOLINATOR
I'm tired.....ask me a question tomorrow and I will attempt to answer it to the best of my ability.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
The Leader The Leader is offline
Is a RoboCop.
The Leader's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: How do you like these apples, Chojin?
Old Mar 15th, 2010, 10:36 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post
Al Gore's Carbon Tax will not save the world from the Sun.
Why do you keep talking about solutions to the problem? That is not the issue we are discussing. I am trying to understand what scientific evidence you have that supports that there is not global warming. You have only posted links to articles which talk about people who have manipulated data to make it appear that climate change is occurring at a faster rate than it is. Some studies which are invalid do not negate all of the data that has been gathered over the past few hundred years which supports the theory of climate change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post
No, Global Warming proponents don't care about chemicals, wastes, and spend nuclear fuel rods. They only care about Carbon and they center everything on CO2. I've been saying this from the beginning.
That doesn't affect the validity of what he posted. We are not discussing what some idiots believe. We are trying to discern what information you have that supports the idea that the theory of global warming is false. We do not want to hear about how people have taken advantage of this theory but what scientific evidence you have found.
__________________
JUST DANCE!
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Supafly345 Supafly345 is offline
Slim Goodbody
Supafly345's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: More like DIEwan
Old Mar 15th, 2010, 10:58 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post
Oh come on......

I at least gave more examples then that to support my argument. Real examples from real sources from all over the world. Publicly documented confessions of climate scientists changing numbers to create the appearance of a changing climate because of CO2 emissions. Top scientists that have stopped believing in the myth because of lack of accurate data.
This is a fallacious arguing tactic called "shifting of burden" where one challenges a person to prove them wrong when challenged to provide evidence in the first place. It is not honest.

As far as these publicly documented confessions of climate scientists forging data to forward an unfounded appearance of climate change- I know of only one example you could possibly be referring to. This wasn't an actual study of climate change that was under investigation, but rather the use of tree-ring data to be used as a valid measurement of temperature. The fudging of data was speculated in private documents, where they discussed replacing the temps of the tree ring data, which showed the earth cooling, to that of the actual temperatures which showed the earth warming. The actual temperatures it was changed to was taken from satellite measurements, so they are accurate. In the end the paper that was published never included this fudged data so the whole controversy didn't matter in the first place, even though the scientist in question has stepped down temporarily while an investigation over the matter is taking place.

There are no top scientists that have stopped believing in climate change, the top scientists that don't believe in climate change now have always been skeptics. In fact the number of climate scientists that support anthropogenic climate change has only grown in the past 20 years. In many climate denilist websites there is a common mis-reporting of interviews, distortion of data, and outright lies in them.
One of the most recent ones was the story that the top climate scientist Phil Jones has completely changed his mind and now claims that "there has been no global warming since 1995" because he said there was no significant data- which can be see here DAILY MAIL. But if you read the original article HERE he says over and over that anthropogenic climate change is real and that its 100% certain we have been warming since then.
So what happened? Well it turns out that the minimum amount of time that a scientifically significant measurement can be taken is 15 years, so when asked the question "has there been significant warming since 1995" he has to honestly say no, because that is one year shy of being significant, and the daily mail and other fact spinners can claim "there has been no significant warming" according to climatologist Phil Jones.

You see? Do you understand now that where you are getting your information is so twisted from reality that you have been completely disconnected?

There, I have taken the time to explain, and use examples in SHOWING you why. Not just linking to shit and claiming its proof, but giving detailed explanations. Now obviously I don't have time to give you months and months worth of data and hundreds of examples, but I shouldn't have to. Just stop letting yourself get lied to by conspiracy theorist.


I also just noticed the argument about means for climate change OTHER than CO2, well the only other 2 factors that are anywhere near capable right now of changing our climate is by Volcanic and Solar forcing. And both of those have been constant. You can pull up negligible arguments including methane, increased precipitation, oxygen, yadda yadda, but they don't have enough significance. The environmentalists focus on CO2 because thats what the scientists have been claiming the problem to be. Yes all these other arguments COULD potentially be the cause of climate change, IF IF IF they were increasing, but they arent.
__________________
"Quote from some guy I think is funny."
-Some guy I think is funny
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Colonel Flagg Colonel Flagg is offline
after enough bourbon ...
Colonel Flagg's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Old Mar 15th, 2010, 11:20 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Flagg View Post
arguing based largely on faith........global climate change is documented and real.
Oh come on......

