Global Warming theories truth or scam

[groundhogday]

Cooling Trend

An MIT meteorology expert says many of his colleagues have accepted man-made global warming theories out of self-preservation. Cybercast News reports Professor Richard Lindzen told a New York climate change conference Sunday: "Endorsing global warming just makes their lives easier."

He said political movements corrupt climate science "especially since the issue has been a major motivation for funding."

A new Gallup poll indicates a record-high 41 percent of Americans think global warming is exaggerated.

Well what do you think?

[NiftyNiblick]

All the reliable scientic evidence points to man-influenced global climate change.

Believing it is a no brainer.

For me, the hard part is giving a sh*t.

I mean really, what's it to me?

[FreakOfNature]

All the reliable scientic evidence points to man-influenced global climate change.

Believing it is a no brainer.

For me, the hard part is giving a sh*t.

I mean really, what's it to me?

Affordable food... that's about it. Who cares about starving anyways. That could never happen in North America nowadays, right?

Whether or not there is global warming and whether it is caused by man is pretty irrelevant.

The real important question is - has the weather changed for the worse in your area in recent years? If nobody's noticed, the major agricultural producers of the world (basically 90% of the global food supply) has been hit with a somewhat coincidental stroke of bad luck in the form of poor weather and unfavorable growing conditions. This is something to be very concerned about. Pretty soon if these changes continue, we're not going to be able to feed everyone. People will starve, and wars will rage for the few scraps we're able to scavenge. That's not an exaggeration.

We all know how well ignoring a problem makes it go away. Bills? Yeah, I'll just pretend those don't exist. Then they take your house away. Problem solved.

One way or another we will end up having to deal with this problem.



FON

[edgey]

Hi

There was an excellent programme on Channel 4 in the UK called "The Great Global Warming Swindle". It set out to de-bunk some of the widely held belief's that are accepted as fact.

Fascinating and controvertial.

Edgey

[bjdrivers]

Founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, said global warming is "the greatest scam in history" last November. i thought that was quite interesting.

[The Purist]

Global warming might not be the right word. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosophere and oceans has definitely increased astronomically since the industrial revolution. Core samples from glacial ice proves it.

Problems associated with carbon emissions can be hard to predict. Maybe a slight rise in global temperatures is the least of our concerns. I would be just as worried about changing weather patterns and an increase in the acidity of our waters. I can't even imagine what would happen if we created a man made "dust bowl" effect.

I can't believe people are against reducing pollution. Is it a good idea to sit in a air-tight garage with a car running...no...and please don't try it...you will die. Would you dump hazardous waste down your own well...no...you wouldn't do that to your family.

Did anyone happen to catch the Olympics in Beijing. Was that a natural smog hanging around the city causing people to wear facemasks. Maybe would should lower our emissions standards in America...I bet some of our corporations could save a lot of money that way.

[bjdrivers]

this man-made global warming hoax isn't about pollution. it's about government control.

this site is full of scientific data, help yourself.

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

one thing that always cracks me up is when i get an email from someone that has "please consider the environment before printing this email" in their signature.

i want to reply & say "hey dumbass, the amount of resources your computer used while you typed that email will trump anything that i can print!" stupid, stupid, stupid.

then after i read their email, i print 50 copies of it.

[edgey]

Global warming might not be the right word. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosophere and oceans has definitely increased astronomically since the industrial revolution. Core samples from glacial ice proves it.

Problems associated with carbon emissions can be hard to predict. Maybe a slight rise in global temperatures is the least of our concerns. I would be just as worried about changing weather patterns and an increase in the acidity of our waters. I can't even imagine what would happen if we created a man made "dust bowl" effect.

I can't believe people are against reducing pollution. Is it a good idea to sit in a air-tight garage with a car running...no...and please don't try it...you will die. Would you dump hazardous waste down your own well...no...you wouldn't do that to your family.

Did anyone happen to catch the Olympics in Beijing. Was that a natural smog hanging around the city causing people to wear facemasks. Maybe would should lower our emissions standards in America...I bet some of our corporations could save a lot of money that way.

Sorry mate but the core glacial samples proove nothing of the sort, that is another myth started by the film An Inconveniant Truth.

Edgey

[Rickw]

Is it even termed global warming now? I thought the politically correct term to use was "climate change." That way when the earth warms or cools... they are covered either way.

[Rickw]

All the reliable scientic evidence points to man-influenced global climate change.

Believing it is a no brainer.

For me, the hard part is giving a sh*t.

I mean really, what's it to me?

I like your word choice. It takes faith to believe in global warming, because the facts just are not there.

[ProStatus]

Hmmmm Global Warming . Its a fact that the Earth even before man was able to walk around without getting eaten by some land walking reptile or mammal was always having climate changes. If anything is getting affected by the so called global warming its our Water. What goes up must come down. All the Smog and sh.t is mixing with our rain water and soil that we grow our food in, and in return we consume the products of our environment, hence You are What you eat. The Earth has renewed it self over and over again through climate changes and Whether patterns before man was ever here. If we where any closer to the sun the earth wouldnt even have water on it ,or even people for that matter. We are in actuality on a thin line between mere existence in this universe.

Their even right now trying to find another planet that can sustain life. so man can move there and mess that planet up also. Besides ...if anything happens on earth its gonna be war and mass epidemic amongst the people that create nuclear weapons and chemical warfare.

[NiftyNiblick]

this man-made global warming hoax isn't about pollution. it's about government control.

If this website proves anything, it proves just how many Americans are intellectually inadequate for self-governance.

I'll trust the intellectually elite--the academics and the scientists--over the goobers every time.

[Rickw]

If this website proves anything, it proves just how many Americans are intellectually inadequate for self-governance.

I'll trust the intellectually elite--the academics and the scientists--over the goobers every time.

lol... so you will just TRUST them without actually looking into the data and thinking for yourself? Typical liberal ignorance! And you are the one calling others braindead.

Trust then verify... where did I hear that from?

Like groundhogday said in his initial post... you have to follow the money trail.

[FreakOfNature]

lol... so you will just TRUST them without actually looking into the data and thinking for yourself? Typical liberal ignorance! And you are the one calling others braindead.

Trust then verify... where did I hear that from?

Like groundhogday said in his initial post... you have to follow the money trail.

So you're a climate expert now, are you? I bet you don't even have the brains to explain the carbon cycle to the rest of us on this forum. You realize the carbon cycle is taught to SIXTH GRADERS.

You just keep making that money dude... compensate for your lack of fuk'n brains... kind of like driving a big ass truck is compensation for not having a d!ck.

Why don't you explain the scientific method to us - in your own words. I need a good laugh.

You clearly don't understand how science works. Not even remotely.



FON

[Rickw]

So you're a climate expert now, are you? I bet you don't even have the brains to explain the carbon cycle to the rest of us on this forum. You realize the carbon cycle is taught to SIXTH GRADERS.

You just keep making that money dude... compensate for your lack of fuk'n brains... kind of like driving a big ass truck is compensation for not having a d!ck.

Why don't you explain the scientific method to us - in your own words. I need a good laugh.

You clearly don't understand how science works. Not even remotely.



FON

Do you even know what percentage of the atmosphere is carbon? .03%

Yes I understand that global warming is "proven" by scientific peer review and not by the scientific method. Why don't you google that and educate your self before you start throwing stones.

And even scientific peer review is just another bullshitt term. In short... it is common sense... just follow the money. Money runs this world.

I would also like to know how you have acurate temperature readings all over the world before the industrial revolution?

Another tool of global warming is computer modeling. How can they predict the weather for the next 100 years when they got yesterday wrong?

[poe4soul]

Follow the money? You do know that most of these global warming hoax websites are funded by big oil?

I don't care if global warming is true. The fact is we have so much to gain by dumping the use of oil and other carbon based fuels. It's a no brainer to me that we need to dump the use of oil, coal, etc. If global warming is the tool and it's wrong who cares. We will be better off for making the transition. If it's right and we don't act than you've damaged the planet and generations that will inherit it.

[Rickw]

Follow the money? You do know that most of these global warming hoax websites are funded by big oil?

I don't care if global warming is true. The fact is we have so much to gain by dumping the use of oil and other carbon based fuels. It's a no brainer to me that we need to dump the use of oil, coal, etc. If global warming is the tool and it's wrong who cares. We will be better off for making the transition. If it's right and we don't act than you've damaged the planet and generations that will inherit it.

And you do know that most of these scientist will be out of a job/lose there grant money if they conclude global warming is a myth?

What are we going to replace oil with??? I am all for battery powered cars(if I could ever justify there initial cost), but I don't there will ever be ones powerful enough to put in semi's, trains, aircraft, and ships. Oil is the lifeblood of our nation... if you discourage oil use, the economic impacts will be tremendous.

What is the problem with coal? It is abundunt and the new clean coal technology is environment friendly. I would be ok with a nuclear replacement... but what is the alternative besides nuclear without trippling our current power bill?

And you cannot prove that we have damaged the planet. Please submit your "proof"... peer reviewed shitt is not proof by the way... that is a consensus by scientists on the government's teet.

[poe4soul]

No, it's not going to happen right away but there is many technologies that are viable right now. Why don't we have solar panels on every house in the southwest? Why don't we have small wind turbines in every backyard in every windy part of the US? Oil is the life blood of our nation and it's starting to get costly. Our security and our economic prosperity is 100% dependent on cheap oil. Would we have this interest in the middle east if it wasn't for oil? It's crazy to think that most of the solar panels we produce in this country are going to Europe or Japan.

Clean coal? I recall the recent coal ash slurry pond that burst in Tennessee. Tell the people down stream of this disaster that coal is clean.

I don't have to ask scientist anything. I can see it with my own two eyes. The Willamette River here in Portland has many super fund sites right on the river. Nasty, wrong, and harmful environmental sites that need to be resolved. The river at one time caught fire. Do you need a scientist to know that water should not catch fire? This is not unique to Portland.

I'm not going to argue that the government scientist don't have unbiased decisions anymore than you can argue that oil backed scientist are also unbiased. That is all I was trying to point out. You really have to research the source of many of these sites.

[Rickw]

No, it's not going to happen right away but there is many technologies that are viable right now. Why don't we have solar panels on every house in the southwest? Why don't we have small wind turbines in every backyard in every windy part of the US? Oil is the life blood of our nation and it's starting to get costly. Our security and our economic prosperity is 100% dependent on cheap oil. Would we have this interest in the middle east if it wasn't for oil? It's crazy to think that most of the solar panels we produce in this country are going to Europe or Japan.

Clean coal? I recall the recent coal ash slurry pond that burst in Tennessee. Tell the people down stream of this disaster that coal is clean.

I don't have to ask scientist anything. I can see it with my own two eyes. The Willamette River here in Portland has many super fund sites right on the river. Nasty, wrong, and harmful environmental sites that need to be resolved. The river at one time caught fire. Do you need a scientist to know that water should not catch fire? This is not unique to Portland.

I'm not going to argue that the government scientist don't have unbiased decisions anymore than you can argue that oil backed scientist are also unbiased. That is all I was trying to point out. You really have to research the source of many of these sites.

I have researched wind turbines and solar panels... even for my house. I want efficient energy as much as anyone else... but they just don't pencil out with the current technologies available. To power the US with solar it would take massive amounts of realstate... and the life expectancy of a solar panel is ~20 years. I remember when I researched it for my house ,with the initial investment, it was uncertain if I would break even after 20 years. I have heard another idea of putting them on all the rooftops, but it will take more land mass than just rooftops to provide enough energy.

The problem with wind turbines is the ability to store the energy. When the wind is blowing, the power is not a problem but when we don't have the capability to store the energy for when the wind is not blowing the lights go out. They are also unsitely and will lower property values. There was a plan to install wind turbines from viewing distance of Martha's Vineyard, where Ted Kennedy lived, needless to say he put an end to that.

