Question for those that believe in the Global Warming BS...

[OU_Sooners75]

Yes, it is BS.


If earth is warming up at alarming rates, why is it that


the latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveals yet another drop in the Earth's temperature. This latest drop in global temperatures means despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006.

Also see: 8 Year Downtrend Continues in Global Temps)

We have had the greatest drop in temperature ever recorded for one year, verified by all four of the world's most respected sources between 2007 and 2008..
UK's Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature anomaly (HadCRUT) Dr. Phil Jones
The NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/) Goddard Institute for Space Studies(GISS) Dr. James Hansen
University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) Dr. John Christy
Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA (RSS)
Source:
Global ?T °C HadCRUT - 0.595
GISS - 0.750
UAH - 0.588
RSS - 0.629
Average: - 0.6405°C this quote is from a post at ESPN.com (http://boards.espn.go.com/boards/mb/mb?sport=ncaa&id=ncf&tid=6239031&lid=9)

And here is an interesting read:

Japans Society of Energy and Resources (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/25/japans-society-of-energy-and-resources-disses-the-ipcc-says-recent-climate-change-is-driven-by-natural-cycles-not-human-industrial-activity/)

[LosAngelesSooner]

I also have a question for all those people who believe in that Gravity BS...

...after they answer my first question which I posed to all those people who believe in that Evolution BS.

:rolleyes:

[bluewcc]

I also have a question for all those people who believe in that Gravity BS...

...after they answer my first question which I posed to all those people who believe in that Evolution BS.

:rolleyes:


Seriously, how does a 20 or 30 year warming trend equate to gravity?

[OU_Sooners75]

I also have a question for all those people who believe in that Gravity BS...

...after they answer my first question which I posed to all those people who believe in that Evolution BS.

:rolleyes:


Gravity is proven. Global Warming is not. In fact, the info given suggests just the opposite.

But if you are comfortable with the BS that you believe is in fact...true...then so be it.

[OU_Sooners75]

LAS.

If the earth is warming, will the oceans rise or drop in level?

If they will rise, how come?

If they will drop, how come?

[Crucifax Autumn]

I know I always get my science from quotes at ESPN.com

That said, gravity is constantly referred to by anti-climate change people as an example of why science is wrong. They say, contradictory to 75's statement, that gravity is unproven. Flat earthers believe that we are accelerating upward as opposed to rotating.

[OU_Sooners75]

I know I always get my science from quotes at ESPN.com

That said, gravity is constantly referred to by anti-climate change people as an example of why science is wrong. They say, contradictory to 75's statement, that gravity is unproven. Flat earthers believe that we are accelerating upward as opposed to rotating.


IN the qoute there be a link.

try following it.

Then try searching it. The internet is a powerful tool. :pop:

[hellogoodbye]

Seriously, how does a 20 or 30 year warming trend equate to gravity?

A tactic. Shame is a powerful tool.

[SunnySooner]

Seriously, how does a 20 or 30 year warming trend equate to gravity?

If you don't have an answer to a question posed, it's a great time to change the subject. :D

[Okla-homey]

Can we all just agree that the global warming dealio is a matter of faith, and warmers are entitled to their opinions?

[BermudaSooner]

Can we all just agree that the global warming dealio is a matter of faith, and warmers are entitled to their opinions?

They are entitled to their opinions until they start taxing me in the name of their junk science.

[OUmillenium]

I know I always get my science from quotes at ESPN.com

That said, gravity is constantly referred to by anti-climate change people as an example of why science is wrong. They say, contradictory to 75's statement, that gravity is unproven. Flat earthers believe that we are accelerating upward as opposed to rotating.

How do flatearther's describe nautical curvature? Or the physics behind the same concept used by artillerymen when formulating a fire solution?

All that from growing up near Ft. Sill!

[LosAngelesSooner]

Can we all just agree that the global warming dealio is a matter of faith, and warmers are entitled to their opinions?
Jesus is a matter of faith.

Man Made Global Climate Change is a matter of science.

There IS a difference...

[LosAngelesSooner]

Your questions:
LAS.

If the earth is warming, will the oceans rise or drop in level?

If they will rise, how come?

If they will drop, how come?

The answers:
The research is all over the web, including on this very board in the form of numerous posts by Fraggle.

Then try searching it. The Internet is a powerful tool. :pop:Fixed.

[soonerboy_odanorth]

Jesus is a matter of history.

Man Made Global Climate Change is a matter of science debate.

There IS a difference...


Fixed.

1.) Jesus existed, and is therefore a historical figure. Whether he currently sits at the right hand of the Father (and whether the Father exists) is a matter of faith.

2.) Last I checked there were credible scientists on each side of the issue. And funny how the issue has evolved from Global Warming to Global Climate Change. Must be a healthy debate.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Fixed.

1.) Jesus existed, and is therefore a historical figure. Whether he currently sits at the right hand of the Father (and whether the Father exists) is a matter of faith.Fair enough. Though all of the History regarding Jesus IS anecdotal.


2.) Last I checked there were credible scientists on each side of the issue. And funny how the issue has evolved from Global Warming to Global Climate Change. Must be a healthy debate.Bullbutter. There are credible scientists on one side and a couple of paid shills who are generally ridiculed by real scientists on the other. Don't kid yourself.

[Collier11]

Global warming is one of the biggest financial hoax's in history...where did Gore get his money in the first place? Go look it up if you dont know, it has a little something to do with coal.

I think global warming can easily be explained as a natural trend, the earth has heated and cooled many times over history so to that extent it is somewhat true, but to the extent that the govt is trying to make it while many are lining their pockets with cold hard cash is despicable and should be prosecuted

[C&CDean]

Bullbutter. There are credible scientists on one side and a couple of paid shills who are generally ridiculed by real scientists on the other. Don't kid yourself.

Yeah. But which side is which?

[hellogoodbye]

C02 is not a pollutant, correlation does not equal causation, and ridicule, from real scientists or not, does not imply consensus.

So help me Jebus

[Collier11]

Yeah. But which side is which?

This x100

[LosAngelesSooner]

Global warming is one of the biggest financial hoax's in history...where did Gore get his money in the first place? Go look it up if you dont know, it has a little something to do with coal.

I think global warming can easily be explained as a natural trend, the earth has heated and cooled many times over history so to that extent it is somewhat true, but to the extent that the govt is trying to make it while many are lining their pockets with cold hard cash is despicable and should be prosecutedNo.

In fact...

LMFAO...no.


Yeah. But which side is which?If you have to ask then you failed science class.

[Jello Biafra]

you guys are all a figment of my imagination. i am the only one here.

[Collier11]

No.

In fact...

LMFAO...no.

If you have to ask then you failed science class.

This is one area where you are DEAD wrong K- day by day there is more evidence coming out about the financial benefits of "talking it up" and the scientific data that prove that it isnt as grave or as human caused as they once said

[C&CDean]

If you have to ask then you failed science class.

No, I aced science. It was math that was my downfall.

Put a bunch of gas in a can. Cover it for a while and then uncover it and drop a match into the can. What happens? That's right, it blows the **** up. Science. Proven science. Take the same can of gas, and leave it uncovered for a few days. Drop a match into it and what happens? Nothing, the match goes out because gas doesn't burn, the fumes do. Proven science.

Having some pointy-headed ****wads who can't even properly dress themselves or keep themselves clean and properly fed spending 20-hours a day "researching" a hole in the ozone and proclaiming that man has ****ed up the world and we're all gonna burn to death, etc. isn't "credible" science. It's shill work, and folks who think these Newton/Einstein wannabes have all the answers are nuttier than the mis-dressed, poor hygiened dweebs in tweed who make this **** up.

I'm freezing my mother****ing *** off! We've had the coldest December in the history of Oklahoma! It was below freezing for a ****ing week and when I came home from burying my dad in Arizona I had to go out and bust ice on the ponds with my tractor so the ****ing cows could drink. My kin up in Iowa have been busting ice since October and there's no end in sight. 30 ****ing below 000 man.

