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

[SupraDerk]

I hate your forum by the way...lol, I took so long to type a response I got logged out and it was all erased...try number 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is science. I've evaluated the geologic & scientific records and have reached a conclusion based upon reason. The information is out there, all you need to do is find it. The "average" guy is pretty damned ignorant, and he's got no excuse for it.

As Bertrand Russsel said; "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."

Are you telling me that you don't believe anything that you're saying? I can say that an elephant flies using purple puppy fluff. I can say that til the cows come home, but do I believe it? No. Why? Because there's no such that as purple puppy fluff, let alone a purple puppy and there's no reason or logic to it. I can also say that I went outside and it was hot because the sun is shining right down on me. Do I believe it, yes. Why? Because I know it is and I can feel it. I used reason and belief to come to my conclusion.

I also don't buy the argument that "I used scinece so I MUST be right." Using science can show that you're correct, mostly correct, half anf half correct and incorrect, mostly incorrect...or completely wrong. But you can try to parade each of these outcomes off as "correct" because you have science to back up your findings. You have to have reason AND belief in order for a scientific finding to be completely correct. You have to ask, do I believe what I'm hearing? And can I observe what I'm believing?

Take Newtonian Physics and General Relativity for instance. Newtonian Physics showed the effects of gravity between large bodies incredibly well and no one could really disprove it. Physicists all thought it was fine and dandy and took it for what it was...until one person noticed one small discrepency. Was Newton correct? You could say so because people believed what he was saying and could observe it, except in one case where it didn't make sense and led to at least one person not believing it. Newtonian Physics was incomplete and as the result of that one small missing piece, it was completely replaced by General Relativity and physics completely changed.

It sounds like you are working from a philosophy that "nothing is knowable with certainly" - sounds a lot like Relativism.

I don't see myself as a relativist. I certainly know that I'm sitting here right now typing. To deny that fact would be idiotic. But I do believe you can't know EVERYTHING with certainty. Take the Uncertainty Principle into account. If you zoom into an electron cloud and try to zoom in on a single electron to plot it's movement, you will NEVER know both it's magnitude and speed EXACTLY at any one point. You will either know exactly it's magnitude, it's position or a general idea of it's magnitude and speed, but nothing exact enough to write home about.

And ask yourself this. What is a sentence? A series of words...ok, I certainly know that. What is a word? A series of letters DUH!! Well what's a letter? The building block of language right? Well what makes up a letter? You don't know, you can't say what makes up a letter with certainty, it's something you have to except exists.

As I've said in the past, I'm damned sure that A=A, and I pity anyone who can't agree that something is what it is.

A = black
B = car
C = berry

B = A....C = A....A = A.... B = C??

If A = object, then yes I would agree that a car and a berry are an object. However, if A = black then I disagree, and will argue to the death that a car is not a berry.

 

[JustAnotherVictim]

The thing I see is that proponents of global warming want to blame everything on cars then slightly mention factories which pollute 24/7. Yes, I do understand that's there's always people driving but if you consider how much smoke you see spewing out and that exhausts from factories are not filtered at all unlike cars, I see that as a bigger reason for pollution.
Look how many more people there are on the planet compared to before, I'm sure that has nothing to do with it.
One other thing is how they keep claiming that the ozone layer is disappearing but the holes that have been reported to be repairing themselves.

 

[ChadMKIII]

That's not really what global warming is about. It's a lot about the greenhouse effect, not so much the natural greenhouse effect because as the name states...it's natural, but the effect that modern humans are creating. Due to all the carbon dioxide and other emissions we're pumping into the air, we're adding to the atmosphere and not allowing heat to escape. The more we emit, the hotter the earth gets. Which isn't neccessarily a bad thing because plants and trees eat up carbon dioxide and spew out oxygen.

Depends on how you look at it I guess. I don't really care though cause like what's been stated before...I'll be dead.

Yeah, I know. Thats the point.
So called dangerous emissions from man kind are not the major culprit. Environmentalists just want to be in control over people's lives, despite the fact most of what they do is both counter productive and generally harmful to the environment. (Try MTBE for one). How often do you see major environmentalists following their own decrees? Ever?

The biggest cause of global warming is the natural cycle of the earths orbit getting closer to and farther away from the sun. Just tiny amounts makes huge differences.

Climatology studies and computer models have proven that independent of the earths natural cycles, average temperatures have risen on earth, and there is a direct correlation between this rise and human activity.

And think about this: We've been keeping global temperature records for how long? Not even 100 years. In all the time this earth has existed, you can't base a 'fact' off of such a tiny amount of data. Its ridiculous.

The ozone layer, as well, is totally nuts. The 'hole' is always shrining and growing, even on scales we can barely measure, because thats a property of ozone. Its unstable. Ozone is just 3 oxygen atoms. They frequently decompose into 2 and 1, with the 1 joining another set of 2. Happens continuously.

And if human CFCs and such are the problem, why is the 'huge hole' over Antarctica?
As we all know, Antarctica is the worlds largest producer of CFCs

Seriously, don't take anything an environmentalist says seriously UNTIL you have looked it up and researched it yourself. Look at the facts. 9 times out of 10, what the environmetalists say is complete garbage.