Oil is the most efficient and available energy out there. I am, of course, for offshore and ANWAR drilling. The technology to drill now is more advanced and they can drill horizontally for even less of an environmental impact. I really don't understand the negatives to drilling in ANWAR. The land mass up there is virtually inhabitable and when the roads in the tundra melts(ice roads) it is unreachable. The effect on the wildlife has not been negative and the warm pipeline actually increased the number of caribou/mooses.

We have always heard that offshore drilling ANWAR would only produce 3% more in the world supply and that was supposedly a bad thing. But last year when demand decreased 3%, oil prices tanked. Interesting.

What is the alternative to coal? I would think it would have to be nuclear... Europe seems to have no problem with their nuclear power plants. We seem to be behind the ball in that respect. If there is no alternative to coal, and we begin shutting them down our taxing them heavily... our power bills will escalate uncontrollably.

I think if alternative energy is going to be viable, private industry HAS to find a way to create a more efficient alternative to oil. If there is profit to be had and the cost is justifiable to the consumer... oil will be extinct. Until then I see oil as the only viable option.

I have had these discussions before and honestly they encourage us to do more research and become more informed... so that is a good thing.

[Not a hacker]

Global warming may well be the biggest issue facing the world this century.

Or it could be the biggest hoax since the lunar landing.

I don't have an opinion because I haven't done enough reading on the topic.

The only thing I do know is that 'scientific evidence' usually isn't wroth the paper it's written on. It's purely spin that supports the agenda of the scientist, or more importantly the company funding the 'research'. So I don't put alot of confidence in any mainstream scientific evidence. There are obviously sides with much to gain from keeping the status quo who will produce scientific evidence that refutes global warming as a hoax, and there will be others with vested interests in the introduction of 'green' products who will produce equally compelling scientific evidence that golbal warming is real.

It's probably like politics and religion. You choose what you want to believe and look for literature that backs up your position.

Personally I'm leaning a little towards taking the side that it is real, but that's purely on the strength of Rick believing it's a hoax, as he is usually a dribbler when it comes to these things. If Larry comes out and supports Rick, that'll be the clincher for me.

[poe4soul]

Yet we give billions of dollars tax breaks to oil companies and have a hard time renewing tax incentives to use alternative energy technologies. As someone said earlier, follow the money. Personally I believe our biggest problem is our government is currently held hostage by lobbyest representing these large corporations. We, the people, have very little say in our government compared to these corporations.

Nuclear is fine by me. Drilling and ANWAR or offshore is fine but it do little to overall supply or production so it's not high on my list; it's a band aid and not a solution.

[lorenzoinoc]

Personally I'm leaning a little towards taking the side that it is real, but that's purely on the strength of Rick believing it's a hoax, as he is usually a dribbler when it comes to these things. If Larry comes out and supports Rick, that'll be the clincher for me.

Larry can't respond right now because he's out at a driving range, walking from stall to stall giving unsolicited advice on the zero leverage swing to people he's never met before.

But he called in to say, let's not be stupid, according to his golf instructor close friends, it's definitely a hoax.

[SoonerBS]

I have a 7 inch dick . . . . . . soft.

[golfaholic]

I have a 7 inch dick . . . . . . soft.

Prove it.










Kidding.

[SoonerBS]

Prove it.










Kidding.

I could prove this a lot easier and a lot more accurately than the quacks do who are trying to prove we are heading towards a cataclysmic climate change if we don't stop cows from farting in the pasture.

[Larryrsf]

Founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, said global warming is "the greatest scam in history" last November. i thought that was quite interesting.

Coleman is the weather man on our Channel 6 here in San Diego. Funny guy.

I think everyone should go to the library and look at magazines from the 60s and 70s- Newsweek, etc. they were ALL writing long persuasive articles about "the coming Ice Age" We are being scammed. Ignore it all.

And try to ignore Al Gore, who has exploited this silliness to make millions giving expensive lectures to the liberal gullible. (but refuses all debates with qualified opponents). Can you say, "buffoon?" That idiot almost became president. Scary--until you realize that someone even LESS qualified is sitting in the Oval Office now!! Obama REFUSED to release his school transcripts or other records of his academic accomplishments-- wonder why? Was he promoted because of "affirmative action?" Very likely we have a complete incompetent in the White House. Read "The Obama Nation" by Jerome Corsi (Harvard PhD 44 books) if you doubt this.

Larry

[FreakOfNature]

Yeah... about the 70's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nTw0KneNLg

Then there's the urban heat island myth...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7OdCOsMgCw

Then there's that 1500 year cycle myth...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0HGFSUx2a8

Also, the myth about solar output being the primary driver...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20


Common sense. Spread it around.



FON

[golfaholic]

FON,

Why yous gotsa go bein all sciencey and smrt? Their's know place for that hear.

[FreakOfNature]

FON,

Why yous gotsa go bein all sciencey and smrt? Their's know place for that hear.

The zombies will never catch me. Although if they somehow manage to, it could trigger funky mutations which create a new species of uber-zombie bent on destroying the planet. Of course they already have some competition...



FON

[Rickw]

Yeah... about the 70's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nTw0KneNLg

Then there's the urban heat island myth...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7OdCOsMgCw

Then there's that 1500 year cycle myth...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0HGFSUx2a8

Also, the myth about solar output being the primary driver...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20


Common sense. Spread it around.



FON

This is where you do your research??? youtube? That figures. Is that where you heard the scientific method proved global warming? This is hilarious.

[bjdrivers]

http://s143.photobucket.com/albums/r...rningUpdat.flv

[golfaholic]

The zombies will never catch me. Although if they somehow manage to, it could trigger funky mutations which create a new species of uber-zombie bent on destroying the planet. Of course they already have some competition...



FON

Perhaps you should buy Left 4 Dead and practice fighting them off. Just in case.

[FreakOfNature]

This is where you do your research??? youtube? That figures. Is that where you heard the scientific method proved global warming? This is hilarious.

Youtube is a video repository, dumbass. It's a fuk'n MEDIUM for sharing information. I wonder where the information IN THE VIDEOS comes from?

Here's (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/home.html ; http://www.nature.com/) where I get my information - but be warned it may require reading and a basic understanding of things which sail over your head at altitudes similar to the ISS orbit.

It's all reproducible data - if you wanted you could do all the experiments and gather the same data yourself. They make no secret about the methods of study they use, nor the scientific reasoning for their conclusions. The studies have all passed peer review by the scientific community, which is the only LEGITIMATE source of valid information which has been meticulously scrutinized by actual scientists using the scientific method.

Good job trying to evade the issues of deliberate misinformation though. You didn't understand anything in those videos, did you? Not even well enough to debate THE ISSUES - no, you just tried to discredit me by attacking my sources - and you failed. Try it again and you'll get the same result. This is science, not a political popularity contest. Try a little harder.

I'm probably asking too much of your side though, considering that sites like http://www.conservapedia.com are likely where you get most of your information. They don't get their information from research and scientific data over there unless they're cherry-picking tidbits which seem to support their side while omitting anything which conflicts with their "truth".

Seriously - if you are interested in actually learning about and debating the subject at hand, that would be a very productive use of time. If however you just want to name-call and attack anyone who disagrees with your uninformed and uneducated opinion - that's your prerogative. Keep in mind though that to win a debate about global warming you may actually have to DISCUSS THE SCIENCE.



FON

[Rickw]

Youtube is a video repository, dumbass. It's a fuk'n MEDIUM for sharing information. I wonder where the information IN THE VIDEOS comes from?

Here's (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/home.html ; http://www.nature.com/) where I get my information - but be warned it may require reading and a basic understanding of things which sail over your head at altitudes similar to the ISS orbit.

It's all reproducible data - if you wanted you could do all the experiments and gather the same data yourself. They make no secret about the methods of study they use, nor the scientific reasoning for their conclusions. The studies have all passed peer review by the scientific community, which is the only LEGITIMATE source of valid information which has been meticulously scrutinized by actual scientists using the scientific method.

Good job trying to evade the issues of deliberate misinformation though. You didn't understand anything in those videos, did you? Not even well enough to debate THE ISSUES - no, you just tried to discredit me by attacking my sources - and you failed. Try it again and you'll get the same result. This is science, not a political popularity contest. Try a little harder.

I'm probably asking too much of your side though, considering that sites like http://www.conservapedia.com are likely where you get most of your information. They don't get their information from research and scientific data over there unless they're cherry-picking tidbits which seem to support their side while omitting anything which conflicts with their "truth".

Seriously - if you are interested in actually learning about and debating the subject at hand, that would be a very productive use of time. If however you just want to name-call and attack anyone who disagrees with your uninformed and uneducated opinion - that's your prerogative. Keep in mind though that to win a debate about global warming you may actually have to DISCUSS THE SCIENCE.



FON

It is funny... you calling me a dumbass when you thought that global warming was "proved" by the scientific method. Honestly I don't have time to watch your videos. I would think you be able to coherrently argue the points and have a link to back them up. I don't think an acceptable fact documentation in a college term paper would be a youtube video! The scientific method cannot be used in an open systems format. It cannot provide the results.

Speaking of your term "political popularity contest", wouldn't that be the definition of peer review? A consensus amoung scientist that get grants upon there "proving" global warming? This consensus is virtually their opinion.

YOU have not answered any of my previous questions... so if you would like to discuss... please start. For one, how can you accurately determine the average global temperature prior to the industrial revolution?

[Rickw]

Yet we give billions of dollars tax breaks to oil companies and have a hard time renewing tax incentives to use alternative energy technologies. As someone said earlier, follow the money. Personally I believe our biggest problem is our government is currently held hostage by lobbyest representing these large corporations. We, the people, have very little say in our government compared to these corporations.

Nuclear is fine by me. Drilling and ANWAR or offshore is fine but it do little to overall supply or production so it's not high on my list; it's a band aid and not a solution.

Glad we can agree on nuclear. But why wasn't that in the last stimulus bill? I would think that efficient energy would be on the top of the list. I think alternative energy needs time... it is not cost efficient yet. We have to use oil till battery-powered transporation or hydrogen becomes viable.

I don't believe corporations are necessarily evil. But it seems our politicians on both sides put there ambitions and job security before ours. I would be an advocate of term limits in Congress. Don't you think that would take at least some of there ambitions out of the equation?

[FreakOfNature]

It is funny... you calling me a dumbass when you thought that global warming was "proved" by the scientific method. Honestly I don't have time to watch your videos. I would think you be able to coherrently argue the points and have a link to back them up. I don't think an acceptable fact documentation in a college term paper would be a youtube video! The scientific method cannot be used in an open systems format. It cannot provide the results.

Speaking of your term "political popularity contest", wouldn't that be the definition of peer review? A consensus amoung scientist that get grants upon there "proving" global warming? This consensus is virtually their opinion.

YOU have not answered any of my previous questions... so if you would like to discuss... please start. For one, how can you accurately determine the average global temperature prior to the industrial revolution?

What makes you think it's necessary to account for temperature data prior to the industrial revolution to provide evidence of global warming? It wouldn't be very representative anyways, since most of the population at that time was concentrated on the Eurasian landmass and Africa. That is certainly not "the whole planet" by any means.

There are lots of other forms of evidence readily available to us in the form of ice core samples from opposite hemispheres of the planet, tree rings, soil sedimentation patterns and composition taken from around the globe, coral samples which evidence variability in growth rates (correlating to ocean temperatures at the time), then there's all of the regional observations made over the course of history at various time periods. There is so much evidence I find it inconceivable that a person could somehow rationally dismiss ALL of it simultaneously. It all leads to the same conclusions. Nothing contradicts.

Go watch the videos. I don't feel like regurgitating points which are expressed in them already.

Good on you for actually taking me up on the debate though. It shows that you're smart enough to want to know the truth. Seek and you shall find.



FON

[groundhogday]

Thats funny Sooner mentions his seven inch soft man hood and golfaholic pops up on this thread. Wow can we all say a pray for cockaholic.

[groundhogday]

Sooner don't you feel a litttle unconfortable with cockaholics curiousity with your softie?