Take your global warming and pimp it other idiots. I ain't buying what you're selling. Unless you can PROVE it to me, STFU.

[Collier11]

Thats the thing, its all just a bunch of fear mongering with no proof in sight. Hell, they had snow in F**king Florida this year. The Earths core is cooling, what about any of that plus what Dean said makes you think warming?

[LosAngelesSooner]

No, I aced science. It was math that was my downfall.

Put a bunch of gas in a can. Cover it for a while and then uncover it and drop a match into the can. What happens? That's right, it blows the **** up. Science. Proven science. Take the same can of gas, and leave it uncovered for a few days. Drop a match into it and what happens? Nothing, the match goes out because gas doesn't burn, the fumes do. Proven science.

Having some pointy-headed ****wads who can't even properly dress themselves or keep themselves clean and properly fed spending 20-hours a day "researching" a hole in the ozone and proclaiming that man has ****ed up the world and we're all gonna burn to death, etc. isn't "credible" science. It's shill work, and folks who think these Newton/Einstein wannabes have all the answers are nuttier than the mis-dressed, poor hygiened dweebs in tweed who make this **** up.

I'm freezing my mother****ing *** off! We've had the coldest December in the history of Oklahoma! It was below freezing for a ****ing week and when I came home from burying my dad in Arizona I had to go out and bust ice on the ponds with my tractor so the ****ing cows could drink. My kin up in Iowa have been busting ice since October and there's no end in sight. 30 ****ing below 000 man.

Take your global warming and pimp it other idiots. I ain't buying what you're selling. Unless you can PROVE it to me, STFU.It's been proved.

On another note, you tried to claim that the massive amount (read 98%) of scientists who have openly come out in support of man made global climate change were the "paid shills" I mentioned in my post.

That's disingenuous and illogical.

I'm glad you feel sorry for all those poor, sorry, picked on, multi-national, multi-trillion dollar earning petroleum companies.

Poor guys. All the hippies and scientists are picking on them...

:pop:

[LosAngelesSooner]

This is one area where you are DEAD wrong K- day by day there is more evidence coming out about the financial benefits of "talking it up" and the scientific data that prove that it isnt as grave or as human caused as they once saidNo.

Not even a little bit.

Keep drinking the Kool Ade.

[C&CDean]

No Keith, global warming has NOT been proved, no matter how many times you say so. You choose to think people who believe in unproven **** are ignorant (like maybe God or Jesus?) but think that these guys have proven anything? Meh. It's hip to believe in global warming. You're a hip guy. It's all good.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Having some pointy-headed ****wads who can't even properly dress themselves or keep themselves clean and properly fed spending 20-hours a day "researching" a hole in the ozone and proclaiming that man has ****ed up the world and we're all gonna burn to death, etc. isn't "credible" science. It's shill work, and folks who think these Newton/Einstein wannabes have all the answers are nuttier than the mis-dressed, poor hygiened dweebs in tweed who make this **** up.
Yeah. Like that idiot Einstein...what a rube!

You know you just described every great scientist the Earth has ever had, right? LOL


I'm freezing my mother****ing *** off! We've had the coldest December in the history of Oklahoma! It was below freezing for a ****ing week and when I came home from burying my dad in Arizona I had to go out and bust ice on the ponds with my tractor so the ****ing cows could drink. My kin up in Iowa have been busting ice since October and there's no end in sight. 30 ****ing below 000 man.
You realize that you JUST COMPLETELY SUPPORTED man made global climate change, don't you?

No...of course you don't.

You're one of those guys who goes..."It's cold outside! That means the theory is WROOOONG!!!"

LMFAO

[LosAngelesSooner]

No Keith, global warming has NOT been proved, no matter how many times you say so. You choose to think people who believe in unproven **** are ignorant (like maybe God or Jesus?) but think that these guys have proven anything? Meh. It's hip to believe in global warming. You're a hip guy. It's all good.It's been proved.

Decidedly.

Just because your Jesus/Congressman/Palin/Inhofe told you it was a mean lie (because their campaign financiers told them to or they'd stop getting oil checks) doesn't make it any less true.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Thats the thing, its all just a bunch of fear mongering with no proof in sight. Hell, they had snow in F**king Florida this year.
SEE?! I NEW you'd see the light!

I couldn't have typed up a more succinct argument against the deniers myself!!!

Bravo. :D

[C&CDean]

In simple terms - you're full of ****. You say it, therefore it is so? Blow me.

And I don't listen to any of the folks you listed there except Jesus. You, on the other hand, must listen to a lot of **** to be so sold on the whole sham.

[hellogoodbye]

Put a bunch of gas in a can. Cover it for a while and then uncover it and drop a match into the can. What happens?

Take all the petrochemicals in the world - known and yet to be discovered - and ignite it today, all at once. Thats enough C02 to really kill the earth, right? Turn us into Venus, right? Oh well, yea - but those couple or 3 major volcanic eruptions would really suck for like ummm a year or so...


Unless you can PROVE it to me, STFU.
Or at least spend a little bit of your sciencey time inventing the next generation REAL energy source (which will inevitably lead to other pollution issues, because there isnt anything perfect out there)..

[starclassic tama]

did al gore hyperbolize the effects of global warming in order to stay politically relevant and sell DVD's/books? of course. are right wingers and others hyperbolizing the infallibility of the theory in order to push their political agenda? of course. but neither one of those change the fact that the scientific consensus is in favor of global warming. it's kind of mindblowing to me that people still don't really understand how science and the scientific community works. people make careers out of proving that/how things work. the other half makes careers out of disproving what people have tried to prove. so there is always going to be two sides of the same coin. but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of credible scientific work is in favor of global warming.

[CrimsonandCreamForever]

I like how the OP posted some facts that seem to be legitimate, but no one who holds a contrary opinion can post any statistical data or even quote some of these scientists they like to talk about. Unsupported opinion and conjecture don't prove your point to most rational thinking people.

[Okla-homey]

but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of credible scientific work is in favor of global warming.

Fact: the vast majority of "credible scientific work" in the 15th century thought a way to convert base metals to gold existed, if it could only be found.

Fact: the vast majority of "credible sceintific work" in the 18th century held you could bleed disease out of sick people.

Fact: the vast majority of "credible scientific work" in the 19th century held that brown people were dumber and inferior to white people.

Additionally, I'm no scientist, but if I've learned one thing over the half-century I've trod this planet; follow the money. Research on the "warmer" side nets the grants. That's not to mention how phenomenally wealthy it's made Al Gore.

Moreover, there's big money in "green" nowadays, it's on everyone's list of growth industries, and that's notwithstanding the fact this whole scheme is ultimately about shifting beaucoup bucks from the first world to the third world by that gang of thugs and extortioners that make up the UN.

[Collier11]

Only LAS would call those who dont believe that global warming is all that it is cracked up to be and who realize that those with power who support it are out for the money conspiracy theorists...pfffttt

[LosAngelesSooner]

In simple terms - you're full of ****. You say it, therefore it is so? Blow me.

And I don't listen to any of the folks you listed there except Jesus. You, on the other hand, must listen to a lot of **** to be so sold on the whole sham.Yeah.

I listen to all those stupid scientists with all their phd's and lifetime of experience.

pfffffftttt...idiots. :rolleyes:

[LosAngelesSooner]

Only LAS would call those who dont believe that global warming is all that it is cracked up to be and who realize that those with power who support it are out for the money conspiracy theorists...pfffttt
Yeah.

Only me.

And the vast majority of the rest of the world and 99% of the world's scientists.

But we don't have "common sense principals" or a "fair and balanced" view of science. :rolleyes:

[Collier11]

Im not speaking for Dean but in my case I am not saying it is an out and out lie. I am stating that it has been made out to be more than it actually is for the sake of money and humans role in this is not completely accurate

[Collier11]

Yeah.

