Global Warming is over. (Really, it is. No joke.)

[bonus12]

Anyone read "State of Fear" by Crighton?

Very interesting book. Full of footnotes and very well researched. Most, if not all of them when searched on the net come up with TONS of data and proven facts that show the world is being scamed with the whole "global warming" idea.

Seas are not rising.
Ice is not melting off.
Overall temps are not going up, if anything it's getting colder on average, a possible reversal of the warming trend we have been in for about 10,000 years.

I've known about the hydrocarbon deal for years.
"Fossil Fuels" is totally wrong. Hydrocarbons are not from dead animal and plant life roaming around a few hundred thousand years ago. (I know, we were all taught that in school, so it must be right eh?) Keep in mind, we all knew that the world was flat untill just a few hundred years ago...

Thomas J. Gold came up with a new theory about hydrocarbons and Earth, and it's been proven correct time and time again.

Oil fields are not running out, but are filling up from the bottem, deep in the earth.

Oil deposits are found in rock older than life on earth. (Pretty hard to get dead dino's and plants when there were NO plants or animals alive when the rock was formed where the oil is being found now.)

Clearly hydrocarbons are part of the compostion of the planet. They tend to collect around some geologic features, and from the pools, we can use them to refine other products used every day the world over. (Gas is just one of many things that crude oil provides.)

Hydrocarbons are everywhere in the solar system, and universe for that matter. (Explain to me the dead animals and plants on Neptune for example. A planet with a huge atmosphere of methane gas.)

Back on topic, hydrocarbon consumption is not causing global warming. We have plenty of hydrocarbons, but are being lead to believe they are scarce. We are being told that global warming will end all life, but in realitiy, the earth continues on, pretty much oblivious of what is going on caused by man.

Have fun and discuss.

what the hell are you talking about? what are hydrocarbons? what dead animals on Neptune? are you some kind of idiot? or did the book just convince you b/c you are gullible? what a load of bullshit.

you can only deny global warming for so long... changes are happening right NOW everywhere on earth!

 

[Joel W.]

Clouds reflect, water vapor absorbs and insulates only. (Clouds can also insulate. Clouds are temporary, but their is always water vapor in the air we breathe.)

Get your facts correct please.

ok

Clouds reflect sunlight, water vapor traps heat, clouds are made from water vapor, so both clouds and water vapor reflect and trap heat.

ok

:icon_razz

 

[Adjuster]

Nope, not OK.
Water vapor does not reflect heat, it only absorbs it. And it's more of a heat absorber if you want to look at it that way than C02.

From what I understand, clouds are condensed water vapor, so now your dealing with droplets of water, a liquid, not a gas.

Hey Bonus, nice post. Read the book, then tell me about your theory OK? (You might want to learn what hydrocarbons are, and a few other things in the meantime as well before posting up your knowlege... LOL)

Otherwise, your blindly following the LEE's is just proving my point. (LEE's are Liberal Elite Environmentalists.. and I started to call them that here just because I'm tired of typing out the whole long name all the time.)

A few you might see.
MMGW. (Man Made Global Warming.)
C02. (Carbon dioxide.)
AKA. (Also Known As.)
Al Gore (AKA Dumbshit LEE.)

Ha ha ha @ Mr Bore...

 

[Nick M]

I can't believe I missed this site. It is a conglomerate of the opposition to the idea that mans 1/25 of less than 1% will cause catostrophic changes to the weather.

http://www.globalwarmingisafarce.com/

Book mark it as your favorite.

 

[Joel W.]

http://www.globalwarmingisafarce.com/

Like I am going to believe a website with that name?? LOL,,,


I won't even click it...:3d_frown:

 

[Joel W.]

OMG, I had to click it..:aigo: ... I am now ashamed of you Nick M. :3d_frown:

Shame on you, shame on you two times...:icon_razz

 

[Joel W.]