[Rickw]

What makes you think it's necessary to account for temperature data prior to the industrial revolution to provide evidence of global warming? It wouldn't be very representative anyways, since most of the population at that time was concentrated on the Eurasian landmass and Africa. That is certainly not "the whole planet" by any means.

There are lots of other forms of evidence readily available to us in the form of ice core samples from opposite hemispheres of the planet, tree rings, soil sedimentation patterns and composition taken from around the globe, coral samples which evidence variability in growth rates (correlating to ocean temperatures at the time), then there's all of the regional observations made over the course of history at various time periods. There is so much evidence I find it inconceivable that a person could somehow rationally dismiss ALL of it simultaneously. It all leads to the same conclusions. Nothing contradicts.

Go watch the videos. I don't feel like regurgitating points which are expressed in them already.

Good on you for actually taking me up on the debate though. It shows that you're smart enough to want to know the truth. Seek and you shall find.



FON

If you are not willing to articulate your argument, don't expect me to participate.

[Omen2]

GLOBAL WARMING EH.... I know a little late...

here's where i stand: Phuck well documented cyclical changes in the earth's temperature. Forget that none of the experts believe it. I accept what the random RETARD screams loudly. Anything a "michael moore" says is immediately accepted as fact no proof is necessary.

Omen,

[Larryrsf]

GLOBAL WARMING EH.... I know a little late...

here's where i stand: Phuck well documented cyclical changes in the earth's temperature. Forget that none of the experts believe it. I accept what the random RETARD screams loudly. Anything a "michael moore" says is immediately accepted as fact no proof is necessary.

Omen,

Only 30 years ago this same alarmist crowd was predicting immediate dramatic effects. They screamed that in 30 years we would see inundated beaches, Manhattan Island gone, etc. But the fact is a FRACTION of one inch in ocean water levels up.

IF the world had done any of the radical things they demanded, America and other industrialized countries would have committed economic suicide, strangled several whole industries, made American products so expensive that the world market would laugh at them. They were wrong. Thank goodness we ignored the nutcases like Al Gore. Apparently we have a few of his disciples here!

Larry

[Omen2]

didnt the same people predict that Y2K the computers were going to all crash....

TOO MANY RETARDS OUT THERE.... what's that book that documents cyclical changes in agriculture... oh yeah the farmers almanac....

Omen,

i dare to say its the same people that praised him for making his home really green, cutting his power usage to only = that of 3/4 of a town instead of the whole thing.

oh ****... everyone since the ozone has a hole the infrastructure of the entire atmosphere is failing.. in two years the sky will literally fall on top of us.. we all need to abandon all cars and return to horses...

hey geniuses, if the constant release of magma from the earth's core ( which is constantly being released ( the reason why the hawaiian islands are still forming ) isnt hot enough to screw the oceans up why would some trash be able too???? in fact isnt the area around the hawaiian islands teeming with life?

Okay enough ranting... any of you guys up for a "special" cup of koolaid... if you all drink it at the same time a spaceship full of aliens will take you to a utopia.

Omen,

[FreakOfNature]

If you are not willing to articulate your argument, don't expect me to participate.

Good thing I didn't link to any BOOKS to read.

If you can't be bothered to watch the videos I'm done trying to help you learn. Students who won't complete assignments traditionally get one result on their report cards. FAIL.

The bus will be along to take you back to the institution shortly. Ahhh, here it comes now...





FON

[groundhogday]

FON are you the next coming of Chicken Little. Too think that the global warming crowd actually think that man can affect mother nature. Global warming is a political movement of like minded activists who want you to live your life as they see fit. They tend to be overbearing snobs and or alarmists that generate data to help there cause. Don't you remember global cooling from the seventies. same **** just another decade.

[FreakOfNature]

One of these days I'd like for the "economy" and "political" crowds to wake up and realize that science operates independent of economic, political, and religious policies and philosophies. Michael Moore and Al Gore don't speak for the science - they speak from a biased position of political agenda so WAKE UP and realize that people who understand the science could care less if you want to bash those two - it certainly won't hurt MY feelings. Doing so does not falsify ANY of the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Of course that would also mean that you'd have to somehow come to the understanding that any personal attacks on ANY messenger who tries to educate and inform ALSO fails to falsify any of the scientific evidence as well. Deniers somehow think that attacking messengers is the equivalent of winning the argument.

I suppose by that logic pigs can fly, since pigs have been transported on airplanes before.

I'm not prepared to combat that level of willful ignorance. The same level of ignorance that transformed what was 30 years ago the wealthiest nation on the planet into the one we see now - the proprietor of the LARGEST NATIONAL DEBT in the HISTORY OF THE PLANET.



FON

[golfaholic]

Are we still behaving in here? Can I go back to COD?

[bjdrivers]

you're right FON, hopefully one day the USA will be an economic & military powerhouse like Canada.

[FreakOfNature]

you're right FON, hopefully one day the USA will be an economic & military powerhouse like Canada.

It's not like SCIENCE is the reason for your military clout either. Those two bombs that were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima which ended the second world war... they exploded for purely political and economical reasons, right?

Atomic theory.... what a crock. Stealth technology - another crock. Laser guided "smart" bombs - more BS.





FON

[Rickw]

Good thing I didn't link to any BOOKS to read.

If you can't be bothered to watch the videos I'm done trying to help you learn. Students who won't complete assignments traditionally get one result on their report cards. FAIL.

The bus will be along to take you back to the institution shortly. Ahhh, here it comes now...





FON

You are lazy FON. Sorry if the my time is more valuable than yours. Keep your religion alive... Al Gore's bank account is depending on YOU. You phucking gullible smuck.

[Rickw]

One of these days I'd like for the "economy" and "political" crowds to wake up and realize that science operates independent of economic, political, and religious policies and philosophies. Michael Moore and Al Gore don't speak for the science - they speak from a biased position of political agenda so WAKE UP and realize that people who understand the science could care less if you want to bash those two - it certainly won't hurt MY feelings. Doing so does not falsify ANY of the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Of course that would also mean that you'd have to somehow come to the understanding that any personal attacks on ANY messenger who tries to educate and inform ALSO fails to falsify any of the scientific evidence as well. Deniers somehow think that attacking messengers is the equivalent of winning the argument.

I suppose by that logic pigs can fly, since pigs have been transported on airplanes before.

I'm not prepared to combat that level of willful ignorance. The same level of ignorance that transformed what was 30 years ago the wealthiest nation on the planet into the one we see now - the proprietor of the LARGEST NATIONAL DEBT in the HISTORY OF THE PLANET.



FON

Phucking sciencitific evidence... my ass. There is no evidence. Peer reviewed science... essentially majority rules... is not exactly scientific evidence. But I had to educate you on peer reviewed science in the first place so I do not expect you to be nothing less than a mindless follower of the global warming religion. Lets face it... peer reviewed science is an opinion. Do you think money might have an affect on that opinion?... if it depends on putting food on the table. I would like to know what you drive FON?? It better be a phucking hybrid or a bicycle... or you are a flaming hypocrite just like Al Gore.

You can thank Obama for doubling the national debt in his first 100 days... and you voted for the incompetent boob. I have a feeling that we will be increasing our national debt many times over by the end of his disasterous 4-year term.

[FreakOfNature]

You are lazy FON. Sorry if the my time is more valuable than yours. Keep your religion alive... Al Gore's bank account is depending on YOU. You phucking gullible smuck.

Al Gore hasn't seen a nickel of MY money so there goes that assumption. I've never seen a nickel of his either, so I guess we're still even, me and your villainous Al Gore.

You call me lazy and yet you can't even be bothered to sit through less than an hours worth of video? Here's a little history lesson about me... 7 years ago I sounded just like all you guys - maybe worse... I was a fierce denier just like you guys. You know how they say hindsight is 20/20? Well, in hindsight I know why I sounded like that. I was about as informed as a peanut and unwilling to spend any of my own "valuable time" educating myself on the SCIENCE. Since that time I actually HAVE spent the time hearing what the scientists have to say on both sides of the issue. One thing that was inhibiting my understanding of the issues was my predisposition and inherent bias towards my own desire to believe what I had already made my mind up to be the truth - a lot like you guys are doing right now.

It's all fine and well to argue the economics and politics of the COST OF CHANGE, and I'm not going to deny that there is going to be a steep price to pay. The real issue is who will pay it. Your children? Your grandchildren or great-grandchildren? Choosing to remain uninformed is basically like staring your kids straight in the eyes and telling them "Daddy is too stubborn to do ALL THAT HE CAN to protect your future, so instead he's going to just gamble that you will be OK." You're borrowing against your children's future, gambling that you'll get a return on your investment. If the gamble pays off - hey everyones hunky dory, but if your gamble fails it will be your children who have to fend off your creditors and pay back the loans you took out in the name of little more than personal indulgence. Mortgage the future, essentially.

Why would you not take the time to research an investment - to make sure you know as much as you can and thus make informed decisions about your course of action? You wouldn't do that with your money, would you? Well guess what... you ARE actually doing that with your money. You can do your homework now and make the most informed choice possible TODAY, or you can play the "wait and see" game and gamble on your own future. If you're going to be alive 10 years from now, it would be in your best interest to become educated on such potentially life-changing issues while we still have a choice in how to deal with the problem. Wait 10 years and we could be stuck literally in a living hell. ALL OF US.

Science costs money and therefore that money WILL come from somewhere. However the source of funding will have little to do with the FINDINGS and CONCLUSIONS of science. It would probably surprise you to learn that a great deal of money which has been invested into this study by those who stand to gain from discrediting global warming has actually ended up funding studies which SUPPORT global warming. The actual SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY has no agenda other than to learn and understand the truth. They themselves don't put any spin on the findings. They are what they are. It is only when those who are pursuing an agenda get ahold of the science that INFORMATION CONTROL becomes an issue and agendas reveal themselves. I know it's a hard pill to swallow - but all of you deniers are victims of information control (aka propaganda) purported by someone whose agenda requires that you lack a true understanding of the facts. I don't expect anyone to buy that *right here, right now* but hindsight will reveal it in the future.

Now stop attacking me (the messenger - a student who is simply sharing his sources in hopes of HELPING you all), and go watch the videos, so we can debate the SCIENTIFIC ISSUES for once in this thread.



FON

[Rickw]

Al Gore hasn't seen a nickel of MY money so there goes that assumption. I've never seen a nickel of his either, so I guess we're still even, me and your villainous Al Gore.

You call me lazy and yet you can't even be bothered to sit through less than an hours worth of video? Here's a little history lesson about me... 7 years ago I sounded just like all you guys - maybe worse... I was a fierce denier just like you guys. You know how they say hindsight is 20/20? Well, in hindsight I know why I sounded like that. I was about as informed as a peanut and unwilling to spend any of my own "valuable time" educating myself on the SCIENCE. Since that time I actually HAVE spent the time hearing what the scientists have to say on both sides of the issue. One thing that was inhibiting my understanding of the issues was my predisposition and inherent bias towards my own desire to believe what I had already made my mind up to be the truth - a lot like you guys are doing right now.

It's all fine and well to argue the economics and politics of the COST OF CHANGE, and I'm not going to deny that there is going to be a steep price to pay. The real issue is who will pay it. Your children? Your grandchildren or great-grandchildren? Choosing to remain uninformed is basically like staring your kids straight in the eyes and telling them "Daddy is too stubborn to do ALL THAT HE CAN to protect your future, so instead he's going to just gamble that you will be OK." You're borrowing against your children's future, gambling that you'll get a return on your investment. If the gamble pays off - hey everyones hunky dory, but if your gamble fails it will be your children who have to fend off your creditors and pay back the loans you took out in the name of little more than personal indulgence. Mortgage the future, essentially.

Why would you not take the time to research an investment - to make sure you know as much as you can and thus make informed decisions about your course of action? You wouldn't do that with your money, would you? Well guess what... you ARE actually doing that with your money. You can do your homework now and make the most informed choice possible TODAY, or you can play the "wait and see" game and gamble on your own future. If you're going to be alive 10 years from now, it would be in your best interest to become educated on such potentially life-changing issues while we still have a choice in how to deal with the problem. Wait 10 years and we could be stuck literally in a living hell. ALL OF US.