Only me.

And the vast majority of the rest of the world and 99% of the world's scientists.

But we don't have "common sense principals" or a "fair and balanced" view of science. :rolleyes:

99% of scientists? Show me some facts to back that up, it has been consistently stated that the number of scientists against the level of global warming that is thrown about is closer to 50% than 100%

[OU_Sooners75]

No.

In fact...

LMFAO...no.

If you have to ask then you failed science class.


This is the best you can come up with?

I mean, your oversized brain surely should be able to think of something better to say.

Or better yet, you should try defending your stance with some credible sources or something.

Just trying to help you out.

[Collier11]

Before you freak out LAS, im not saying any of these represent 100% fact but youll probably ignore that statement anyway, what I am saying is that your claims that 99% of scientists support global warming is flat out BS!

http://www.detnews.com/article/20100113/OPINION01/1130336/1008/Editorial--Don-t-stifle-global-warming-debate

http://www.rightsidenews.com/201001128144/energy-and-environment/forget-global-warming-mini-ice-age-may-be-on-its-way.html

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/01/13/global_warming_is_a_religion

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2582567/hubris_thy_name_is_gore_global_warming.html

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241/17_200_Scientists_Dispute_Global_Warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

[Collier11]

This is the best you can come up with?

I mean, your oversized brain surely should be about to think of something better to say.

Or better yet, you should try defending your stance with some credible sources or something.

Just trying to help you out.

He would rather just argue for the sake of arguing, that way he can always declare himself winner at the end of the night

[OU_Sooners75]

It's been proved.

On another note, you tried to claim that the massive amount (read 98%) of scientists who have openly come out in support of man made global climate change were the "paid shills" I mentioned in my post.

That's disingenuous and illogical.

I'm glad you feel sorry for all those poor, sorry, picked on, multi-national, multi-trillion dollar earning petroleum companies.

Poor guys. All the hippies and scientists are picking on them...

:pop:

You are twisting and turning more than your mother in bed. Stop spinning, you're making me dizzy!

I love how you have now successfully changed your stance from "global warming" to "global climate change."

No **** the climate is changing. In fact, if you read the OP, it states that, for the past six years, Earth's avearage temps have DROPPED .74 degrees.

That may be global climate change, but it damn sure is not global warming!


Try sticking to one thing for once in your liberal life!

[LosAngelesSooner]

I like how the OP posted some facts that seem to be legitimate, but no one who holds a contrary opinion can post any statistical data or even quote some of these scientists they like to talk about. Unsupported opinion and conjecture don't prove your point to most rational thinking people.Jesus! Because they've been shot down a million times in a million threads...

Here...another shoot down:

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/01/daily-mail-bends-science-support-global-cooling


Daily Mail Bends Science to Support 'Global Cooling'
— By Ben Buchwalter (http://motherjones.com/authors/ben-buchwalter)

| Tue Jan. 12, 2010 5:00 AM PST

The deniers (http://motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial) are at it again.

This winter's cold spell, which chilled folks in England, the Midwest, and even Florida farm country (http://www.tallahassee.com/article/A4/20100110/BUSINESS/100110039/1003), has led a prominent European scientist to argue that global warming has ended and that we're in for 30 years of global cooling. Or at least that's what Britain's Daily Mail says (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242202/Could-30-years-global-COOLING.html). The scientist, Professor Mojib Latif of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told the Mail that "winters like this one will become much more likely."

In addition to a 2008 report (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/nature06921.html) that is widely mischaracterized (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif) as proof that warming has slowed, this led the Mail, whose report was later picked up by Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/years-global-cooling-coming-say-leading-scientists/), to claim that such statements could prove that the threat of global warming has been blown out of proportion (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242202/Could-30-years-global-COOLING.html):
Some experts believe these cycles - and not human pollution - can explain all the major changes in world temperatures in the 20th century.
If true, the research challenges the science behind climate change theories, and calls into question the political measures to halt global warming.
According to some scientists, the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases.
It occurred because the world was in a 'warm mode', and would have happened regardless of mankind's rising carbon dioxide production.But speaking to the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif) yesterday, Latif pushed back hard against the Mail, saying that the tabloid took his comments out of context to make an editorial statement. "It comes as a surprise to me that people would try to use my statements to try to dispute the nature of global warming. I believe in manmade global warming. I have said that if my name was not Mojib Latif it would be global warming," he said. "There is no doubt within the scientific community that we are affecting the climate, that the climate is changing and responding to our emissions of greenhouse gases."

This is a predictable misstep for the Mail, which has a conservative streak and recently published a set of denialist stories, including Sunday's David Rose report "The Mini Ice Age Starts Here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html)," and a special investigation (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html) on the Climategate (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/12/republicans-exploit-email-hack-delay-climate-action) emails last December.

Though many are uncomfortable having to bundle up more this year, the cold has a non-ice age explanation. The New York Times reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/weekinreview/10chang.html?partner=rss&emc=rss) this weekend that the season's extra shivers have nothing to do with global warming or global cooling:
A mass of high pressure is sitting over Greenland like a rock in a river, deflecting the cold air of the jet stream farther to the south than usual.
This situation is caused by Arctic oscillation, in which opposing atmospheric pressure patterns at the top of the planet occasionally shift back and forth, affecting weather across much of the Northern Hemisphere.Considering the overwhelming (http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/11/tuvalu-climate-refugees) scientific consensus (http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/11/long-and-warming-road) that says the climate is changing (http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/11/copenhagen-too-hot-handle), the Times' explanation is easier to swallow than the Mail's. And their main source seems to agree.It gets tiring shooting it down over...and over...and over...

Kinda like the Kenyan birth certificate with Orly Tates...

[OU_Sooners75]

It's been proved.

Decidedly.

Just because your Jesus/Congressman/Palin/Inhofe told you it was a mean lie (because their campaign financiers told them to or they'd stop getting oil checks) doesn't make it any less true.


Then please, by all means, point everyone that does not agree with you, to the CREDIBLE source stating that he as been proven and is consensus.

And trust me bro, I could careless about my congressman, or any republican thinks on this matter!

[LosAngelesSooner]

You are twisting and turning more than your mother in bed. Stop spinning, you're making me dizzy!

I love how you have now successfully changed your stance from "global warming" to "global climate change."

No **** the climate is changing. In fact, if you read the OP, it states that, for the past six years, Earth's avearage temps have DROPPED .74 degrees.

That may be global climate change, but it damn sure is not global warming!


Try sticking to one thing for once in your liberal life!
How DARE I use the proper scientific term! I MUST be "twisting and turning."

Speaking of which...how do you like the fact that you're quoting incorrect/fabricated "facts?"

Orly? Orly?

[Collier11]

Jesus! Because they've been shot down a million times in a million threads...

Here...another shoot down:

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/01/daily-mail-bends-science-support-global-cooling

It gets tiring shooting it down over...and over...and over...

Kinda like the Kenyan birth certificate with Orly Tates...

One article does not make a consensus and does not prove as fact. I dont know how any objective person could not look at this issue and see how people are benefiting from the so-called global warming

[LosAngelesSooner]

Then please, by all means, point everyone that does not agree with you, to the CREDIBLE source stating that he as been proven and is consensus.

And trust me bro, I could careless about my congressman, or any republican thinks on this matter!
Already did.

About a thousand times.

But you Deniers will cling to ANYTHING you can...

[LosAngelesSooner]

One article does not make a consensus and does not prove as fact. I dont know how any objective person could not look at this issue and see how people are benefiting from the so-called global warmingOne article that shows the one you quoted was lying.

Yeah...:pop:

[Collier11]

How does it prove anything, no one that I can see is arguing climate change. What I am talking about is, for the 90th time, humans role in it, the fact that it most definitely is a cash cow, and that it is more of a natural process than the end of the world

[OU_Sooners75]

How DARE I use the proper scientific term! I MUST be "twisting and turning."