 

[Facime]

wow, for once a really intelligent conversation between two well spoken people. I was gonna step in and provide an answer to Supracentral, but im not sure if I could improve on what FBI said.

I will add this: You say that you studied the issue, came to your opinion on the issue, and that anyone who thinks different is a lamb being led by propaganda (paraphrasing). Well what does that make you? Are you not simply a product of the same propaganda machine? I too have read up on this subject, listeded to both sides of the arguement, reflected on what I have heard then came to a different conclusion.

I'll break the issue down to its simplest, most basic fundamentals, and lets see which sounds more logical.

One side says that the earth goes through natural cycles and that the earth itself is capable of producing huge amounts of CO2, but that it also "absorbs this gas via conversion to O2 by plants, and human beings are not responsible for any climate changes on this planet, and anyone who believes this is a "fear monger".
The other side says that while the earth IS capable of producing this CO2, and then absorbing some amount of it, human beings have tipped the scales by pumping billions of Cubic feet of CO2 into the atmosphere, while simultaniously depleteing the earths natural "filter" (the forests), and anyone who doesnt believe this is an "ostrich with its head in the sand"

I dont think any amount of science here will sway your opinion on the subject, but I can tell you im no fear monger, and Im also not be lead around by my gonads. I guess Im just going to have to agree to disagree with you on this one.

Im

 

[Supracentral]

You say that you studied the issue, came to your opinion on the issue, and that anyone who thinks different is a lamb being led by propaganda (paraphrasing).

That is NOT what I said...

His initial post talks about "beliefs", what the media, government & word of mouth is pushing... I'm not interested in discussing that. Popular tripe is just that, tripe...

What I asked for was for him to do the research, form his own rational position on the issue, then disscuss it. And I'll be glad to debate, listen and even alter my opinion if his points are convincing...

 

[p5150]

Many of the studies that dispute global warming were actually funded directly by big oil/coal companies

 

[ChadMKIII]

Many of the studies that dispute global warming were actually funded directly by big oil/coal companies

Common sense is not funded by oil companies.

You CAN NOT say something like global warming is occuring with only 100 years of evidence out of such a long existence. Its ridiculous.

Do your own research. Investigate the possibilities. You wil see much of this is ridiculously overblown, possibly even false. The miniscule amounts of pollution that cars, factories, etc may emit are not enough to cause this big of a climactic change.

The most likely explanation is simply the fact that the earth's orbit gets closer and farther away from the sun over time. As mentioned earlier, consider what caused Ice Ages and what brought us out. We didn't have factories and cars to melt the snow.

Seriously, if you invest lots of time researching this on your own, I am fully convinced you will prove to yourself the fallacies of 'global warming'.

I move to change the title of this thread to 'Global Warming Is a Hoax'.

 

[Big Wang Bandit]

This thread was almost a year old till a revival.

I farted again! Die earth!

 

[SupraDerk]

I will add this: You say that you studied the issue, came to your opinion on the issue, and that anyone who thinks different is a lamb being led by propaganda (paraphrasing). Well what does that make you? Are you not simply a product of the same propaganda machine? I too have read up on this subject, listeded to both sides of the arguement, reflected on what I have heard then came to a different conclusion.

Haha, that was supposed to be my point with that long post. Guess I forgot to add it back in the second time.

Having someone say you're stupid, wrong, a sheep, a fear monger, the list goes on...for listening to environmentalists or politicians is no different than you saying you should think what I think because I'm telling you it's right. And that's all that seems to happen when forum debates come up. So in reality, the debates never go anywhere.

I have read up on this and "educated myself" and my opinion is what it is. Anyone saying that it's wrong won't change it, but you're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.

His initial post talks about "beliefs", what the media, government & word of mouth is pushing... I'm not interested in discussing that. Popular tripe is just that, tripe...

And in the post you're refering to I said that you should believe what YOU (you being the person reading this) BELIEVE is correct. What's the point in trying to hold an opinion and debate it if you don't even believe in what you're saying? Who says belief has to be only associated with faith or religion. I'm very much atheist but I do believe in things.

I also said that if you did go by what politicians and environmentalists had to say that it was no different than someone siding with you just because you said that you think it's all bullshit.

 

[PROJECT N00b]

Crude oil, on the other hand, is not simple hydrocarbons, it is composed of long chains of C and H that do not form very easily.

C and H, C and H, what mommy uses to bake her cakes!


LOL...i dont think anyone would know where that came from, its an old 50s commercial.

 

[91T breezen']

Wow! Alot of science, on a car forum! My dad was just telling me about the book Adjuster was referencing. Sounds good, I should read it, or better yet, all Americans should read it! Let me also take this opportunity, to say that Al Gore= Total freakin' idiot!!!:biglaugh: Thank God we (Republicans) stole the election in 2000! LOL!:naughty:

 

[Nick M]

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.