I at least gave more examples then that to support my argument. Real examples from real sources from all over the world. Publicly documented confessions of climate scientists changing numbers to create the appearance of a changing climate because of CO2 emissions. Top scientists that have stopped believing in the myth because of lack of accurate data.
You need to go back and read my previous post for comprehension. You obviously failed Geology or Natural Science somewhere down the line, because you completely missed the Ice Age reference. What you've been pontificating about is the AGW hypothesis, and this is something completely different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Flagg View Post
incidentally generating tons and tons more CO2 than all other pollutants combined
CO2 is not a pollutant.
from www.dictionary.com:

Pollutant (n.) - any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.

You can try living in an enclosed room with only CO2 to breathe, and see how long it takes before you asphyxiate. Pollutants come in many forms, and too much of of anything can be bad for the environment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post
CO2 has no affect on the climate. There is no evidence that links CO2 to rising temperatures. The sun controls the heat of the globe as it controls the temperature of every single other celestial body in the solar system.
CO2 is a strong IR absorber, and as the concentration of CO2 goes up, so does its ability in the air to absorb and store heat (for lack of a better term). If global atmospheric CO2 levels reached a sufficiently high level, then yes, they would significantly contribute to the warming of the planet. The key word here, however, is "if". As for the sun controlling the heat of the globe ... well mere words cannot describe the incredible intuitive grasp you have of the obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post
Global Warming proponents don't care about chemicals, wastes, and spend nuclear fuel rods. They only care about Carbon and they center everything on CO2. I've been saying this from the beginning.
Bullshit. I brought these points up because (drumroll) I agree with this part of your mostly inept argument. We need to look at mankind's impact on the environment from all sources, and CO2 is only one source.

In closing, please take my advice, and reread my previous post for comprehension, scanning all areas for the word "warming". You'll find it does not occur (with one exception - and it's minor). This is intentional.
__________________
The future is fun,
The future is fair.
You may already have won!
You may already be there.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Colonel Flagg Colonel Flagg is offline
after enough bourbon ...
Colonel Flagg's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Old Mar 15th, 2010, 11:36 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supafly345 View Post
As far as these publicly documented confessions of climate scientists forging data to forward an unfounded appearance of climate change- I know of only one example you could possibly be referring to. This wasn't an actual study of climate change that was under investigation, but rather the use of tree-ring data to be used as a valid measurement of temperature. The fudging of data was speculated in private documents, where they discussed replacing the temps of the tree ring data, which showed the earth cooling, to that of the actual temperatures which showed the earth warming. The actual temperatures it was changed to was taken from satellite measurements, so they are accurate. In the end the paper that was published never included this fudged data so the whole controversy didn't matter in the first place, even though the scientist in question has stepped down temporarily while an investigation over the matter is taking place.

There are no top scientists that have stopped believing in climate change, the top scientists that don't believe in climate change now have always been skeptics. In fact the number of climate scientists that support anthropogenic climate change has only grown in the past 20 years. In many climate denilist websites there is a common mis-reporting of interviews, distortion of data, and outright lies in them.
One of the most recent ones was the story that the top climate scientist Phil Jones has completely changed his mind and now claims that "there has been no global warming since 1995" because he said there was no significant data- which can be see here DAILY MAIL. But if you read the original article HERE he says over and over that anthropogenic climate change is real and that its 100% certain we have been warming since then.
So what happened? Well it turns out that the minimum amount of time that a scientifically significant measurement can be taken is 15 years, so when asked the question "has there been significant warming since 1995" he has to honestly say no, because that is one year shy of being significant, and the daily mail and other fact spinners can claim "there has been no significant warming" according to climatologist Phil Jones.

You see? Do you understand now that where you are getting your information is so twisted from reality that you have been completely disconnected?

There, I have taken the time to explain, and use examples in SHOWING you why. Not just linking to shit and claiming its proof, but giving detailed explanations. Now obviously I don't have time to give you months and months worth of data and hundreds of examples, but I shouldn't have to. Just stop letting yourself get lied to by conspiracy theorist.


I also just noticed the argument about means for climate change OTHER than CO2, well the only other 2 factors that are anywhere near capable right now of changing our climate is by Volcanic and Solar forcing. And both of those have been constant. You can pull up negligible arguments including methane, increased precipitation, oxygen, yadda yadda, but they don't have enough significance. The environmentalists focus on CO2 because thats what the scientists have been claiming the problem to be. Yes all these other arguments COULD potentially be the cause of climate change, IF IF IF they were increasing, but they arent.
Now THIS is a measured, well-reasoned argument.
__________________
The future is fun,
The future is fair.
You may already have won!
You may already be there.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Supafly345 Supafly345 is offline
Slim Goodbody
Supafly345's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: More like DIEwan
Old Mar 16th, 2010, 02:52 AM       
The ironic part is that I was a climate denier about 6 or 7 months ago, and I honestly didn't know much about it the real science behind it, just the hype and weak pseudo science to refute it. I somehow became obsessed with the topic and learned way too much about it and, thanks to an open mind, changed my mind. So I know a lot about both sides of the argument. In fact I may know more about the anti-climate change shit than the supporting stuff because I was hardcore in it for so long.