Speaking of which...how do you like the fact that you're quoting incorrect/fabricated "facts?"

Orly? Orly?


You have yet to use anything "scientific" in this entire thread. The only thing you have done thusfar is your usual liberal drivel.

[Collier11]

I guess you ignored all of those emails that recently came out huh? Convenient

[LosAngelesSooner]

Additionally, I'm no scientist, but if I've learned one thing over the half-century I've trod this planet; follow the money. Research on the "warmer" side nets the grants. That's not to mention how phenomenally wealthy it's made Al Gore.

Moreover, there's big money in "green" nowadays, it's on everyone's list of growth industries, and that's notwithstanding the fact this whole scheme is ultimately about shifting beaucoup bucks from the first world to the third world by that gang of thugs and extortioners that make up the UN.

Compare the amount of money in the petroleum industry vs. the "green movement."

Yeah...the BIG bucks are in renewable energy...:rolleyes:

[OU_Sooners75]

Already did.

About a thousand times.

But you Deniers will cling to ANYTHING you can...


And yet, I am still waiting for this credible source.

Because I have apparently missed it somewhere.

[Collier11]

Hell, that Boone Pickens, self made billionaire and all in the oil biz, well he seems to think that there is a ton of money in going green

[Collier11]

Dont forget this previously posted article

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/25/japans-society-of-energy-and-resources-disses-the-ipcc-says-recent-climate-change-is-driven-by-natural-cycles-not-human-industrial-activity/

[OU_Sooners75]

This not even fun anymore....

To paraphrase/quote the movie "The Hangover:"

"LAS you are literally too stupid to insult." :texan:

[LosAngelesSooner]

You have yet to use anything "scientific" in this entire thread. The only thing you have done thusfar is your usual liberal drivel.Why counter with all the proven science? It's everywhere. Do a Google search, McGuyver.

Jesus...do a search on SF.com and look for all the scientific postings made by Fraggle.

Why on EARTH would I waste my time "proving" an already proven fact to someone who will cling to ANYTHING to believe that it's made up, including fabricated data to support a desired conclusion???"

I'm not gonna waste that kind of time. You don't want to believe it...you won't believe it...so why try?

Remain blind. What do I effin' care? You look ignorant...your problem, not mine.


I guess you ignored all of those emails that recently came out huh? Convenient
I guess you ignored all the news articles about how the whole "email scandal" was completely shot down.

Whatever...you guys DESPERATELY want to believe it's all a lie. Believe it.

You look dumb. You look willfully ignorant. You lose any relevance in any scientific argument. You're denying something that IS good for our planet AND our national security for strictly political reasons.

But whatever...the ties of time are against you and this change will happen regardless...so have your tantrum.

I'm gonna go eat.

[OU_Sooners75]

Compare the amount of money in the petroleum industry vs. the "green movement."

Yeah...the BIG bucks are in renewable energy...:rolleyes:


http://www.gogreentube.com/watch.php?v=ODQwNjc=

[OU_Sooners75]

Why counter with all the proven science? It's everywhere. Do a Google search, McGuyver.

Jesus...do a search on SF.com and look for all the scientific postings made by Fraggle.

Why on EARTH would I waste my time "proving" an already proven fact to someone who will cling to ANYTHING to believe that it's made up, including fabricated data to support a desired conclusion???"

I'm not gonna waste that kind of time. You don't want to believe it...you won't believe it...so why try?

Remain blind. What do I effin' care? You look ignorant...your problem, not mine.


I guess you ignored all the news articles about how the whole "email scandal" was completely shot down.

Whatever...you guys DESPERATELY want to believe it's all a lie. Believe it.

You look dumb. You look willfully ignorant. You lose any relevance in any scientific argument. You're denying something that IS good for our planet AND our national security for strictly political reasons.

But whatever...the ties of time are against you and this change will happen regardless...so have your tantrum.

I'm gonna go eat.


That is your major problem. You say go google it, it is everywhere.
And I agree. However, so is the opposite side of the agenda.

Plenty to back both sides.

[OU_Sooners75]

BTW, LAS, would you please quote my post where I have even hinted at saying that it is made up?

I agree with climate change, but not global warming. Those two are very different issues.

[Collier11]

Remain blind. What do I effin' care?

Funny how you consistently ignore what I am saying


I guess you ignored all the news articles about how the whole "email scandal" was completely shot down.

show me where it has been completely shot down

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-actual-global-warming-only-affects-10-to-20-of-world-sometimes.html

http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/11/candidates-who-invoke-climate-gate-could-boost-2010-prospects/

Whatever...you guys DESPERATELY want to believe it's all a lie. Believe it.

I never said it was a lie, I said it was misrepresented, pay attention cus more and more people are seeing things this way, scientists and all


You're denying something that IS good for our planet AND our national security for strictly political reasons.

Again, I never said anything like that

But whatever...the ties of time are against you and this change will happen regardless...so have your tantrum.

I'm gonna go eat.

Crow im assuming

[Fraggle145]

Okay I havent figured out the best way to present an example of the consensus... Here is what I came up with. I did a search using web of science (the preeminent search engine for all scientific journals, their citation index is basically how journals assess their importance, etc...). I entered global climate change as the search term. Out of 19,540 results returned I looked through the abstracts of the first 3 pages (each page has 10 results on it) with subjects ranging from power plants in Korea to movements of Tigers, none of which had any shadow of a doubt that climate change is happening and of those the vast majority that went into any direct detail on the subject attributed the changes to anthropogenic causes.

As an example here is result number 15 verbatim from the search engine.


An assessment of global and regional climate change based on the EH5OM climate model ensemble

Author(s): Brankovic C (Brankovic, Cedo)1, Srnec L (Srnec, Lidija)1, Patarcic M (Patarcic, Mirta)1

Source: CLIMATIC CHANGE Volume: 98 Issue: 1-2 Pages: 21-49

Published: JAN 2010

Times Cited: 0 References: 61 Citation MapCitation Map

Abstract: An analysis of climate change for global domain and for the European/Mediterranean region between the two periods, 1961-1990 (representing the twentieth century or "present" climate) and 2041-2070 (representing future climate), from the three-member ensemble of the EH5OM climate model under the IPCC A2 scenario was performed. Ensemble averages for winter and summer seasons were considered, but also intra-ensemble variations and the change of interannual variability between the two periods. First, model systematic errors are assessed because they could be closely related to uncertainties in climate change. A strengthening of westerlies (zonalization) over the northern Europe is associated with an erroneous increase in MSLP over the southern Europe. This increase in MSLP is related to a (partial) suppression of summer convective precipitation. Global warming in future climate is relatively uniform in the upper troposphere and it is associated with a 10% wind increase in the subtropical jet cores. However, spatial irregularities in the low-level temperature signal single out some regions as particularly sensitive to climate change. For Europe, the largest near-surface temperature increase in winter is found over its north-eastern part (more than 3A degrees C), and the largest summer warming (over 3.5A degrees C) is over south Europe. For south Europe, the increase in temperature averages is almost an order of magnitude larger than the increase in interannual variability. The magnitude of the warming is larger than the model systematic error, and the spread among the three model realisations is much smaller than the magnitude of climate change. This further supports the significance of estimated future temperature change. However, this is not the case for precipitation, implying therefore larger uncertainties for precipitation than for temperature in future climate projections.

Document Type: Article

Language: English

KeyWords Plus: GENERAL-CIRCULATION MODEL; HYDROLOGICAL CYCLE; GREENHOUSE-GAS; HIGH-RESOLUTION; STORM TRACK; VARIABILITY; TEMPERATURE; SENSITIVITY; EUROPE; UNCERTAINTY

Reprint Address: Brankovic, C (reprint author), Croatian Meteorol & Hydrol Serv DHMZ, Gric 3, Zagreb 10000, Croatia

Addresses:1. Croatian Meteorol & Hydrol Serv DHMZ, Zagreb 10000, Croatia
E-mail Addresses: [email protected]


I dont know how else to prove that indeed there is a "consensus" in any other way than performing a metaanalysis of all of these results for you, which would basically take about a year and be a thesis chapter in any PhD dissertation.