Creationists know this, because the planet is only 6000 years old, and it it takes millions of years to turn a dead animal into oil, then it must be a different process.

That and Halliburton coworkers talking about how wells that were pumped dry are full again. The earth makes oil.

Many of the studies that dispute global warming were actually funded directly by big oil/coal companies

Cade, the people that say capitalism is destroying the earth are communists. So by your logic, we should discount anything they say since they have a stake in it.

 

[OneJoeZee]

Wow! Alot of science, on a car forum! My dad was just telling me about the book Adjuster was referencing. Sounds good, I should read it, or better yet, all Americans should read it! Let me also take this opportunity, to say that Al Gore= Total freakin' idiot!!!:biglaugh: Thank God we (Republicans) stole the election in 2000! LOL!:naughty:

don't hate on al gore. he invented the internets

 

[p5150]

this isnt a partisan issue. Why do we have to polarize everything?

Put it in terms of $. Do you know how much money we waste on foreign oil? Billions and billions.

My TDI jetta gets 50 hwy/42 city. It has plenty of power and drives very nicely. Why doesnt the government set tougher mileage standards?

 

[Joel W.]

Why doesnt the government set tougher mileage standards?

They will if enough people start to realize what is really happening and bitch loud enough... Threads like this will delay that in my opinion..

Edit: Supracentral's Grandpa said it best, I think it was "Soap box, Ballot box, then Ammo box, In that order"

 

[Wills7MGTE]

A. If there is global warming, we can not stop it only slow it. B. People need to deal with real issues like how backwards the human race for a majority is, and how shallow and consumeristic we have become. and C. Don't get your information from michael crighton, who pretty much writes fiction novels, thats like believing steven kings stories.

 

[Facime]

Don't get your information from michael crighton, who pretty much writes fiction novels, thats like believing steven kings stories.

Well said


hmmm...that kind of explains Scientology doesnt it?

 

[Joel W.]

Interesting page from the Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

I'd post the whole thing here but it's too long and their reference links won't work if I did.

Here is a teaser---> "The current scientific opinion on climate change is that recent warming is largely human-caused. Very few scientists disagree."

I am not talking about what "we" thought 30 years ago.

Many edits:

Be sure to look at the list of "opponents of GW" They got a freakin dead guy on there. eeeewwww...

John Lawrence Daly (now deceased) R.I.P. John... (I am sadly done with him) :nono:

According to Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change received $10,000 from ExxonMobil in 2001.
(I wonder if we should trust the results of that study?):3d_frown:

It just keeps getting better.:evil2:

Frederick Seitz (anti-global warming treaties, accepts the temperature rise as real, but not yet properly explained) Does not know. (does not really count if he does not know..):dunno:

Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
In response, Lindzen denied telling Reason that he would bet at 1:1 odds that temperatures would be lower in 20 years than they are now, and stated that he would only bet if offered "much higher odds." According to Lindzen, he and Annan exchanged proposals for bets, but were unable to agree.(LMAO) :chicken:

The Information Council on the Environment (ICE), was an organization created by the National Coal Association.
(I wonder what is in their best interests?) :boink:

David Bellamy, British environmental campaigner who has since decided to draw back from the debate on global warming.
(I am done with him! Take his ass off the list.):wavey:

Robert C. Balling, Jr. is the director of the Office of Climatology and professor of geography at Arizona State University. He received his Ph.D. in geography from the University of Oklahoma in 1979. Balling is a declared "global warming skeptic." However, in Balling and Sen Roy (2005) he writes: "There is substantial evidence that a non-solar control has become dominant in recent decades.
(I'm done with him also, we can take his ass off the list):wave:

(The biggie) Patrick J. Michaels (born c. 1942?) is a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and the state climatologist for Virginia. His professional specialty was the influence of climate on agriculture. He is noted for his views as an opponent of global warming theory and frequently writes and speaks for popular audiences on the topic of climate change. He is a fellow of the Cato Institute and edits the World Climate Report, published by the Western Fuels Association through WFA's Greening Earth Society. He has received substantial financial support from the energy industry. His work has been published in Climate Research, Climatic Change and Geophysical Research Letters.
Michaels is one of a group of global warming skeptics and continues to dispute some aspects of global warming, including evidence of rising global temperatures. Recent statements suggest, however, that he is accepting the conclusion of the IPCC that there is a human influence on the climate, WTFOMGPPLBBQ!!1!1:naughty: Next....

There is more but I will let you figure the rest out.

 

[p5150]

im sick of people turning everything into a case for the "right" or the "left". People polarize viewpoints and ideas that conflict with their own and brand them with a bullshit name like "liberal" or "conservative". Its not that simple.

One question: Been to europe or asia?

The answer for most is probably not. Let me fill you in. European modes of transportation are very efficient. Sorry, but I dont think that anybody has the "right" to consume as much fuel as they desire and pollute the atmosphere, a shared commodity.

 

[Joel W.]

I have been to London and have seen the soot coated flats (apartment buildings) from years and years of coal burning with my own eyes..

This was 19 years ago and they were in the middle of cleaning the buildings when I was there. I agree with you btw.