Science costs money and therefore that money WILL come from somewhere. However the source of funding will have little to do with the FINDINGS and CONCLUSIONS of science. It would probably surprise you to learn that a great deal of money which has been invested into this study by those who stand to gain from discrediting global warming has actually ended up funding studies which SUPPORT global warming. The actual SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY has no agenda other than to learn and understand the truth. They themselves don't put any spin on the findings. They are what they are. It is only when those who are pursuing an agenda get ahold of the science that INFORMATION CONTROL becomes an issue and agendas reveal themselves. I know it's a hard pill to swallow - but all of you deniers are victims of information control (aka propaganda) purported by someone whose agenda requires that you lack a true understanding of the facts. I don't expect anyone to buy that *right here, right now* but hindsight will reveal it in the future.

Now stop attacking me (the messenger - a student who is simply sharing his sources in hopes of HELPING you all), and go watch the videos, so we can debate the SCIENTIFIC ISSUES for once in this thread.



FON

I have researched alternative energy. As a conservative, I believe in effiency. I run a business... efficiency is the key to my survival. None of the alternative energies are lucrative. Suzie Orman is a liberal, and cannot justify hybrid cars, solar power, or even hybrid cars. Gore is profitting off of his venture... whether it is your dime or others. I find that most liberals, do not practice what they preach. They preach doom and gloom while driving gas guzzling vehicles, flying jets that burn thousands of gallons of fuel, and live in houses that are totally impractical in energy efficiencies. Have you ever compared Bush's house to Gore's house? You are the minion... serving there agenda.

As far as worrying about our children and grandchildren... I don't think we will ever be out of the hole we have dug with these socialist policies that ARE NOT working. Bush is not excluded from my accusations. I pay enormous amounts in taxes and at age 26, I will be paying taxes for years that has already been spent on earmarks that will have short term impact if any economic impact. Weren't liberals the ones that were complaining about the national debt only a few short months ago? Where are they now? We have doubled the debt in 100 days?


The fact that you say we are uninformed by providing youtube links is the equivelent of conservatives providing you links of Limbaugh and other conservative sponsored opinions.

I will try to watch your videos when I get time and provide you with more lucrative information... aka not conservapedia.com links.

[FreakOfNature]

I have researched alternative energy. As a conservative, I believe in effiency. I run a business... efficiency is the key to my survival. None of the alternative energies are lucrative. Suzie Orman is a liberal, and cannot justify hybrid cars, solar power, or even hybrid cars. Gore is profitting off of his venture... whether it is your dime or others. I find that most liberals, do not practice what they preach. They preach doom and gloom while driving gas guzzling vehicles, flying jets that burn thousands of gallons of fuel, and live in houses that are totally impractical in energy efficiencies. Have you ever compared Bush's house to Gore's house? You are the minion... serving there agenda.

As far as worrying about our children and grandchildren... I don't think we will ever be out of the hole we have dug with these socialist policies that ARE NOT working. Bush is not excluded from my accusations. I pay enormous amounts in taxes and at age 26, I will be paying taxes for years that has already been spent on earmarks that will have short term impact if any economic impact. Weren't liberals the ones that were complaining about the national debt only a few short months ago? Where are they now? We have doubled the debt in 100 days?


The fact that you say we are uninformed by providing youtube links is the equivelent of conservatives providing you links of Limbaugh and other conservative sponsored opinions.

I will try to watch your videos when I get time and provide you with more lucrative information... aka not conservapedia.com links.

First off, this is the internet so stop assuming I am American. Most of the globe is represented online (even Nigerian scammers have internet). I am Canadian. Therefore I didn't vote for Obama, I have little in common with Al Gore, and Michael Moore disgusts me, as an intellectual. Now that we've cleared that up...

Please stop assuming that my choice of political affiliations determines my views of science. It may be like that over on the right wing, but here in the middle I affiliate myself with the political party who seems most likely to do something about what I perceive to be the greatest threat to our "Western" way of life (both in your USA and my Canada). I am neither Liberal or Conservative - I am PRO TRUTH and PRO ACTION. I just realize that a global economic recession is nowhere near as perilous as a global food shortage would be. If we ever have a third world war, it will be over food and fresh water. Not money. Money has no intrinsic value anyways, but a meal is another day of survival - and the strength to fight for (and win) your next battle for nourishment.

Global warming threatens to cause the worse of the two evils - the global food shortage. Agriculture can't keep up with the changes at the rate they are occurring right now. I understand what you're saying about the ineffectiveness of the solutions which are currently available to us - I agree with you that these measures will have little, if any impact on the problem. That is why I am still here in this thread IN SPITE of the personal attacks and ridicule which have thus far been directed at me. It makes no difference to me what anyone thinks of me - only that they get the opportunity to learn the truth, as I have. In spite of all that I am still here trying to help you. I personally have nothing to gain by spreading lies or distorting the truth. I have no agenda - ok that's not exactly true... let me explain.

Canada and the United States of America have been friendly neighbors for a long time now. Canada has a healthy respect for America and her impact on our nation - even if that respect is seldom reciprocated. At the root of the matter is a very fundamental fact - we are symbiotic nations who need each other. So it is in my best interests to do what I can to preserve the America that I have known as my neighbor for my whole life. I do not wish to see what happened to Russia happen to the USA. I can't imagine how terrifying it would be to live in a world where America became divided into warring states which were too greedy to pay for their needs and simply tried to take the resources they needed from those who have them. I cannot imagine the terror of being threatened to fork over my food supply at the threat of a nuclear strike from a rogue state. Do you see the picture I'm painting? I'm terrified of a fractured America. I see it as inevitable if we do indeed end up enduring a global food shortage. This is why I endure what I do to make it clear that global warming is real, it is here, and this is what will happen if we ignore it.

So you can shoot the mailman who delivers your bills if you choose, but if you think that will keep the creditors from collecting what you owe them...

I want what is best for America just as much as you do.



FON

[Rickw]

The only problem is... there is no concrete evidence pointing toward warming. You cannot prove it... it takes an element of faith. The computer modeling that is involved in predicting all these "natural disasters" is flawed. They can be manipulated to create the desired outcome... one to which to scare people.

Still debating on whether I want to waste 30 minutes of my life watching those videos... and then another 30 minutes refuting them.

[bjdrivers]

[The Purist]

First off, this is the internet so stop assuming I am American. Most of the globe is represented online (even Nigerian scammers have internet). I am Canadian. Therefore I didn't vote for Obama, I have little in common with Al Gore, and Michael Moore disgusts me, as an intellectual. Now that we've cleared that up...

Please stop assuming that my choice of political affiliations determines my views of science. It may be like that over on the right wing, but here in the middle I affiliate myself with the political party who seems most likely to do something about what I perceive to be the greatest threat to our "Western" way of life (both in your USA and my Canada). I am neither Liberal or Conservative - I am PRO TRUTH and PRO ACTION. I just realize that a global economic recession is nowhere near as perilous as a global food shortage would be. If we ever have a third world war, it will be over food and fresh water. Not money. Money has no intrinsic value anyways, but a meal is another day of survival - and the strength to fight for (and win) your next battle for nourishment.

Global warming threatens to cause the worse of the two evils - the global food shortage. Agriculture can't keep up with the changes at the rate they are occurring right now. I understand what you're saying about the ineffectiveness of the solutions which are currently available to us - I agree with you that these measures will have little, if any impact on the problem. That is why I am still here in this thread IN SPITE of the personal attacks and ridicule which have thus far been directed at me. It makes no difference to me what anyone thinks of me - only that they get the opportunity to learn the truth, as I have. In spite of all that I am still here trying to help you. I personally have nothing to gain by spreading lies or distorting the truth. I have no agenda - ok that's not exactly true... let me explain.

Canada and the United States of America have been friendly neighbors for a long time now. Canada has a healthy respect for America and her impact on our nation - even if that respect is seldom reciprocated. At the root of the matter is a very fundamental fact - we are symbiotic nations who need each other. So it is in my best interests to do what I can to preserve the America that I have known as my neighbor for my whole life. I do not wish to see what happened to Russia happen to the USA. I can't imagine how terrifying it would be to live in a world where America became divided into warring states which were too greedy to pay for their needs and simply tried to take the resources they needed from those who have them. I cannot imagine the terror of being threatened to fork over my food supply at the threat of a nuclear strike from a rogue state. Do you see the picture I'm painting? I'm terrified of a fractured America. I see it as inevitable if we do indeed end up enduring a global food shortage. This is why I endure what I do to make it clear that global warming is real, it is here, and this is what will happen if we ignore it.

So you can shoot the mailman who delivers your bills if you choose, but if you think that will keep the creditors from collecting what you owe them...

I want what is best for America just as much as you do.



FON

You're my new hero FON. I'm not sure why science has become a political issue in America. Maybe its our educational system letting us down. It could be the sports culture...I don't know, but most of the country seems to be made up of sheep who blindly follow (and cheer on) whatever their political leaders tell them. I just wish the sheperds understood science better. I hate to bring this up, but we actually have a few congressmen and senators still trying to introduce creationism into their public school curriculums.

Here is story for FON (from my fisheries science days). Back in the 1970's fisheries biologists began running models that predicted the Atlantic Cod fishery was recieving far too much fishing pressure, and that if nothing was done the whole fishery could collapse. They actually got Canda and America to sign off on some legislation to keep foreign trawlers out, but failed to regulate their own commercial fishing industry. People argued that you could never deplete the cod industry...I mean they had been catching more fish each year, not less (besides the economic ramifications of regulating the industry would be too much to bear). Well it all crashed it in the early 90's. Over 40,000 people lost their jobs, and the fishery may never recover.....Something for you guys who don't believe in scientific modeling to ponder....

[FreakOfNature]

The only problem is... there is no concrete evidence pointing toward warming. You cannot prove it... it takes an element of faith. The computer modeling that is involved in predicting all these "natural disasters" is flawed. They can be manipulated to create the desired outcome... one to which to scare people.

Still debating on whether I want to waste 30 minutes of my life watching those videos... and then another 30 minutes refuting them.

If you're looking for concrete evidence - look no further than the Arctic Polar ice cap. Every year there is less and less "old ice" (the really thick ice that remains permanent year round, in spite of seasonal melting). The surface area covered by polar ice looks pretty much the same as it always has (there is a slight noticeable shrinkage) but the MASS of ice is in a severe decline - that indicates that the ice has melted and become water - adding to the rise in ocean levels.

I live in probably the best place on earth to actually see the changes with your own eyes. I live in Nova Scotia, part of which makes up the southern coast of the Bay Of Fundy. Near Truro is the Minas Basin, which is the record holder for the largest tides on earth. If sea levels are rising, what better place to look for the changes than the home of the world's highest tides, right? Well, the differences in the last 30 years are pretty obvious. Old fishing piers and boat houses which used to remain above the high tide at all times now occasionally have seawater washing over the floors and deck. I'd call that evidence. I can see it with my own eyes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nruC...e=channel_page

Watch this one video. It's barely over 4 minutes long, and it will explain exactly what I'm talking about.



FON

[FreakOfNature]

You're my new hero FON. I'm not sure why science has become a political issue in America. Maybe its our educational system letting us down. It could be the sports culture...I don't know, but most of the country seems to be made up of sheep who blindly follow (and cheer on) whatever their political leaders tell them. I just wish the sheperds understood science better. I hate to bring this up, but we actually have a few congressmen and senators still trying to introduce creationism into their public school curriculums.

Here is story for FON (from my fisheries science days). Back in the 1970's fisheries biologists began running models that predicted the Atlantic Cod fishery was recieving far too much fishing pressure, and that if nothing was done the whole fishery could collapse. They actually got Canda and America to sign off on some legislation to keep foreign trawlers out, but failed to regulate their own commercial fishing industry. People argued that you could never deplete the cod industry...I mean they had been catching more fish each year, not less (besides the economic ramifications of regulating the industry would be too much to bear). Well it all crashed it in the early 90's. Over 40,000 people lost their jobs, and the fishery may never recover.....Something for you guys who don't believe in scientific modeling to ponder....