Likely someone has already done this, and I will try to find the exact article for you. Until then this is the best I can do...

[Fraggle145]

That is your major problem. You say go google it, it is everywhere.
And I agree. However, so is the opposite side of the agenda.

Plenty to back both sides.

My previous post probably counters this probably more than anything else. If you look on google it is a **** mess and you can hardly find anything relevant its dribble from both sides. Not so in the literature.

[Collier11]

Okay I havent figured out the best way to present an example of the consensus... Here is what I came up with. I did a search using web of science (the preeminent search engine for all scientific journals, their citation index is basically how journals assess their importance, etc...). I entered global climate change as the search term. Out of 19,540 results returned I looked through the abstracts of the first 3 pages (each page has 10 results on it) with subjects ranging from power plants in Korea to movements of Tigers, none of which had any shadow of a doubt that climate change is happening and of those the vast majority that went into any direct detail on the subject attributed the changes to anthropogenic causes.

As an example here is result number 15 verbatim from the search engine.



I dont know how else to prove that indeed there is a "consensus" in any other way than performing a metaanalysis of all of these results for you, which would basically take about a year and be a thesis chapter in any PhD dissertation.

Likely someone has already done this, and I will try to find the exact article for you. Until then this is the best I can do...

Thru all of LAS's childish and close-minded bantering he repeatedly missed the point of 75 and myself. Neither of us are arguing Climate change, both of us contest global warming.

My main points are these

1) It was made to appear worse so that a financial benefit could be seen at the highest level

2) The human contributions are largely contested

3) Therefore, I find it more of a natural process that has been apparently tracked as far back as anyone can see

Since you are actually level headed Frag, what is your opinion on these?

[LosAngelesSooner]

Crow im assumingYep. You'll be eating plenty of it soon enough.

[OU_Sooners75]

Fraggle, I am not contesting that regional and global climate change is occurring.

I have stated on this site more than naught, that it is not solely the cause of man for the rise or drop in global climate change. It also has to do with the cycles the earth goes through and has through out its existence.

Should we change our ways from fossil fuels, yes. But is industry entirely to blame for any climate change? No.

What I am contesting is this global warming BS that seems to be the main battle cry for the liberals in this country and world.

[Collier11]

Yep. You'll be eating plenty of it soon enough.

You got me good f*cker :rolleyes:

[LosAngelesSooner]

Thru all of LAS's childish and close-minded bantering he repeatedly missed the point of 75 and myself. Neither of us are arguing Climate change, both of us contest global warming.

My main points are these

1) It was made to appear worse so that a financial benefit could be seen at the highest level

2) The human contributions are largely contested

3) Therefore, I find it more of a natural process that has been apparently tracked as far back as anyone can see

Since you are actually level headed Frag, what is your opinion on these?Blah...blah...blah...the Earth is flat. We get it.

Inhofe is proud of you.

Whatever...freakin' Orly Tait disciples.

[Crucifax Autumn]

The problem with that argument is that actual scientists have been saying "climate change" all along. The shifting temperatures cause more heat in some regions and more cold in others. As we've all agreed before, at least some of this shift is clearly attributable to human behavior, the only disagreement being just how much.

Just because uneducated activists ran with the phrase "global warming" does not make it true that that's what scientists were saying. They weren't.

Edit: When I started this reply we were back at post 67! lol

[Collier11]

Not true, global warming was the term that was coined when they were trying to prove to all of us how bad we were hurting the earth.

[OU_Sooners75]

Blah...blah...blah...the Earth is flat. We get it.

Inhofe is proud of you.

Whatever...freakin' Orly Tait disciples.


What is your problem?

Are you too feeble minded to actually think not everyone goes off of what their congressman/woman thinks or says?

Just because you go off of what All Gore states does not mean everyone does.

[LosAngelesSooner]

What I am contesting is this global warming BS that seems to be the main battle cry for the liberals in this country and world.When will you get it through your thick skull that you're using an outdated term for what is now more accurately being referred to as man made global climate change? People get lazy and refer to it as "global warming", kinda like people say Kleenex instead of facial tissues.

Lord have mercy...

[Collier11]

Blah...blah...blah...the Earth is flat. We get it.

Inhofe is proud of you.

Whatever...freakin' Orly Tait disciples.

Yea since I care so much about politics

[Collier11]

When will you get it through your thick skull that you're using an outdated term for what is now more accurately being referred to as man made global climate change? People get lazy and refer to it as "global warming", kinda like people say Kleenex instead of facial tissues.

Lord have mercy...

Nice LAS...you spew the same crap for an hour and then you completely jump on Cruxs statement as if it were your own...real nice

[LosAngelesSooner]

What is your problem?

Are you too feeble minded to actually think not everyone goes off of what their congressman/woman thinks or says?

Just because you go off of what All Gore states does not mean everyone does.
Yeah...uhm...show me where I've quoted Al Gore?

Thanks...I'll be waiting. Should be a few degrees warmer by the time you finish looking...:cool:

[Crucifax Autumn]

Not true, global warming was the term that was coined when they were trying to prove to all of us how bad we were hurting the earth.

Coined by dumbass activists, NOT the scientists doing the climate research. They are generally smarter than that.

[OU_Sooners75]

When will you get it through your thick skull that you're using an outdated term for what is now more accurately being referred to as man made global climate change? People get lazy and refer to it as "global warming", kinda like people say Kleenex instead of facial tissues.

Lord have mercy...


And when will you be able to actually comprehend how to read an OP?

This thread was started to contest the idiots that continue to believe in global warming not climate change.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Nice LAS...you spew the same crap for an hour and then you completely jump on Cruxs statement as if it were your own...real nice
Funny...I didn't even read his statement. But it's common sense, so I'm not surprised that he and I both put it out there and you guys failed to acknowledge it.

[Collier11]

So Crux, being reasonable as you are, I assume you would agree atleast somewhat with what I have stated throughout the last 2 pages?

[OU_Sooners75]

Yeah...uhm...show me where I've quoted Al Gore?

Thanks...I'll be waiting. Should be a few degrees warmer by the time you finish looking...:cool:


You are the idiot that has thought global warming is true...not me.

Hence you are going from what Al Gore is protesting.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I'm gonna go watch this week's episode of Legend of the Seeker. This argument will be more fun later when you guys break out the knives and guns.

[Collier11]

Afterall LAS, it is your buddies in Hollywood that gave Gore an oscar and your buddies that gave him a peace prize which im confident that you applauded, lol

[LosAngelesSooner]

And when will you be able to actually comprehend how to read an OP?

This thread was started to contest the idiots that continue to believe in global warming not climate change.http://www.theboxset.com/images/reviewcaptures/612capture_tombstone03.jpg
http://www.etv.state.ms.us/television/Series/Roads/2008/2812/Crawfish%20.jpg

Niiiiiice...

[OU_Sooners75]

LOL

I actually have to spek you on that one. well played!

[LosAngelesSooner]

You are the idiot that has thought global warming is true...not me.

Hence you are going from what Al Gore is protesting.
Global Climate Change IS true. Genius.

Keep on denying...

[LosAngelesSooner]

Afterall LAS, it is your buddies in Hollywood that gave Gore an oscar and your buddies that gave him a peace prize which im confident that you applauded, lolI really could give two ****s about either.

And I don't have any buddies on the Academy.

I love how you try to lump 15 million people in LA into one big...cabal? conspiracy? family?

I don't know what...

But at least we recognize science...so whatever...