I worked for ARCO solar back in the 80's

I am done with him... I rest my case!!!









[/thread]

 

[Adjuster]

Yep, once again, you jump to what you think you know Joel.

I was there, making slightly more than minimum wage for Volt, a temp company.

You don't like the guy who was raised a liberal, lives in a liberal town, and has decided that the whole idea of MMGW is wrong? He's basing his choice on solid scientific data, not just wishfull thinking dude. (Unlike someone I know on here that refuses to look beyond what the LEE's want him to see.)

Guess what happend to the solar panel plant I worked at? It was closed down, and the production of the panels changed from silicone wafers cut from huge crystals we grew right there, to smaller ones grown in China, and then assembled in Mexico. (IT was too expensive, even for an oil company to lose that much money on making solar panels nobody wanted because they could not afford them.)
No joel, the price has not improved all that much, so you still have a huge cost associated with solar power, and it really is only effective on very clear days for the most part. (Figure if adding solar power to a house in the 80's ran you 100,000.00 or more for a 3000 sq. ft. home, your likely still going to spend a similar amount of money even with some advances in production costs today.) That is alot of power bills for many, many years. (You can do the math with your current power bill, and keep in mind, on the cloudy days, and at night, solar does not work very well, if at all.

Ok, so I have a challange for you Joel. Do you own a solar panel? Or do you power anything with a solar panel? Just curious. (Solar powered calculators do not count here dude.)

 

[Joel W.]

You talk like big oil, now you walk like big oil... I call them how I see them...(no offence) That's just me..

Yes, I have a small solar cell that will charge a 12 volt battery. It's old and out of date!

The new solar cell tech comes in a spray can and others are made from spinich or plastic and makes every thing you say about solar wrong!!!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2004/spinach-0915.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/280625_solarcell10.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/10/02/solar.cells.reut/index.html

 

[p5150]

Oil prices bottomed out in the 80's. Energy was cheap.

Arguing about it all is kind of a moot point anyway - everybody with a big gas guzzling vehicle will be feeling it really soon if they arent already. The market may help solve some of the problem but it certainly wont cure it.

 

[bonus12]

Adjuster, why do you rather trust an author over 2000 top scientists?!

recenty, a survey was taken that included the world's top scientists. (no, adjuster, scientists paid by oil companies to lie were not included). every scientist in the enire study agree that global warming was indeed happening, and is caused by human activity. it is true, the study massed over 2000 of the top scientists most recognized today.

not to mention, rising co2 levels PERFECTLY coincide with rising temperatures, and both PERFECTLY coincide witht the start of co2 emissions in the industrial revolution.

did u go to high school?

There is evidence now that shows Global Warming is happening as we speak. interested? post a message. Or would you rather just trust an author, who writes interesting, creative stories for a living?

thanks for reading

[/thread]

 

[Adjuster]

"Top 2000 Scientists" ? Where? From what areas of science?

I seriously doubt that if you took 2000 of anybody, and posed the questions we have talked about in this post, they would all agree on it completely one way or the other, so I have to do this dude.

:bsflag:

Second, the book is very well reasearched, and documented on source material. Just beause it's a book about fictional people and events involving those people does not mean the research used and discussed does not exist, and does not hold true in the real world. (Like just because I say your breathing air does not make air false..)

Keep holding to your LEE supported views of the world. (I suggest you sell your Supra, buy a bike and live in a city...)

Have a nice one.

 

[Joel W.]

Ohhh... So now you want to know who they are? Here are a few. I don't think they are funded by big oil anyways.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (they were, but changed their minds)
The national academies of science of the G8 countries and Brazil, China and India [18].
The US National Academy of Sciences, both in its 2002 report to President George W. Bush, and in its latest publications, has strongly endorsed evidence of an average global temperature increase in the 20th century and stated that human activity is heavily implicated in causing this increase.
The American Meteorological Society (AMS statement).
The American Geophysical Union (AGU statement). John Christy, who is usually placed in the skeptics camp, has signed the AGU statement on climate change.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). [19]
The Union of Concerned Scientists

It should be noted that these groups, far from advocating an unusual position within the scientific community, represent the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change.