It's funny you brought up the cod fishery. I was saving that for a different thread and purpose... but I have seen the impact firsthand here in Nova Scotia. Canso used to be a very prosperous fishing hub of well over 1500 residents - most employed by the local cod fishery. Today, Canso is in the process of becoming a ghost town. Young people are leaving the community in droves because they can't get work locally. The population of older middle-aged and retired fishermen is shrinking at the pace of the mortality rate. In 30 years, there will be nobody left, and a once prosperous little community will completely cease to exist. Canso is just one of many such small communities here in Nova Scotia whose prosperity was directly linked to the local fisheries.

All of these little communities are being exterminated by unabated capitalism. The abuse of a resource to the point where the resource is now depleted to a level from which it will likely never recover. It should serve as a healthy warning to the world of what can happen if resources aren't intelligently budgeted and their consumption strictly regulated. There are certain resources which are the very foundations of the globe's infrastructure which we cannot afford to abuse. They are essential to our survival as a species. Global warming is the biggest threat to those resources, so it is in all of our best interests to learn WHY it is happening, and what measures can be taken to save what we have left.



Your friendly neighborhood FON

[groundhogday]

Fon actually the melting polor ice is also fiction. The sensors they used to measure the icecap were not adjusted correctly and were giving incorrect readings. The caps are actually adding ice.

[FreakOfNature]

Fon actually the melting polor ice is also fiction. The sensors they used to measure the icecap were not adjusted correctly and were giving incorrect readings. The caps are actually adding ice.

Can you provide me a link to this information (even if it's youtube)?

Much appreciated. I was quite certain the hundred or so satellites which have performed the survey were not ALL malfunctioning.

Now I'm wondering where all this extra seawater is coming from...



FON

[Rickw]

Can you provide me a link to this information (even if it's youtube)?

Much appreciated. I was quite certain the hundred or so satellites which have performed the survey were not ALL malfunctioning.

Now I'm wondering where all this extra seawater is coming from...



FON

Do you know how to use google? Damn you liberals are lazy. Back to the subject... I have got some reading for you. Trust me, I don't expect you to even try to read and comprehend the links below... but nonetheless I have provided it for you.

The polar caps are not going anywhere.

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?...A%3E2.0.CO%3B2

http://www.whoi.edu/science/PO/peopl...insor_2001.pdf

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.ht...2b95c45dcf&k=0

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/cove...3/letter4/&c=1

The media has also made much of the potential opening of the Northwest Passage. But it rarely mentions that similar weather patterns prevailed in the 1930s when two boats, the Nascopie and Aklavik, famously met up in the Passage in 1937. In October 2008, a study by Ohio University confirmed that current Arctic warming patterns mimic those in the 1920s-1940s. By July 2008 the Arctic ice had increased by nearly half a million square miles over the same first half year period in 2007. A NASA study published in the peer-reviewed Geophysical Research Letters in October 2007 had already noted that thinning Arctic ice was more likely the result of "unusual winds" that had blown "older thicker" ice into warmer southern waters. In other words, the Arctic warming experienced more recently could well be the result of the unusual strength of winds, not man-made warming.

http://www.hbc.com/hbcheritage/histo...tion/nascopie/

I think it is hilarious... one scientist is even predicting the arctic caps to be gone by this summer! It is incredible the amount of hype with this global warming. It is also incredible how gullible some of you are.

[Not a hacker]

Can you provide me a link to this information (even if it's youtube)?

Much appreciated. I was quite certain the hundred or so satellites which have performed the survey were not ALL malfunctioning.

Now I'm wondering where all this extra seawater is coming from...



FON

Don't hold your breath waiting for that link FON. I actually had a laugh whe reading that response from GHD. It was the sort of ridiculous sweeping statement, not backed up by any scientific evidence whatsoever and completley contradictory to all accepted theory, that the capitalist companies have trotted out over the years when their industries have been questioned. A bit like tobacco companies saying that smoking actually makes the lungs healthier, or more recently I saw a talking head for the meat industry responding to a study linking red meat to cancer/heart disease etc by saying that we actually needed to eat more red meat not less.

Great stuff GHD. Thumbs up!

[groundhogday]

Polar ice cap studies refute global warming
Environment & Climate News > October 2001
Email a Friend
Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Environment & Climate News > October 2001
Publication date: 10/01/2001
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A series of recent studies shows that the polar ice caps, which should be shrinking if dire global warming theories are correct, are maintaining their mass and in fact growing slightly. The studies suggest satellite temperature readings, which indicate no global warming of the lower atmosphere, are more reliable than surface temperature readings, taken by humans under varying conditions, that had indicated a slow, gradual warming.

A study published in the December 3, 1999 issue of Science magazine, authored by Ola Johannessen, Elena Shalena, and Martin Miles, reported Arctic sea ice had declined by 14 percent from 1978 through 1998. In a related story, columnist Richard Kerr pondered "Will the Arctic Ocean lose all its ice?" The mainstream press ran with the story, giving dire warnings that global warming was upon us.

However, CO2 Science Magazine later noted that in the Johannessen study, "essentially all of the drop . . . occurs rather abruptly over a single period of not more than three years (87/88-90/91) and possibly only one year (89/90-90/91). Furthermore, it could be argued from their data that from 1990/91 onward, sea ice area in the Arctic may have actually increased."

More recent studies of the polar ice caps verify CO2 Science Magazine's skepticism, and show the polar ice caps are holding their own and actually growing slightly.


Antarctic sea ice edge expanding

A study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate (Yuan, X. and Martinson, D.G., "Antarctic sea ice extent variability and its global connectivity," Volume 13: 1697-1717 (2000)) demonstrated the Antarctic polar ice cap has been expanding. According to the study, 18 years of satellite data indicate the mean Antarctic sea ice edge has expanded by 0.011 degrees of latitude toward the equator each year.

A later study, also published in Journal of Climate (Watkins, A.B. and Simmonds, I., "Current trends in Antarctic sea ice: The 1990s impact on a short climatology," Volume 13: 4441-4451 (2000)) reached a similar conclusion. The study reported significant increases in Antarctic sea ice between 1987 and 1996. The study further indicated the 1990s exhibited increases in the length of the sea-ice season.


Arctic ice thickening, expanding

A study published in Geophysical Research Letters (Winsor, P., "Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s," Volume 28: 1039-1041 (2001)) found the same to be true in the Arctic. The study concluded, "mean ice thickness has remained on a near-constant level around the North Pole from 1986-1997." Moreover, the study noted data from six different submarine cruises under the Arctic sea ice showed little variability and a "slight increasing trend" in the 1990s.

Just off the Arctic polar ice cap, ice coverage in Greenland was also shown to be steady and likely increasing. A study in Journal of Geophysical Research (Comiso, J.C., Wadhams, P., Pedersen, L.T. and Gersten, R.A., Volume 106: 9093-9116 (2001)) concluded that, annual variances notwithstanding, the Odden ice tongue in Greenland exhibited no statistically significant change from 1979 to 1998. Moreover, proxy reconstruction of the ice tongue utilizing air temperature data indicated the ice covers a greater area today than it did several decades ago.

Viewed as a whole, the new ice cap studies indicate no global warming has occurred in recent decades, at least not in high latitudes. These findings also offer an important insight into one of the more significant controversies surrounding global warming theory.


Surface vs. satellite readings

Surface temperature readings taken by humans indicate the Earth has warmed by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years. This warming is certainly not much, but it is often cited as evidence that global warming is occurring, even if it is merely in its initial stages.

However, precise satellite readings of the lower atmosphere (a region that is supposed to immediately reflect any global warming) have shown no warming since readings were begun more than 20 years ago.

"We have seen no sign of man-induced global warming at all. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the 'greenhouse gas effect' should be the lower atmosphere, known as the troposphere. Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data have shown absolutely no warming," explained Tom Randall of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Global warming skeptics have pointed out that most of the surface temperature readings indicating a warming have been taken in underdeveloped nations, where reliability and quality-control are questionable. In developed nations such as the United States, by contrast, the readings tend to show no warming. Moreover, skeptics note, surface temperature readings are influenced by artificial warming associated with growing urbanization, which creates artificial heat islands around temperature reading stations.

"While the greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have grown in the last 50 years, the correlation with a warming of the world's climate is weak and far from being generally accepted by the scientific community," James L. Johnston, a member of The Heartland Institute's Board of Directors, observed in the August 4 Chicago Tribune.

Global warming proponents, on the other hand, now counter that warming, despite prior consensus to the contrary, might occur in the lower atmosphere only after a general warming of the Earth's surface.


Models shown to be inaccurate . . . again

The recent polar ice studies, which measured surface rather than atmospheric temperature trends (and which were far removed from the effects of urban heat islands and questionable third-world temperature readings), lend weight to the argument that satellite readings, not surface monitoring stations, are correct.

"In considering all of the above results, it is likely that the global extent of sea ice is on the rise. Such observational evidence flies in the face of model predictions of global warming that say climate will change first and to the greatest extent in the Earth's polar regions," concludes CO2 Science Magazine.

CO2 Science suggests that self-regulating mechanisms, such as clouds, enable the Earth to keep a relatively steady climate despite the changes in CO2 concentration that have been a regular part of Earth's history.

Viewing the new data in conjunction with other studies that properly filter out the imperfections of human-collected temperature readings, CO2 Science concludes, "There has been no global warming for the past 75 years."

Nah You are a true sage.
Your expertise on US polictics only broadens my belief that you are the master of all things.
Your theroies on improving the golf swing are awesome, " get a set of blades and your swing will improve because the blade (iron) will magiclally cause one to route the club in the correct mannner. A piece of forged steel will give one the correct swing plane. Absolutely f u c ki ng amazing. We are truely blessed by your knowledge.
NAH why have you not been elected leader of the free golfing world yet, why haven't you blessed the masses with your incredible wisdom.
Leadbetter Harmon Peltz Pennick were are hacks compared to you NAH
Fu c k in g stuckup Douche bag

[groundhogday]

Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor
Share | Email | Print | A A A

By Alex Morales

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.
The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site.

“Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality- control measures prior to archiving the data,” the center said. “Although we believe that data prior to early January are reliable, we will conduct a full quality check.’’

The extent of Arctic sea ice is seen as a key measure of how rising temperatures are affecting the Earth. The cap retreated in 2007 to its lowest extent ever and last year posted its second- lowest annual minimum at the end of the yearly melt season. The recent error doesn’t change findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said.

The center said real-time data on sea ice is always less reliable than archived numbers because full checks haven’t yet been carried out. Historical data is checked across other sources, it said.

The NSIDC uses Department of Defense satellites to obtain its Arctic sea ice data rather than more accurate National Aeronautics and Space Administration equipment. That’s because the defense satellites have a longer period of historical data, enabling scientists to draw conclusions about long-term ice melt, the center said.

“There is a balance between being as accurate as possible at any given moment and being as consistent as possible through long time-periods,” NSIDC said. “Our main scientific focus is on the long-term changes in Arctic sea ice.”
NAH if you spend all of your time watching CNN internation so you can pretend to be an expert on US polictics you will miss some important new articles about this farse called global warming.
NAH nevermind your a f u c k i ng follower , watch your CNN and BBC. Don't attempt to think independently pseud

[Rickw]

What the hell? I thought the sea was rising and the end of the world was coming? No response to any of our research?

[Horseballs]

I'd like to get niki's take on this before I make a conclusion on Global Warming.

[Rickw]

I'd like to get niki's take on this before I make a conclusion on Global Warming.

What?? Your name should be horsetwat not horseballs.

[Horseballs]

What?? Your name should be horsetwat not horseballs.

Keep up the good work. You've got me laughing pretty good here. "Horsetwat." Classic.