[LosAngelesSooner]

I'm gonna go watch this week's episode of Legend of the Seeker. This argument will be more fun later when you guys break out the knives and guns.I'll join you. This thread is gheyer than ghey.

[Fraggle145]

Not true, global warming was the term that was coined when they were trying to prove to all of us how bad we were hurting the earth.

This is not true. In previous threads I have shown some of the first reseach on the topic, by Hansen. Its always been climate change. All of the long term trends are on the whole warming. Hence global warming.

[Collier11]

You missed the point, it suddenly changed to Global warming when they decided to try and convince us that humans were murdering mother earth, it was all in the first round of fear mongering and cashing in

[Fraggle145]

Thru all of LAS's childish and close-minded bantering he repeatedly missed the point of 75 and myself. Neither of us are arguing Climate change, both of us contest global warming.

My main points are these

1) It was made to appear worse so that a financial benefit could be seen at the highest level

2) The human contributions are largely contested

3) Therefore, I find it more of a natural process that has been apparently tracked as far back as anyone can see

1) What else would you expect anyone to do? Politics and policy in this day and age only move on the meter if there is fear and sensationalism behind them. Secondarily as Homey pointed out money has always moved the meter. I am not saying its right, but the consequences of warming probably have a greater effect on much more people than someone blowing up a plane. Towards the second point, if you think scientists are in it for the money you are kidding yourself. There is way more money to be found in other areas, including the majority of areas on the other side of the issue. I disagree that it is about a redistribution of wealth... If those with the wealth got behind any of the green changes they would own it and be able to sell it before any of the poor could blink.

2) This is just simply wrong. I dont know how else to say it. I'm not trying to be a dick when I say that either. They are contested in the popular literature, not in the scientific literature. Think about it, if I had something that could disprove global warming definitively and not be debunked dont you think as a scientist I would want to put it out there? 1) selfishly think of the name recognition, and 2) that is the whole purpose of science!

3) If you look on any of the graphs tracking global temperature it does go up and down, but what is more interesting is the rate. Additionally there is variability around a mean within years. Right now all of the means are going up. There are many natural cylces that have been tracked ad infinitum, but the rate is the key. The rates now are faster and earlier than they are understood to have been ever before.


Fraggle, I am not contesting that regional and global climate change is occurring.

I have stated on this site more than naught, that it is not solely the cause of man for the rise or drop in global climate change. It also has to do with the cycles the earth goes through and has through out its existence.

Should we change our ways from fossil fuels, yes. But is industry entirely to blame for any climate change? No.

What I am contesting is this global warming BS that seems to be the main battle cry for the liberals in this country and world.

No doubt cycles of the earth have everything to do with climate change, however, like I said above how are we effecting the those cycles and their respective rates? I mean you have to say what is different why is it going faster? and when did it start going faster? Volcanoes were always here, everything else was always here... When did humans really start burning ****?

I guess what I would say is that people pushing agendas are always annoying and often wrong, but dont let that cloud the facts of what is actually happening.

Alright guys that was my best for now, maybe more tomorrow.

[Collier11]

1) What else would you expect anyone to do? Politics and policy in this day and age only move on the meter if there is fear and sensationalism behind them. Secondarily as Homey pointed out money has always moved the meter. I am not saying its right, but the consequences of warming probably have a greater effect on much more people than someone blowing up a plane. Towards the second point, if you think scientists are in it for the money you are kidding yourself. There is way more money to be found in other areas, including the majority of areas on the other side of the issue. I disagree that it is about a redistribution of wealth... If those with the wealth got behind any of the green changes they would own it and be able to sell it before any of the poor could blink.

not just scientists, in fact mostly not scientists...there is big money in this venture, dont kid yourself

2) This is just simply wrong. I dont know how else to say it. I'm not trying to be a dick when I say that either. They are contested in the popular literature, not in the scientific literature. Think about it, if I had something that could disprove global warming definitively and not be debunked dont you think as a scientist I would want to put it out there? 1) selfishly think of the name recognition, and 2) that is the whole purpose of science!

Forgive me if im wrong but wasnt there recently a report that came out that stated that cows do more to harm the environment than man?

3) If you look on any of the graphs tracking global temperature it does go up and down, but what is more interesting is the rate. Additionally there is variability around a mean within years. Right now all of the means are going up. There are many natural cylces that have been tracked ad infinitum, but the rate is the key. The rates now are faster and earlier than they are understood to have been ever before.

No doubt cycles of the earth have everything to do with climate change, however, like I said above how are we effecting the rates. I mean you have to say what is different why is it going faster? and when did it start going faster? Volcanoes were always here, everything else was always here... When did humans really start burning ****?

I guess what I would say is that people pushing agendas are always annoying and often wrong, but dont let that cloud the facts of what is actually happening.

Alright guys that was my best for now, maybe more tomorrow.

Again, all we were saying...LAS is too, eh, slow to understand this.

[Collier11]

1) What else would you expect anyone to do? Politics and policy in this day and age only move on the meter if there is fear and sensationalism behind them. Secondarily as Homey pointed out money has always moved the meter. I am not saying its right, but the consequences of warming probably have a greater effect on much more people than someone blowing up a plane. Towards the second point, if you think scientists are in it for the money you are kidding yourself. There is way more money to be found in other areas, including the majority of areas on the other side of the issue. I disagree that it is about a redistribution of wealth... If those with the wealth got behind any of the green changes they would own it and be able to sell it before any of the poor could blink.

2) This is just simply wrong. I dont know how else to say it. I'm not trying to be a dick when I say that either. They are contested in the popular literature, not in the scientific literature. Think about it, if I had something that could disprove global warming definitively and not be debunked dont you think as a scientist I would want to put it out there? 1) selfishly think of the name recognition, and 2) that is the whole purpose of science!

3) If you look on any of the graphs tracking global temperature it does go up and down, but what is more interesting is the rate. Additionally there is variability around a mean within years. Right now all of the means are going up. There are many natural cylces that have been tracked ad infinitum, but the rate is the key. The rates now are faster and earlier than they are understood to have been ever before.



No doubt cycles of the earth have everything to do with climate change, however, like I said above how are we effecting the those cycles and their respective rates? I mean you have to say what is different why is it going faster? and when did it start going faster? Volcanoes were always here, everything else was always here... When did humans really start burning ****?

I guess what I would say is that people pushing agendas are always annoying and often wrong, but dont let that cloud the facts of what is actually happening.

Alright guys that was my best for now, maybe more tomorrow.

Hey LAS, see what a rational dicussion and even disagreement looks like, you should try it sometime. There is a reason you get more time off around here than GW took in his time at the whitehouse :D

[OU_Sooners75]

rational and LAS are two exact opposites it seems.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Again, all we were saying...LAS is too, eh, slow to understand this.
Keeeeeeeeeeeeeep crawfishin', buddy...

[LosAngelesSooner]

rational and LAS are two exact opposites it seems.Kinda like Logical reasoning using scientific facts and you are on opposite sides of the spectrum? ;)

[LosAngelesSooner]

Hey LAS, see what a rational dicussion and even disagreement looks like, you should try it sometime. There is a reason you get more time off around here than GW took in his time at the whitehouse :DI've DONE that.

About fifty times.

And yet we STILL have little Orly Taits coming around here denying...denying...denying no matter what the facts state.

So, yeah...I'm gonna treat tin foil hat wearers like the crazy conspiracy theorists they are. Deal with it.

[Collier11]

I guess you didnt know that the number of the general public who believe in all of this jazz has dropped nearly 10% in the most recent poll...guess it isnt just us that are skeptical

And again, never have I said I dont believe, just to the extent and the motivation are my questions

[Crucifax Autumn]

Or maybe too many people watch Fox?

[Collier11]

Fox is no more of a propaganda pusher than the lefty stations my friend

[LosAngelesSooner]

Heh...yeah. I'm sure THAT poll is accurate.