Thats why I keep urging Coolinator to do real research, check the scientific journals, and learn about the scientific process. It took a lot of time, research, and understanding for me to change my mind. Hell, even if he had a good understanding the scientific process of testing, confirmation, peer review and everything that goes into turning something into a theory, he wouldn't question global warming. Forging data is next to impossible. And forging so much data over so many years among thousands of independant scientists who came to the same conclusion? That is impossible.
__________________
"Quote from some guy I think is funny."
-Some guy I think is funny
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Colonel Flagg Colonel Flagg is offline
after enough bourbon ...
Colonel Flagg's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Old Mar 16th, 2010, 05:10 AM       
I was just reading a sidebar in the magazine "Reason" where they talked about the "climategate e-mails". It pretty much follows your argument, so I won't discuss it beyond mentioning this interesting tidbit. Apparently, one of the lead researchers stated that the whole problem of having this issue arise is that the relevant data needs to be more publicly accessible. This will allow for more individuals to do in a few weeks what it took you 6 months to do.

I have to go back and read the article "for comprehension" but it appears to be relatively well balanced - a refreshing change from most of the rantings I've been subjected to on TEH INTERWEBS.
__________________
The future is fun,
The future is fair.
You may already have won!
You may already be there.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Blasted Child Blasted Child is offline
Lethal fresco
Blasted Child's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Old Mar 16th, 2010, 07:37 AM       
Quote:
CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 has no affect on the climate. There is no evidence that links CO2 to rising temperatures. The sun controls the heat of the globe as it controls the temperature of every single other celestial body in the solar system.
I think you need to revise this statement, coolinator. Even if we choose not to call CO2 a pollutant, it's widely recognised among the vast majority of researchers as a greenhouse gas; one that contributes to warmer climate and one that has increased in the atmosphere with one third since the industrial revolution.
It's also measured that human activity results in about 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes and other natural sources, on an annual basis.

It's not only the sun that governs our temperature and climate, it's a very complex system and the greenhouse gases play a major role. I'm afraid this is very basic meteorology.
__________________
I dream of houses
Reply With Quote
  #99  
TheCoolinator TheCoolinator is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mean Streets of New York
Old Mar 16th, 2010, 08:58 AM       
All I see is an avalanche of doublethink going on here......

Quote:
"The scientists lied about the data entry but it's OK because it didn't go into the final report"

"Scientists said the globe hasn't been warming since 1995 but he still believes in man made global warming"
Since there is no anthropogenic global warming we must ask ourselves what can change the climate. Is it humans? We impact 6% of the overall climate with our factories and other combustible materials. None of which ever reaches so high up in the stratosphere to block anything. As I've been saying all along there is no good science linking CO2 to the warming of the earth. Many scientists and meteorologists agree.

There are only two things that have the capacity to change the environment:

When the sun has a very active sun spot cycle and causing the earth to warm, this excess heat creates water vapor that further holds in heat.

&

Volcanoes that emit billions of tons of Sulphur gas into the atmosphere that cool the globe by reflecting the suns rays.

So right here we have a cooling and warming cycle that mankind has absolutely nothing to do with. We affect only 6% of the climate. 6%.

Global Warming advocates are nothing more then neo-Malthusians. This is an ruling class ideology. Hence why there is a carbon tax attached to every climate bill. They want the peasants to pay for their crimes against mother earth. The next stop will probably be one child policies.

Quote:
Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.
No cars or factories in Medieval times.

Quote:
Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.
He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.
The climate cultist have not disclosed all of their research. Much of which is hidden and or so falsified they cannot allow it to see the light of day.


Quote:
He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0iLSdh9Mv
hmmmm....

Now lets multiply that by 1000 and add all of the private donors pushing for carbon trading and taxing.

Last edited by TheCoolinator : Mar 16th, 2010 at 11:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Old Mar 16th, 2010, 09:44 AM       
I don't think you should write off global warming mainly or even partly based on the fact that ruling classes are taking advantage of the hysteria behind it; they do that with everything.

As for the science, I'm not party to comment here I suppose, since I haven't read the walls of text presented for either argument. I have, however, browsed the facts slightly, and it does look to me as if human involvement in global warming is real. But I say again, I haven't delved very far into it at all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:04 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.