And many more...like NASA..

The problem is, we don't have a great deal of time to make the changes needed to save our planet. Chief NASA climatologist James Hansen said we need to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions significantly in the next decade or face dire consequences. Some scientists argue that we need to reduce fossil-fuel consumption by 70 percent just to keep things where they are when it comes to global warming.

http://www.readingeagle.com/re/morgan/15220042.asp

 

[Facime]

Is this tread still alive? I gave up trying to change the minds of ostriches.

 

[Joel W.]

I gave up

I have been waiting for him to ask "who says" for a long long time... I am stuborn I guess..

 

[bonus12]

Adjuster, instead of reading a fictional book and being close-minded about the issue, why don't you try reading a book like Beating the Heat: Why and How We Must Combat Global Warming, by John J. Berger? The author of this book has some really impressive credentials. Bachelor's degree in political science from stanford U, masters in energy and natural resources from UC Berkeley, Ph.D in ecology from UC Davis, and more!

Or why dont you spend $4.50 on a matinee and see An Inconvenient Truth?
Lots of facts in that movie!

Besides, i think you believe the book b/c you want to believe it. why dont we start a thread about The Da Vinci Code, a comparably controversial issue?
DUH DUH DUH!

 

[Adjuster]

Bonus, if you belive that Mr. Berger, having obtained his degree's from Stanford, Berkeley and Davis is a objective source of information, your seriously overlooking the obvious.

Those are all flamingly liberal schools, proud to be on the forefront of resistance to everything capitolistic, and supportive of anything socialistic. (Hell, call it what it is, communism..)

I'd sooner drink battery acid than support a butt nugget like Gore by paying to see his movie. Here in a few days when I can rent it for .99 cents I might watch it just to see where this guy is going next. (Like reading his book, it was very interesting that anyone who enjoys freedom, and basicly any thinking person in this country would vote for that dude. He's clearly a socialist/communist, and he is very much anti business and into social engineering with your hard earned money. (And he'd like more of it, and then tell you that the reason your paying more, is good because it's forcing you to conserve energy, blah blah.)

Perhaps I should change the title of this thread to "Man caused global warming theory is proven false yet again." (Really, this is no joke.)

Since I'm dubious of the education slant of the author, I likely will not spend any time reading that book you suggested, but what does it say according to you? Anything that is based on complete data, or does the author slice up the information to prove his ideas? (Any chart of data can be used to prove anything, even that the earth is getting colder... Just look at the data in the 70's and your there, we were all worried it was man caused global cooling that was going to push us into another ice age...)

My point is MAN caused anything on this planet is a pretty interesting theory indeed. We are not the largest bio mass here by any means. (I belive the ranking of mobile species has the insects outweighing the humans my a huge margin....) Just termites alone have more bio mass than humans, and they are just ONE of many millions of types of insects on this planet.

CO2 produced by man is miniscule compared to natural releases and sources of C02, and we all know (or should by now) that C02 as a "greenhouse" gas is a very small portion of our atmosphere, and not the #1 heat trapping gas. (That honor belongs to water vapor (not clouds, they are different.))

Oh, Gore and his LEE friends say water vapor is "friendly" and that CO2 is "evil" like either one has an agenda... LOL

I hope that if anyone has the time, and patience to read through this serries of posts, they can draw their own conclusion based on what data we have, serious science and they can look past the propaganda and see that climate change is not static, and that the Earth will continue to cycle through warmer and cooler climates.
I also hope they leave here with a better understanding that those who would have you feel bad, evil if you will, about using hydrocarbons, eating red meat, building dams and enjoying your personal car while living in a house in the suburbs are really using "propaganda" based half truths and bogus science to try and control you.