[FreakOfNature]

Do you know how to use google? Damn you liberals are lazy. Back to the subject... I have got some reading for you. Trust me, I don't expect you to even try to read and comprehend the links below... but nonetheless I have provided it for you.

The polar caps are not going anywhere.

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?...A%3E2.0.CO%3B2

http://www.whoi.edu/science/PO/peopl...insor_2001.pdf

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.ht...2b95c45dcf&k=0

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/cove...3/letter4/&c=1

The media has also made much of the potential opening of the Northwest Passage. But it rarely mentions that similar weather patterns prevailed in the 1930s when two boats, the Nascopie and Aklavik, famously met up in the Passage in 1937. In October 2008, a study by Ohio University confirmed that current Arctic warming patterns mimic those in the 1920s-1940s. By July 2008 the Arctic ice had increased by nearly half a million square miles over the same first half year period in 2007. A NASA study published in the peer-reviewed Geophysical Research Letters in October 2007 had already noted that thinning Arctic ice was more likely the result of "unusual winds" that had blown "older thicker" ice into warmer southern waters. In other words, the Arctic warming experienced more recently could well be the result of the unusual strength of winds, not man-made warming.

http://www.hbc.com/hbcheritage/histo...tion/nascopie/

I think it is hilarious... one scientist is even predicting the arctic caps to be gone by this summer! It is incredible the amount of hype with this global warming. It is also incredible how gullible some of you are.

OK, so all of that supports the reported local cooling trends in the Antarctic... almost 10 year old research or older though - our understanding has advanced a lot since then... so what about the ARCTIC as I asked? Seems like dodgeball being played here, the Arctic (northern hemisphere) is where the greatest degree of warming has been measured locally.

Even if there is a discrepancy in this ONE form of data, it doesn't disprove any of the other sources in and of itself. Sea level is still rising for some reason or other. You tell me... where is the extra water coming from?



FON

[FreakOfNature]

Polar ice cap studies refute global warming
Environment & Climate News > October 2001
Email a Friend
Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Environment & Climate News > October 2001
Publication date: 10/01/2001
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A series of recent studies shows that the polar ice caps, which should be shrinking if dire global warming theories are correct, are maintaining their mass and in fact growing slightly. The studies suggest satellite temperature readings, which indicate no global warming of the lower atmosphere, are more reliable than surface temperature readings, taken by humans under varying conditions, that had indicated a slow, gradual warming.

A study published in the December 3, 1999 issue of Science magazine, authored by Ola Johannessen, Elena Shalena, and Martin Miles, reported Arctic sea ice had declined by 14 percent from 1978 through 1998. In a related story, columnist Richard Kerr pondered "Will the Arctic Ocean lose all its ice?" The mainstream press ran with the story, giving dire warnings that global warming was upon us.

However, CO2 Science Magazine later noted that in the Johannessen study, "essentially all of the drop . . . occurs rather abruptly over a single period of not more than three years (87/88-90/91) and possibly only one year (89/90-90/91). Furthermore, it could be argued from their data that from 1990/91 onward, sea ice area in the Arctic may have actually increased."

More recent studies of the polar ice caps verify CO2 Science Magazine's skepticism, and show the polar ice caps are holding their own and actually growing slightly.


Antarctic sea ice edge expanding

A study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate (Yuan, X. and Martinson, D.G., "Antarctic sea ice extent variability and its global connectivity," Volume 13: 1697-1717 (2000)) demonstrated the Antarctic polar ice cap has been expanding. According to the study, 18 years of satellite data indicate the mean Antarctic sea ice edge has expanded by 0.011 degrees of latitude toward the equator each year.

A later study, also published in Journal of Climate (Watkins, A.B. and Simmonds, I., "Current trends in Antarctic sea ice: The 1990s impact on a short climatology," Volume 13: 4441-4451 (2000)) reached a similar conclusion. The study reported significant increases in Antarctic sea ice between 1987 and 1996. The study further indicated the 1990s exhibited increases in the length of the sea-ice season.


Arctic ice thickening, expanding

A study published in Geophysical Research Letters (Winsor, P., "Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s," Volume 28: 1039-1041 (2001)) found the same to be true in the Arctic. The study concluded, "mean ice thickness has remained on a near-constant level around the North Pole from 1986-1997." Moreover, the study noted data from six different submarine cruises under the Arctic sea ice showed little variability and a "slight increasing trend" in the 1990s.

Just off the Arctic polar ice cap, ice coverage in Greenland was also shown to be steady and likely increasing. A study in Journal of Geophysical Research (Comiso, J.C., Wadhams, P., Pedersen, L.T. and Gersten, R.A., Volume 106: 9093-9116 (2001)) concluded that, annual variances notwithstanding, the Odden ice tongue in Greenland exhibited no statistically significant change from 1979 to 1998. Moreover, proxy reconstruction of the ice tongue utilizing air temperature data indicated the ice covers a greater area today than it did several decades ago.

Viewed as a whole, the new ice cap studies indicate no global warming has occurred in recent decades, at least not in high latitudes. These findings also offer an important insight into one of the more significant controversies surrounding global warming theory.


Surface vs. satellite readings

Surface temperature readings taken by humans indicate the Earth has warmed by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years. This warming is certainly not much, but it is often cited as evidence that global warming is occurring, even if it is merely in its initial stages.

However, precise satellite readings of the lower atmosphere (a region that is supposed to immediately reflect any global warming) have shown no warming since readings were begun more than 20 years ago.

"We have seen no sign of man-induced global warming at all. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the 'greenhouse gas effect' should be the lower atmosphere, known as the troposphere. Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data have shown absolutely no warming," explained Tom Randall of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Global warming skeptics have pointed out that most of the surface temperature readings indicating a warming have been taken in underdeveloped nations, where reliability and quality-control are questionable. In developed nations such as the United States, by contrast, the readings tend to show no warming. Moreover, skeptics note, surface temperature readings are influenced by artificial warming associated with growing urbanization, which creates artificial heat islands around temperature reading stations.

"While the greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have grown in the last 50 years, the correlation with a warming of the world's climate is weak and far from being generally accepted by the scientific community," James L. Johnston, a member of The Heartland Institute's Board of Directors, observed in the August 4 Chicago Tribune.

Global warming proponents, on the other hand, now counter that warming, despite prior consensus to the contrary, might occur in the lower atmosphere only after a general warming of the Earth's surface.


Models shown to be inaccurate . . . again

The recent polar ice studies, which measured surface rather than atmospheric temperature trends (and which were far removed from the effects of urban heat islands and questionable third-world temperature readings), lend weight to the argument that satellite readings, not surface monitoring stations, are correct.

"In considering all of the above results, it is likely that the global extent of sea ice is on the rise. Such observational evidence flies in the face of model predictions of global warming that say climate will change first and to the greatest extent in the Earth's polar regions," concludes CO2 Science Magazine.

CO2 Science suggests that self-regulating mechanisms, such as clouds, enable the Earth to keep a relatively steady climate despite the changes in CO2 concentration that have been a regular part of Earth's history.

Viewing the new data in conjunction with other studies that properly filter out the imperfections of human-collected temperature readings, CO2 Science concludes, "There has been no global warming for the past 75 years."

Nah You are a true sage.
Your expertise on US polictics only broadens my belief that you are the master of all things.
Your theroies on improving the golf swing are awesome, " get a set of blades and your swing will improve because the blade (iron) will magiclally cause one to route the club in the correct mannner. A piece of forged steel will give one the correct swing plane. Absolutely f u c ki ng amazing. We are truely blessed by your knowledge.
NAH why have you not been elected leader of the free golfing world yet, why haven't you blessed the masses with your incredible wisdom.
Leadbetter Harmon Peltz Pennick were are hacks compared to you NAH
Fu c k in g stuckup Douche bag

I'd still like a LINK to the source of your information, so I can check out where THEY got it from.

Quote whatever you want, but if I can't reference the source material you may as well talk to a wall, because I'll have nothing to say to you.

Give me proof. Don't just spew BS, and maybe we can have a debate.



FON

[Rickw]

I'd still like a LINK to the source of your information, so I can check out where THEY got it from.

Quote whatever you want, but if I can't reference the source material you may as well talk to a wall, because I'll have nothing to say to you.

Give me proof. Don't just spew BS, and maybe we can have a debate.



FON

I see your lazy ass did not read any of the links I provided... either that or you are too dense to read the material. Go phuck yourself FON... get back to us after you have done your homework.

I am thinking of getting a Hummer for my wife. That way I can do my part to offset the loss of revenue to the oil companies and carbon dioxide output by the amount of hybrids on the road today.

May even put a bumper sticker on the back that says, " I love the environment...... yum!"

[lorenzoinoc]

Spank, are you serious here, or just staying within your character? It seems as though you're serious.

[The Purist]

Do you know how to use google? Damn you liberals are lazy. Back to the subject... I have got some reading for you. Trust me, I don't expect you to even try to read and comprehend the links below... but nonetheless I have provided it for you.

The polar caps are not going anywhere.

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?...A%3E2.0.CO%3B2

http://www.whoi.edu/science/PO/peopl...insor_2001.pdf

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.ht...2b95c45dcf&k=0

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/cove...3/letter4/&c=1

The media has also made much of the potential opening of the Northwest Passage. But it rarely mentions that similar weather patterns prevailed in the 1930s when two boats, the Nascopie and Aklavik, famously met up in the Passage in 1937. In October 2008, a study by Ohio University confirmed that current Arctic warming patterns mimic those in the 1920s-1940s. By July 2008 the Arctic ice had increased by nearly half a million square miles over the same first half year period in 2007. A NASA study published in the peer-reviewed Geophysical Research Letters in October 2007 had already noted that thinning Arctic ice was more likely the result of "unusual winds" that had blown "older thicker" ice into warmer southern waters. In other words, the Arctic warming experienced more recently could well be the result of the unusual strength of winds, not man-made warming.

http://www.hbc.com/hbcheritage/histo...tion/nascopie/

I think it is hilarious... one scientist is even predicting the arctic caps to be gone by this summer! It is incredible the amount of hype with this global warming. It is also incredible how gullible some of you are.

I see that you have decided to focus on polar ice. This is a very important consequence of the effects of global warming, but not the only one (ocean acidification, shifting weather patterns, glacial retreat, permafrost reduction, land sheet ice, and rising sea levels.)

It is very difficult to measure polar ice expansion/contraction, and equally difficult to determine what is causing the changes in polar ice.

Polar ice levels tend to change seasonally and yearly in both orientation and size (thickness & diameter). Studying localized changes, short interval changes, and using narrow sampling methods can be misleading. Its not enough to draw conclusions individually from submarine transects, satellite imaging, temperature stations, and drilling samples. Conclusions must be drawn from complicated computer modelling based on many parameters, with many different sampling techniques/methods, and observed over many years (and weighed against historical data). The most sophisticated models are all pointing to a reduction in polar ice. The scientific consensus is that polar ice is shrinking, and even the scientists that dispute the cause, don't dispute the warming.

Determining the cause of the reduction in polar ice is very complicated. I concede that there are a great number of naturally occurring factors such as solar irradiance, global wind patterns, and even Earths orbital variability can contribute to temperature change. But these naturally occurring phenomenons have not changed dramatically enough over the last 60 years to account for the rapid warming. The current trends don't match up with the natural historical data available to us through ice cores and tree growth rings, etc. This is why the scientific consensus is pointing to green house gas buildup as the number one cause for the dramatic warming.

It is a scientifically proven fact that CO2 and other green house gases absorb sunlight (easily verified through experiments). Anything that absorbs sunlight increases the atmospheric temperature, and anything that reflects light (ie ice, snow) decreases atmospheric temperature. Should CO2 continue to increase at the same time as more ice is melting (which decreases reflectivity and increases the amount of previously frozen methane gas {absorbing gas}), then the global warming process will infact accelerate.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...lWarmingQandA/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherw...ge-selection=5
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ple-answer-no/
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4-wg1-spm.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11649

I provided you with a few links to some of the most heavily peer-reviewed information available.