Just like all the other links deniers keep posting...

[LosAngelesSooner]

Fox is no more of a propaganda pusher than the MSNBC my friendFixed for accuracy.

[Collier11]

Heh...yeah. I'm sure THAT poll is accurate.

Just like all the other links deniers keep posting...

Funny how you just discount my links and data but act like your links are the key to the golden egg...thats how close minded people work though I suppose

[Crucifax Autumn]

Too much supposed "news" from most sources is a combination of made-up horseshat and opinion period.

[Collier11]

hell you cant trust mainstream news anymore, not too many you can trust...kinda like the govt, unfortunate

[Crucifax Autumn]

The accuracy of that poll has nothing to do with anything. Who cares what most people "believe" either way? 90% of the population could believe that elephants **** Pepsi, but that doesn't make it true.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Funny how you just discount my links and data but act like your links are the key to the golden egg...thats how close minded people work though I supposePost something worth while, then...

[Collier11]

if that was the precursor I wouldnt read anything you post ;)

[Crucifax Autumn]

Hell, I'd quit the net altogether!

[Collier11]

Im going to bed, have fun playing with yourself for a few hrs LAS

[MrJimBeam]

I trust what I see.

And if I see snow on my front lawn in Claremore, OK tomorrow afternoon it will be for the 21st straight day. I've seen 40 degrees twice since Dec 22nd.

It's been three weeks since it snowed. It's still on the ground. In Oklahoma.

Hell, the ****ing giraffes are freezing to death down here.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I see sunlight.

[jkjsooner]

No, I aced science. It was math that was my downfall.

If math is your downfall then that says a lot about the level of science that you aced.


spending 20-hours a day "researching" a hole in the ozone and proclaiming that man has ****ed up the world and we're all gonna burn to death, etc. isn't "credible" science.

You do realize that the hole in the ozone layer has almost nothing to do with global warming, right? The hole in the ozone layer is caused primarily from CFC's. Regulatory action in the '80s have been shown to have improved the ozone layer and many scientists believe we are on the way to recovery.

This is just another example that 1) these scientists know what they're doing and 2) human actions can have an impact at a global scale.

[C&CDean]

If math is your downfall then that says a lot about the level of science that you aced.

Earth science and biology. Aced them both. Chemistry? I quit after one day when the dude put some algebraic formula up there and said "if you can't figure this problem out, you do not belong in this class." I'm thinking that the whole global climate change thing would fall under Earth science, but I might be wrong...


Ozone schmozone. It's all cyclical phenomena that has been going on for brazillions of years. Pointy-headed geeks who happen to have newer tools to analyze all this crap still don't have a damn thing figured out. The climate is changing. It has always been changing. That's why we've had ice ages, flooding, drought, heat, etc. However, it ain't warming. That's the rub. It's ****ing freezing.

[hellogoodbye]

Pointy-headed geeks who happen to have newer tools to analyze all this crap still don't have a damn thing figured out.

this

[SCOUT]

This is not true. In previous threads I have shown some of the first reseach on the topic, by Hansen. Its always been climate change. All of the long term trends are on the whole warming. Hence global warming.

Fraggle, Hansen himself gave a presentation called "Global Warming Time Bomb: Actions Needed to Avert Disaster".

Here is the link to the presentation on the Columbia website from October 2009,
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2009/ClubOfRome_20091026.pdf

[LosAngelesSooner]

The amount of simplistic thinking coming from the deniers in this thread is ASTOUNDING.

[yermom]

the best part of the global warming debate is how it falls with political beliefs

if you liked Bush, you probably think global warming is a hoax

[C&CDean]

The amount of simplistic thinking coming from the deniers in this thread is ASTOUNDING.

KISS

Avoid $1,000 solutions to $1 problems. Simple is ALWAYS better.

[yermom]

simple solutions aren't the same as simple thinking

[Fraggle145]

Fraggle, Hansen himself gave a presentation called "Global Warming Time Bomb: Actions Needed to Avert Disaster".

Here is the link to the presentation on the Columbia website from October 2009,
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2009/ClubOfRome_20091026.pdf

Right, I am sure he did. But what did he call it in the early 80s when he was first publishing about it?

[Fraggle145]

I guess you didnt know that the number of the general public who believe in all of this jazz has dropped nearly 10% in the most recent poll...guess it isnt just us that are skeptical

And again, never have I said I dont believe, just to the extent and the motivation are my questions

Like public opinion has anything to do with what is actually happening. Most people are uninformed about pretty much everything unless it is what they actually do all day...

[Fraggle145]

Earth science and biology. Aced them both. Chemistry? I quit after one day when the dude put some algebraic formula up there and said "if you can't figure this problem out, you do not belong in this class." I'm thinking that the whole global climate change thing would fall under Earth science, but I might be wrong...

To understand the climate math and most upper level biology, zoology, ecology, and chemistry you need at least a rudimentary understanding of calculus and statistics.

[Turd_Ferguson]

the best part of the global warming debate is how it falls with political beliefs

if you liked Bush, you probably think global warming is a hoax...and if you liked Gore, you probably think we're all going to die if we don't pay more taxes to lower the temperature.

[SCOUT]

Right, I am sure he did. But what did he call it in the early 80s when he was first publishing about it?

Granted that 1988 isn't the "early" eighties, but I think this will suffice.

From the Climate Change Hearing before the US Senate on June 23, 1988

This statement is based largely on recent studies carried out with my colleagues S. Lebedeff, D. Rind, I. Fung, A. Lacis, R. Ruedy, G. Russell and P. Stone at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
My principal conclusions are: (1) the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements, (2) the global warming is now sufficiently large that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect, and (3) in our computer climate simulations the greenhouse effect now is already large enough to begin to affect the probability of occurrence of extreme events such as summer heat waves; the model results imply that heat wave/drought occurrences in the Southeast and Midwest United States may be more frequent in the next decade than in climatological (1950-1980) statistics.

[Collier11]

Like public opinion has anything to do with what is actually happening. Most people are uninformed about pretty much everything unless it is what they actually do all day...

General public has proven over time to be smarter than they are given credit for, I could take that several directions but I dont want to stir any pots so I will leave it at that

[hellogoodbye]

Simplistic? There has been a lot of back and forth (and yea the thread does have a certain tone to its title), but Ive seen a lot of reasoned, calm issues brought up here by seemingly literal folks, despite all the negative generalizations and name calling.

There are a lot of complicated things coming out of smokestacks and tailpipes to be worried about - accumulation and environmental effects beyond the regional. C02 isnt one of them.


To understand the climate math and most upper level biology, zoology, ecology, and chemistry you need at least a rudimentary understanding of calculus and statistics.


Despite the internet climate expert histrionics, for someone to claim to be an actual climate science expert, one must be expertly proficient in multiple, myriad scientific diciplines. There are few of these people in the world, and if someone is advertising themselves as one - they are very likely not, but are probably a climate scientologist. :D

[Fraggle145]

There are a lot of complicated things coming out of smokestacks and tailpipes to be worried about - accumulation and environmental effects beyond the regional. C02 isnt one of them.

I'd disagree with you here. :O

[Fraggle145]

Granted that 1988 isn't the "early" eighties, but I think this will suffice.

From the Climate Change Hearing before the US Senate on June 23, 1988

Dude remember we've went round and round about this before?

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2704988&postcount=97

[Fraggle145]

Granted that 1988 isn't the "early" eighties, but I think this will suffice.

From the Climate Change Hearing before the US Senate on June 23, 1988

If the trend in temperature is going up what else is he supposed to call it? :confused: I mean he is describing what the temperature did according to his research.

I'm not trying to argue that no scientist uses the term "global warming" I am simply arguing that in the literature it is described as climate change/anthropogenic climate change and the direction the change has been going is towards warming.