If I was a liberal, I'd be pissed that the communists have taken over my party. (BTW, communism has a new name, they are the LEE's, or "Liberal Elite Environmentalists, and the ultimate in hypocrites.)

 

[bonus12]

Bonus, if you belive that Mr. Berger, having obtained his degree's from Stanford, Berkeley and Davis is a objective source of information, your seriously overlooking the obvious.

Those are all flamingly liberal schools, proud to be on the forefront of resistance to everything capitolistic, and supportive of anything socialistic. (Hell, call it what it is, communism..)

I'd sooner drink battery acid than support a butt nugget like Gore by paying to see his movie. Here in a few days when I can rent it for .99 cents I might watch it just to see where this guy is going next. (Like reading his book, it was very interesting that anyone who enjoys freedom, and basicly any thinking person in this country would vote for that dude. He's clearly a socialist/communist, and he is very much anti business and into social engineering with your hard earned money. (And he'd like more of it, and then tell you that the reason your paying more, is good because it's forcing you to conserve energy, blah blah.)

Perhaps I should change the title of this thread to "Man caused global warming theory is proven false yet again." (Really, this is no joke.)

Since I'm dubious of the education slant of the author, I likely will not spend any time reading that book you suggested, but what does it say according to you? Anything that is based on complete data, or does the author slice up the information to prove his ideas? (Any chart of data can be used to prove anything, even that the earth is getting colder... Just look at the data in the 70's and your there, we were all worried it was man caused global cooling that was going to push us into another ice age...)

My point is MAN caused anything on this planet is a pretty interesting theory indeed. We are not the largest bio mass here by any means. (I belive the ranking of mobile species has the insects outweighing the humans my a huge margin....) Just termites alone have more bio mass than humans, and they are just ONE of many millions of types of insects on this planet.

CO2 produced by man is miniscule compared to natural releases and sources of C02, and we all know (or should by now) that C02 as a "greenhouse" gas is a very small portion of our atmosphere, and not the #1 heat trapping gas. (That honor belongs to water vapor (not clouds, they are different.))

Oh, Gore and his LEE friends say water vapor is "friendly" and that CO2 is "evil" like either one has an agenda... LOL

I hope that if anyone has the time, and patience to read through this serries of posts, they can draw their own conclusion based on what data we have, serious science and they can look past the propaganda and see that climate change is not static, and that the Earth will continue to cycle through warmer and cooler climates.
I also hope they leave here with a better understanding that those who would have you feel bad, evil if you will, about using hydrocarbons, eating red meat, building dams and enjoying your personal car while living in a house in the suburbs are really using "propaganda" based half truths and bogus science to try and control you.

If I was a liberal, I'd be pissed that the communists have taken over my party. (BTW, communism has a new name, they are the LEE's, or "Liberal Elite Environmentalists, and the ultimate in hypocrites.)

ok, long post. you said some pretty stupid things that must not be ignored.

the best colleges in the world are considered liberal. whether this guy is republican or green or liberal, it doesnt matter. he clearly wanted the best education he could get.

i don't know what to say about you calling gore a communist. i don't think many people in the country agree with you here. but it is funny that over 50% voted for Bush in his second election, but now less than 30% or so approve of him... dont call non-repubs dumb when these kinds of stats are available.

about Berger's book. he only uses stats. he presents solid info to the reader, and let's the reader decide what to think. unlike you, he told about global warming with almost 0 bias.

"My point is MAN caused anything on this planet is a pretty interesting theory indeed. We are not the largest bio mass here by any means. (I belive the ranking of mobile species has the insects outweighing the humans my a huge margin....) Just termites alone have more bio mass than humans, and they are just ONE of many millions of types of insects on this planet."

above is the most idiotic thing you have said thus far. obviously, crickets and beetles don't construct houses and cut down trees etc... humans are the only species that actually leave a trace of their existence. sure, bees leave hives, but if you can't see the difference between hives and Hummers, you are the dumbest person i know.