[Not a hacker]

Only 30 years ago this same alarmist crowd was predicting immediate dramatic effects. They screamed that in 30 years we would see inundated beaches, Manhattan Island gone, etc. But the fact is a FRACTION of one inch in ocean water levels up.

IF the world had done any of the radical things they demanded, America and other industrialized countries would have committed economic suicide, strangled several whole industries, made American products so expensive that the world market would laugh at them. They were wrong. Thank goodness we ignored the nutcases like Al Gore. Apparently we have a few of his disciples here!

Larry

This sounds strangely familiar Larry.

GHD, Your obsession with me is becoming Fredesque. Take a chill pill and settle the fuk down you POS.

[groundhogday]

Global warming is a political movement based on theroies.

GHD, Your obsession with me is becoming Fredesque. Take a chill pill and settle the fuk down you POS.

Actually I have a crush on you what ya doing this winter? Can we meet?

[FreakOfNature]

I see your lazy ass did not read any of the links I provided... either that or you are too dense to read the material. Go phuck yourself FON... get back to us after you have done your homework.

I am thinking of getting a Hummer for my wife. That way I can do my part to offset the loss of revenue to the oil companies and carbon dioxide output by the amount of hybrids on the road today.

May even put a bumper sticker on the back that says, " I love the environment...... yum!"

I read every word of every link you provided, dumbass. I wanted to know whether or not what GHD posted had been peer reviewed. That's why I wanted the link. I already posted a reply to your post. If it wasn't for the fact that the findings evidenced in the links you posted fit perfectly with the claims alarmists are raising, I would have had more to say... but those links support the very same claims I'm defending.

You don't believe in the legitimacy of peer-reviewed science, because you can't separate the politics from the findings. So basically I could care less what you think. Your political bias prohibits you from seeing the science for what it really is - not a political agenda, but rather a disturbing scientific truth that DOES have political ramifications.

You're young enough to have a stake in the truth - yet you're so stubborn that you'll gamble the future of your own children just for the sake of your politics. You are the epitome of the word MORON.

Have a nice day.



FON

[groundhogday]

fon
you got me confused with Rick. I have not mentioned peer review in any of my posts. I believe global warming is a polictical movement, because the science changes but the agenda stays the same. I don't consider you dumb FON for being brainwashed with this junk science. I don't consider the followers of Jim Jones to be dumb either just misguide.

Respectfully yours
GHD

PS do I need to work on my pecs

[FreakOfNature]

fon
you got me confused with Rick. I have not mentioned peer review in any of my posts. I believe global warming is a polictical movement, because the science changes but the agenda stays the same. I don't consider you dumb FON for being brainwashed with this junk science. I don't consider the followers of Jim Jones to be dumb either just misguide.

Respectfully yours
GHD

PS do I need to work on my pecs

No, I don't think I have the two of you confused GHD. Rick was the one who stated that peer review is little more than a popularity contest, so I was on the mark with my statement as such. He can't separate the science from the politics any better than you can.

Who the fuk is Jim Jones? Never heard of him. I'm Canadian, remember? David Suzuki? I know who that is...

BTW, your pecs are much softer looking than mine... maybe a few hours a week in a kayak would fix that... then again I have heard that reconstructive surgery is popular nowadays. Either way - you need a boob job.



FON

[groundhogday]

WTF Your grouping me with Rick so I have to start grouping your with Al Gore. How is your 25 bedroom mansion that costs 16 grand a month to keep in operation.
'
Jim Jones if you don't remember he led his believers to Gyuana and fed them magic Kool aid. Google him

David Suzuki damn I bet you like Bill Moyers as well. how about some impartial science.

Can you give me some tips on how to improve my moobs

respectfully your
GHD

[FreakOfNature]

WTF Your grouping me with Rick so I have to start grouping your with Al Gore. How is your 25 bedroom mansion that costs 16 grand a month to keep in operation.
'
Jim Jones if you don't remember he led his believers to Gyuana and fed them magic Kool aid. Google him

David Suzuki damn I bet you like Bill Moyers as well. how about some impartial science.

Can you give me some tips on how to improve my moobs

respectfully your
GHD

Alright GHD, my apologies. Didn't mean to group you in with Rick there... sorry about that.

Bill Moyers... doesn't ring much of a bell for me either. The PBS guy? Meh...

Care to elaborate on your opinion of David Suzuki? Being Canadian, it's not like I'll have an objective opinion of the man - I am too much of a homer (patriot).

To improve your moobs and make them firmer without reconstructive surgery or illegal substances, you must endeavor to work them hard, every day. Lots of sex in the missionary position, mow over an acre of hilly lawn once a week by hand through the summer, shovel a 200' driveway 8-10 times through the winter, hit balls into a net 8 hours per week, split firewood, and paddle a kayak at least 10km per week on no more than 3 separate occasions.

Once you can do that you'll be ready for my more "advanced" routine which incorporates hiking, cycling, binge drinking, and compulsive overeating. There will be no mercy for the weak.



FON

[groundhogday]

Care to elaborate on your opinion of David Suzuki? Being Canadian, it's not like I'll have an objective opinion of the man - I am too much of a homer (patriot).

To improve your moobs and make them firmer without reconstructive surgery or illegal substances, you must endeavor to work them hard, every day. Lots of sex in the missionary position, mow over an acre of hilly lawn once a week by hand through the summer, shovel a 200' driveway 8-10 times through the winter, hit balls into a net 8 hours per week, split firewood, and paddle a kayak at least 10km per week on no more than 3 separate occasions.

David Suzuki tends to be pro global warming?
on't get any snow down here in South Carolina. Kayaking is a sport practiced by canadians who travel to South Carolina so they don't have to shovel snow.
Does your lawn mower have a motor if not I suggest you get one with a motor you can sit on and steer.
Respectfully
GHD

[Rickw]

Damn FON, all this bullsh!t in the last few post and no rebuttal of any of the provided links? Your feeble mind is still stuck on peer review. You are lucky I informed you of peer review... or you would still look REALLY stupid.

I have started looking for an H2. I wanted one a few months ago for my wife, but decided a Z71 Tahoe was more practical. But phuck practical, if it will piss off liberal nut suckers it might be well worth the added expense! Plus if my wife has an accident with a hybrid... they might be pulling a white sheet out and that would be one less of you phucks taking my money.

[FreakOfNature]

Damn FON, all this bullsh!t in the last few post and no rebuttal of any of the provided links? Your feeble mind is still stuck on peer review. You are lucky I informed you of peer review... or you would still look REALLY stupid.

I have started looking for an H2. I wanted one a few months ago for my wife, but decided a Z71 Tahoe was more practical. But phuck practical, if it will piss off liberal nut suckers it might be well worth the added expense! Plus if my wife has an accident with a hybrid... they might be pulling a white sheet out and that would be one less of you phucks taking my money.

I think it's YOU who is stuck on peer review - you clearly don't understand what IT IS.

You think peer review is a bunch of liberals standing around a fancy hotel conference room looking for ways to invent scientific evidence which furthers their political agenda. That in itself is proof enough of your ignorance for me to not even be irked in the slightest by your lame attempts at insulting me. I'll never look like a moron so long as you're around for comparison.

Here's why I think your understanding of the peer review process reeks of ignorance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review - try to do yourself a favor and read it, educate yourself so your arguments look like they might perhaps come from an individual whose IQ exceeds his shoe size.

Now about your links - you really want it? OK punk you got it.

First link: http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?....0.CO%3B2&ct=1

The first thing I notice is that the subject matter discusses ANTARCTIC climate variability - NOT ARCTIC. The second thing I notice is that the research was finalized in 1997 (12 years ago) and published in 1999. It's OLD RESEARCH. Science is like that, when new information becomes available - the science is updated to reflect the new knowledge. This article completely ignores (for obvious reasons) any data which has been gathered in the last 12 years. The third thing that immediately strikes me (as if the above two reasons weren't already enough to invalidate what you perceive them as proving) is that they are measuring a cooling trend in the Antarctic Ocean. Well... I wonder why this could be? Perhaps if you set lots of once glacial ice adrift in the ocean, it could possibly have the same effect on the LOCAL climate as putting ice cubes in a drink does. All that does is evidence the FACT that more ice is being added to the oceans than was occurring in years prior to those in which the data conveyed in your link was being gathered - further evidence of a global climate shift towards warming.

Second link: http://www.whoi.edu/science/PO/peopl...insor_2001.pdf

Well, at least this one is about the Arctic Ocean... but the problem I immediately see with this reference - LOOK AT THE PATH OF THE SUBMARINES. That in no way, shape, or form can be remotely assumed to represent a COMPLETE dataset which can claim to be a viable representation of the thickness of the ice over the WHOLE of the Arctic Ocean. That data represents little more than a minor cross-section of the Arctic polar ice cap, a cap which is continually swirling like a whirlpool and whose cross sections change seasonally. In other words - this proves NOTHING AT ALL.

Third link: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.ht...2b95c45dcf&k=0

Really... temperatures are dropping at the South Pole, ice shelves are calving state sized chunks off into the nearby ocean (thus cooling it like ice cubes in a drink) and "scientists" are struggling with WHY this is happening..? That is fuk'n PSEUDO-SCIENCE at its finest right there. If you expand the radius of sea ice you reduce the likelihood of warm air currents reaching the South Pole, so it's more difficult to register a rise in temperature there. BRILLIANT. All that really proves is that there is more ice in the ocean surrounding Antarctica than there traditionally used to be - causing the localized cooling effect. It's not rocket science.

Fourth link: http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/cove...3/letter4/&c=1

Ummmmm... "scientists" are QUESTIONING the legitimacy of GHG induced global warming? These are "scientists" who are dumb enough to think that warm air and cold air will suddenly mix and average out? Warm air rises, cold air pushes warm air out of the way because cold air is more dense. So I guess the links you PREVIOUSLY provided which prove that there is more sea ice in the Antarctic Ocean than there traditionally should be (causing a localized cooling trend in the SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE) would have no effect on Australia having one of it's coldest summers on record, right?

Finally, the fifth link: http://www.hbc.com/hbcheritage/histo...tion/nascopie/

What the hell does this article have to do with ANYTHING????

The following map illustrates where global warming has BEEN MEASURED to be occurring the most rapidly (red indicates warming, while blue indicates cooling).



I believe this reinforces the point I was making about warming and cooling being localized while still representing an overall warming trend. I believe it also takes into account the exact issues you attempted to raise via the links you provided. You can see however, that your "research" in fact did nothing more than point me toward more evidence for my argument.

Well done. Who looks like the idiot now?



FON

[Rickw]

You already fuked up. You thought global warming could be proven by the scientific method. Thankfully what I said encouraged you to do some research.

What kind of vehicle do you have FON? Do you have solar panels on your roof? Are you recycling your grey water? What ARE YOU doing to save the planet? Did you observe "turn your lights of Saturday" a couple week ago?

[FreakOfNature]

You already fuked up. You thought global warming could be proven by the scientific method. Thankfully what I said encouraged you to do some research.

What kind of vehicle do you have FON? Do you have solar panels on your roof? Are you recycling your grey water? What ARE YOU doing to save the planet? Did you observe "turn your lights of Saturday" a couple week ago?

I never fukked up once. Scientists proved the existence of global warming a decade ago, it's just that even ten years later people like you are still not up to speed - you still believe all the political misinformation (propaganda) of a half-decade ago. You're perpetuating an intolerable degree of ignorance. You don't know enough to know what you don't know about global warming. At least I'm semi-informed and somewhat capable of having a scientific debate on the matter. You're more interested in trying to find ways that I'm being a hypocrite of what your TRUE beliefs on global warming reveal to you to be adequate or realistic solutions. You actually think that driving hybrids, recycling gray water, installing current-tech solar panels, and turning off the two 60w light bulbs in the rooms I wasn't occupying for 24 hours is going to have an IMPACT???? I think you actually do, but you're just too much of a pr!ck to give a sh!t.

You think I bother with this issue because we've ALREADY GOT THE SOLUTIONS???? You have no clue where I'm coming from, or why I take the stand I do. We don't have any satisfactory solutions - that's the problem. Doing all of that bull$hit you listed above is the equivalent to doing sweet fukk all. It might make a few ignorant tree-huggers feel good about themselves, but it won't even have the SLIGHTEST impact on the problem. Like bailing out the sinking Titanic with a dixie cup.

Drastic changes are needed in the technology we use to facilitate commerce. We're like slugs - we leave a slimy trail of pollution every time we move either ourselves or our products and services. We can do better. We can be much cleaner about our transportation needs. Our energy tech needs a serious cleaning up. The next generations of human beings who will inhabit our planet deserve that much respect. I think that's the sticking point between you an I - I have a respect for those who will succeed me, and you do not.

I'm not wasting any more of my time on you - you're clearly a lost cause.



FON

[Rickw]

I never fukked up once. Scientists proved the existence of global warming a decade ago, it's just that even ten years later people like you are still not up to speed - you still believe all the political misinformation (propaganda) of a half-decade ago. You're perpetuating an intolerable degree of ignorance. You don't know enough to know what you don't know about global warming. At least I'm semi-informed and somewhat capable of having a scientific debate on the matter. You're more interested in trying to find ways that I'm being a hypocrite of what your TRUE beliefs on global warming reveal to you to be adequate or realistic solutions. You actually think that driving hybrids, recycling gray water, installing current-tech solar panels, and turning off the two 60w light bulbs in the rooms I wasn't occupying for 24 hours is going to have an IMPACT???? I think you actually do, but you're just too much of a pr!ck to give a sh!t.

You think I bother with this issue because we've ALREADY GOT THE SOLUTIONS???? You have no clue where I'm coming from, or why I take the stand I do. We don't have any satisfactory solutions - that's the problem. Doing all of that bull$hit you listed above is the equivalent to doing sweet fukk all. It might make a few ignorant tree-huggers feel good about themselves, but it won't even have the SLIGHTEST impact on the problem. Like bailing out the sinking Titanic with a dixie cup.

Drastic changes are needed in the technology we use to facilitate commerce. We're like slugs - we leave a slimy trail of pollution every time we move either ourselves or our products and services. We can do better. We can be much cleaner about our transportation needs. Our energy tech needs a serious cleaning up. The next generations of human beings who will inhabit our planet deserve that much respect. I think that's the sticking point between you an I - I have a respect for those who will succeed me, and you do not.

I'm not wasting any more of my time on you - you're clearly a lost cause.



FON

What do you suggest? Everyone hook up there horse and buggy? Scientist haven't proved sh!t. That is why they had to establish peer review.

The next generation of humans will find the world exactly as it is today. In fact, they will probably experience a cooling trend as the recent data indicates.

You are a hypocryte FON. Everyone should change their methods of operating EXCEPT you.

Excuse me while I get my schedules ready for my 7 crews that utilize smog inducing diesel trucks.

I have got my wife's hummer on order. I have to make sure I offset all you hybrid driving fuks out there.

[SoonerBS]

What do you suggest? Everyone hook up there horse and buggy? Scientist haven't proved sh!t. That is why they had to establish peer review.

The next generation of humans will find the world exactly as it is today. In fact, they will probably experience a cooling trend as the recent data indicates.

You are a hypocryte FON. Everyone should change their methods of operating EXCEPT you.

Excuse me while I get my schedules ready for my 7 crews that utilize smog inducing diesel trucks.

I have got my wife's hummer on order. I have to make sure I offset all you hybrid driving fuks out there.

Funny, in the heat of passion last night, your wife didn't say anything about getting a hummer . . . . . of course, she had something better between her legs at the moment, even if it did only last 5 minutes.

[Rickw]

Funny, in the heat of passion last night, your wife didn't say anything about getting a hummer . . . . . of course, she had something better between her legs at the moment, even if it did only last 5 minutes.

Damnit... it could be yours. At least I might be able to get some child support out of you. Maybe having a kid won't have a negative affect on my net worth.

[FreakOfNature]

Damnit... it could be yours. At least I might be able to get some child support out of you. Maybe having a kid won't have a negative affect on my net worth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF8wLg5Asgo

Yep. That's our Rick.



FON

[Rickw]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF8wLg5Asgo

Yep. That's our Rick.



FON

Your right. Being rich sucks. Carry on.

[collegegolfer]

Why do I find it funny that these arguments always have one side saying, "you follow the warming side blindly you idiot read my evidence that's accurate that says global warming isn't real. your side is doing it for the money." Yet, both sides are doing it for the money. That's the beauty of it. We're all morons for anything we believe. I have a close friend doing climate research for grad school. The world IS warming. Why is the question people argue about. Much research is paid by public or private grants and some choose to skew data and pick variable that correlate the way that "works best" in order to continue their funding. It'd be like proving your job is worthless and getting yourself fired. Research is shady and most people don't understand what correlation means. Correlation is not causation.

[Rickw]

Why do I find it funny that these arguments always have one side saying, "you follow the warming side blindly you idiot read my evidence that's accurate that says global warming isn't real. your side is doing it for the money." Yet, both sides are doing it for the money. That's the beauty of it. We're all morons for anything we believe. I have a close friend doing climate research for grad school. The world IS warming. Why is the question people argue about. Much research is paid by public or private grants and some choose to skew data and pick variable that correlate the way that "works best" in order to continue their funding. It'd be like proving your job is worthless and getting yourself fired. Research is shady and most people don't understand what correlation means. Correlation is not causation.

It is cyclical. The earth WAS warming. Now we are in a cooling cycle.

You are right about the money. Money rules the world... it is a reality.

[FreakOfNature]

It is cyclical. The earth WAS warming. Now we are in a cooling cycle.

You are right about the money. Money rules the world... it is a reality.

A cooling cycle? Now I wonder who did the research to discover such a cycle. Scientists maybe? It doesn't matter - you BELIEVE them. A warming trend? Hmmm... I wonder who did the research and came to that conclusion... oh wait - scientists! But they aren't believable anymore because they're contradicting what they said before - and the new data conflicts with your world view, right? It must be that somehow peer review is at fault when it doesn't produce results you agree with.

Go back to 1940 where you belong. Maybe you could go watch a nuclear (or as you probably pronounce it - "NU-CU-LAR") test up close. It won't hurt you - their scientists said so. Radiation poisoning is a complete myth. Ignore those weird growths on your abdomen. Nothing to worry about soldier.

The sad thing is - you're ignorant by CHOICE, as if it's somehow "cool" to be stupid.

I pity you.



FON

[Rickw]

A cooling cycle? Now I wonder who did the research to discover such a cycle. Scientists maybe? It doesn't matter - you BELIEVE them. A warming trend? Hmmm... I wonder who did the research and came to that conclusion... oh wait - scientists! But they aren't believable anymore because they're contradicting what they said before - and the new data conflicts with your world view, right? It must be that somehow peer review is at fault when it doesn't produce results you agree with.

Go back to 1940 where you belong. Maybe you could go watch a nuclear (or as you probably pronounce it - "NU-CU-LAR") test up close. It won't hurt you - their scientists said so. Radiation poisoning is a complete myth. Ignore those weird growths on your abdomen. Nothing to worry about soldier.

The sad thing is - you're ignorant by CHOICE, as if it's somehow "cool" to be stupid.

I pity you.



FON

I pity YOU fon. You are the one that is worried about the world imploding. I am the one that does not believe in fairy tales. Do you even know the average world temps for the last few years? You might want to take a look at it.

Oh and fon, you never mentioned what kind of car YOU drive, and you never mentioned if you were using alternative energies at your home.

[NiftyNiblick]

It's a simple measurement. The polar ice cap (North) has shrunk from a nine foot to a five foot average depth. The polar ice cap is essential to reflect some of the sun's light back. Otherwise, it's absorbed and the entire earth's climate changes.

Man-made climate change is in fact occuring and one would at this point have to be a complete dunce to dispute it. Whether you care about it is another matter. One could make a good argument that it's merely evolution and humanity's replacement as the earth's dominant species is at hand. Fine with me.

I personally don't care one way or another. I run my heat when it's cold and my air when it's hot. I've been driving the same '04 Cadillac DTS for five years, it runs like a top, and I've no intention of changing it for as long as it does. At this stage of my life, I shouldn't have to stuff my fat wop ass into a little hybrid shitbox.

But to deny global climate change is stupid, and if you care about the future of humanity more that I do, you should be eager to do something about it.

[Rickw]

It's a simple measurement. The polar ice cap (North) has shrunk from a nine foot to a five foot average depth. The polar ice cap is essential to reflect some of the sun's light back. Otherwise, it's absorbed and the entire earth's climate changes.

Man-made climate change is in fact occuring and one would at this point have to be a complete dunce to dispute it. Whether you care about it is another matter. One could make a good argument that it's merely evolution and humanity's replacement as the earth's dominant species is at hand. Fine with me.

I personally don't care one way or another. I run my heat when it's cold and my air when it's hot. I've been driving the same '04 Cadillac DTS for five years, it runs like a top, and I've no intention of changing it for as long as it does. At this stage of my life, I shouldn't have to stuff my fat wop ass into a little hybrid shitbox.

But to deny global climate change is stupid, and if you care about the future of humanity more that I do, you should be eager to do something about it.

At least you are doing your part driving a V8 vehicle... you fuking hypoctyte.

[NiftyNiblick]

Hypocrite, noun: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs.

What I said: "I personally don't care one way or another."

What Ricky is: a complete moron who at least understands that formal education has no value.

[FreakOfNature]

I pity YOU fon. You are the one that is worried about the world imploding. I am the one that does not believe in fairy tales. Do you even know the average world temps for the last few years? You might want to take a look at it.

Oh and fon, you never mentioned what kind of car YOU drive, and you never mentioned if you were using alternative energies at your home.

You want to know what I drive so badly? It's a 2000 GMC Sonoma, 4.3L 6 cyl extended cab with the 3rd door (for my dog and my golf clubs).

Not quite the Ford Explorer SUV you were expecting, huh?

Why don't you get a few facts before you go calling someone a hypocrite, Rick.

Oh, and maybe if you could actually help me build my ark... it would be most appreciated. I'll save a spot for you, your sow, and your illegitimate children, you ignorant piece of sh!t. Every village needs an idiot, and you're the most qualified...

It's too bad the science is so far over your head. I like your spirit. You might actually be able to debate GW if you had half a brain and understood any of the science. Too bad you're an idiot whose best counter is to name-call without participating in the scientific discussion whatsoever.

I don't blame you though. I fukking OWNED you the last time you tried to debate the SCIENCE. I know why you're scared...

Feel free to try me again.



FON

[golfaholic]

Lets just be friends. Damn.

[Rickw]

You want to know what I drive so badly? It's a 2000 GMC Sonoma, 4.3L 6 cyl extended cab with the 3rd door (for my dog and my golf clubs).

Not quite the Ford Explorer SUV you were expecting, huh?

Why don't you get a few facts before you go calling someone a hypocrite, Rick.

Oh, and maybe if you could actually help me build my ark... it would be most appreciated. I'll save a spot for you, your sow, and your illegitimate children, you ignorant piece of sh!t. Every village needs an idiot, and you're the most qualified...

It's too bad the science is so far over your head. I like your spirit. You might actually be able to debate GW if you had half a brain and understood any of the science. Too bad you're an idiot whose best counter is to name-call without participating in the scientific discussion whatsoever.

I don't blame you though. I fukking OWNED you the last time you tried to debate the SCIENCE. I know why you're scared...

Feel free to try me again.



FON

A GMC sonoma POS that probably gets at best 15mpg. I find it funny that all these loonies want EVERYBODY ELSE to drive these tin can hybrid death traps while they drive the cadillacs and trucks. Thanks for admitting in reality you truly are not adament in your beliefs in global warming. Thanks for buying american.