"CO2 produced by man is miniscule compared to natural releases and sources of C02, and we all know (or should by now) that C02 as a "greenhouse" gas is a very small portion of our atmosphere, and not the #1 heat trapping gas. (That honor belongs to water vapor (not clouds, they are different.))"

of course co2 cycles are natural, but like when any cycle is disturbed, things go awry. global warming and its effects are already overwhelmingly present. since the industrial revolution, when co2 emissions rose rapidly, see level have risen 4-10 inches, depending on location. Coral reef bleaching is now present in many new locations (learn about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching). Milder temperatures have contributed to the spread of mosquito-born diseases. etcetera etcetera.

when did gore say anything about good and evil? that sounds more like Bush.

thanks for reading. do more research on your own. if you do as much research as i did on this topic, you will agree with me.

by the way, the earth's core IS cooling (like a pie cools as it sits on a counter), but that doesnt mean the surface is cooling. but you knew that, right?

 

[Adjuster]

Bonus 12, in 20 years let's see who is right, and who is wrong.

Might not even take that long since the public in general have noticed that MMGW appears to be a bogus theory, and every day, scientists are admitting they did not know as much as they thought, computer models had bad data and were setup wrong, leaving out many very imporant factors.

Theory on ice shelf reduction leading to MORE ice and snow being deposited on the polar caps is now turning the whole "Seas are rising" deal on its' head. (And they actually think it might be a turning point that leads us into the next ice age. But it is nothing more than a theory at this point, much like MMGW was before the LEE's grabbed ahold of it, and claimed that it was true. Irrifutable in fact. Without doubt... LOL Right, whatever dude.

Cling to your theory of MMGW if you must, and find solace in your liberal/socialist elite environmentalists who preach that we are all sinners additcted to fossil fuel, and hydroelectric power... And that we will die for our sins against mother nature unless we act now, and stop cutting down the eternal forrests, killing our brothers the fish, and BLAH DE F'n blah blah...

Very basic difference between LEE's and myself.
1) I don't belive that fossil fuels exist. They are hydrocarbons, and part of the composition of the planet. They are common throughout the solar system.

2) I don't think big government is a good idea. Welfare and other entitlement programs are wrong, and leave people with no hope and without the ability to think for themselves. (Look at New Orleans and see a good example for yourself.)

3) While we are the current dominant species on this planet, I do not for an instant forget that we have to be good stewards with what we have. If you don't use your resources, you might as well not have them however.

I go back to my original point.
The earth is warming up, and will cool down again. (I'm talking atmosphere here buddy, your talking cooling on a scale that our short shot on this planet does not even notice.)
The trees and forrests will come and go, animals will develop and go extinct, and nobody will notice. (There are so many life forms we don't even have classified, let alone accurate counts of how many there are, or were, or will be in a few years.)

To keep MMGW theory based on C02 increase in perspective, you have to use the numbers correctly.
The atmosphere if looked at like a football field, being 300 feet long, has changed or increased the amount of C02 by about 3/8ths of one inch. And you have to realize that all the existing C02 is only 3 inches wide anyway to begin wtih. So yes, the total amount of C02 compared to what was there before has increased quite a bit. 3/8 of one inch out of 3 inches total is substantial... but only on that gas alone's scale. On the atmosphere as a whole it's completely nothing. Especially against water vapor which has increased quite a bit, and is the #1 energy absorber and blanket that keeps the heat trapped down here against the planet's surface. (And without all the water vapor in this atmosphere, we would quickly cool off and die a very cold death.

 

[exander]

Geeze guys just let this thread die! Nobody is going to change anybodies minds. Why? Becuase Supra owners are too stubborn. That's why they own cars that brake down and won't settle for less than a Supra. Just let the thread die.

BTW if my reasoning makes no sense, it's late and I'm tired.