[hellogoodbye]

I'd disagree with you here. :O

And I totally get that (just this exchange right here tells me your a pretty cool dude fwiw and a conversation - despite the rigid stances - is actually obtainable).

[yermom]

...and if you liked Gore, you probably think we're all going to die if we don't pay more taxes to lower the temperature.


i'm not talking about taxes, i'm talking about what you think the science is

your disdain for taxes shouldn't really change how you feel on the validity of a theory, right?

[Collier11]

but are you talkin bout practice?

[Explodo]

So have the Warmingists decided on what temp they want the globe to be yet?

[Explodo]

And do the believers believe CO2 is the root cause for said change in climate?

[TopDawg]

Fox is no more of a propaganda pusher than the lefty stations my friend

The problem isn't that stations have an agenda. The problem is that Fox's agenda is anti-intellectualism.

[Collier11]

but msnbc and cnn arent? Thats my issue, there is so much whining about fox but they are no diff than the other cable news stations. My gosh, Olberman is the biggest lying POS doosh that ive ever listened to in my life and that dyke on the same station isnt much better. Thats what they do, sensationalize for ratings

[TopDawg]

but msnbc and cnn arent? Thats my issue, there is so much whining about fox but they are no diff than the other cable news stations. My gosh, Olberman is the biggest lying POS doosh that ive ever listened to in my life and that dyke on the same station isnt much better. Thats what they do, sensationalize for ratings

MSNBC and CNN aren't what? Anti-intellectual. I'd be interested to see examples of that type of behavior. MSNBC has certainly made an effort to be the anti-Fox as far as political leanings go, but do they also have anti-intellectual behaviors? Probably so, you tend to glaze over things when you're supporting a political agenda, but I haven't see anybody that can compete with Fox when it comes to anti-intellectualism. And it's important to note that sensationalism is different than anti-intellectualism. Sensationalism is something that just about every news station that depends on viewers or listeners is guilty of and it's awful. But it seems to me that Fox is way ahead of the curve on anti-intellectualism.

This Daily Show clip (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-8-2009/gretchen-carlson-dumbs-down) does a decent job of showing the anti-intellectual approach that Fox often takes. The czar example is absolutely ludicrous.

Any self-respecting news station would be embarrassed to have one of their on-air personalities go on record as saying that they didn't know what a czar was. And any news station that was honestly concerned about czars in America and had even a token concern about being fair and balanced would've been asking questions about them when Bush (or any other Republican president before him) was appointing them.

[LosAngelesSooner]

KISS

Avoid $1,000 solutions to $1 problems. Simple is ALWAYS better.Tell that to Jonas Salk.

[LosAngelesSooner]

but msnbc and cnn arent? Thats my issue, there is so much whining about fox but they are no diff than the other cable news stations. My gosh, Olberman is the biggest lying POS doosh that ive ever listened to in my life and that dyke on the same station isnt much better. Thats what they do, sensationalize for ratings
"Dyke" is a bigoted and derrogatory term. I'm giving you credit that you didn't know that.

And Rush makes Olberman look like the most honest person on Earth. Beck makes Olberman look like the most stable and calm person on Earth.

That said, I'd rather watch O'Reilly. (whenever Palin isn't working)

[Collier11]

Well she spews alot of hatred and lies and she is a dyke so I dont exactly feel bad about it, im pretty sure I meant it to be derogatory

[LosAngelesSooner]

Cool. I suppose the 'N' word is okay now, too. :rolleyes:

[SCOUT]

Dude remember we've went round and round about this before?

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2704988&postcount=97


If the trend in temperature is going up what else is he supposed to call it? :confused: I mean he is describing what the temperature did according to his research.

I'm not trying to argue that no scientist uses the term "global warming" I am simply arguing that in the literature it is described as climate change/anthropogenic climate change and the direction the change has been going is towards warming.

Yes I do remember this subject coming up before and yes calling a temperature rise warming isn't new news. However, you keep claiming that no scientists used the term in a scientific context and continue to use Hansen as the example. That is his intro while testifying to Congress. So you are saying that because he testified to Congress that we had global warming that doesn't constitute his scientific opinion and he really meant climate change?

[Fraggle145]

Yes I do remember this subject coming up before and yes calling a temperature rise warming isn't new news. However, you keep claiming that no scientists used the term in a scientific context and continue to use Hansen as the example. That is his intro while testifying to Congress. So you are saying that because he testified to Congress that we had global warming that doesn't constitute his scientific opinion and he really meant climate change?

I keep using Hansen because it is easy for me and its a well known name. Basically we are arguing semantics here. All the trends are warming. Yes it is called climate change or anthropogenic climate change in the scientific literature. It is his opinion and mine that the climate is warming. That doesnt mean that is what it is called or what the phenomenon is "officially" recognized as, or what it was always called. The reason for this is it only describes one aspect of the climate. In addition to he warming trends, more extreme variations in other climate variables was also predicted including temperature (including more extreme temperatures), precipitation amounts and distributions just to name a few. That is another reason why the more appropriate and the term that is used is in the literature is climate change, not global warming.

People taking a position opposite to mine seem to think it is a big deal that we use the term climate change instead of global warming. Why is it a big deal? IS it a big deal? Probably not.

[Collier11]

Cool. I suppose the 'N' word is okay now, too. :rolleyes:

You are ridiculous beyond belief

[KABOOKIE]

I didn't want to read this entire thread of LAS yakking about how right he is. Just wanted to say Dean had it right on page 1. STFU, Keith.

[LosAngelesSooner]

You are ridiculous beyond beliefReally? You try to justify using an EXTREMELY insulting and loaded word since you "mean it as an insult" then act FLABBERGASTED when someone points out that just because you MEAN it, doesn't make it any less OFFENSIVE and inappropriate.

Gotcha. I'M the ridiculous one...:rolleyes:...

[LosAngelesSooner]

I didn't want to read this entire thread of LAS yakking about how right he is. Just wanted to say Dean had it right on page 1. STFU, Keith.Hey, Kabook? I got something for you to suck on.

[Collier11]

Really? You try to justify using an EXTREMELY insulting and loaded word since you "mean it as an insult" then act FLABBERGASTED when someone points out that just because you MEAN it, doesn't make it any less OFFENSIVE and inappropriate.

Gotcha. I'M the ridiculous one...:rolleyes:...

who is it offensive to? You, please! I have witnessed you calling people all kinds of names on here, dont sit here and act like one name for some worthless woman on a cable news show is any worse than you calling people names that you actually interact with on a daily basis. If it makes you feel any better I think Olberman is a POS c*cksucker, is that one loaded as well?

[Crucifax Autumn]

A popcicle?

[Fraggle145]

I'm gonna go with golf ball through a garden hose.

[Collier11]

surely LAS wouldnt tell someone to perform fellatio on him, I mean that would be offensive and all and we all know LAS has the market cornered on not saying things that are offensive or dimwitted :D

[LosAngelesSooner]

who is it offensive to? You, please! I have witnessed you calling people all kinds of names on here, dont sit here and act like one name for some worthless woman on a cable news show is any worse than you calling people names that you actually interact with on a daily basis. If it makes you feel any better I think Olberman is a POS c*cksucker, is that one loaded as well?Not me. Not directly, anyway.

Geez. I guess I SHOULDN'T have given you that credit I did...Lord...

To the gay community "faggot" is the 'n' word.
To the lesbian community "dike" is the 'n' word.

VERY offensive and shows a level of ignorance at best and bigotry at worst.

And since my sister is a lesbian it does offend me to a degree, but it certainly doesn't "enrage me." I just thought you wouldn't want to be one of those guys. I guess you don't care if you are.

[LosAngelesSooner]

surely LAS wouldnt tell someone to perform fellatio on him, I mean that would be offensive and all and we all know LAS has the market cornered on not saying things that are offensive or dimwitted :D
How could I EVER say anything offensive or dimwitted? You've bought up all the available comments in both those areas in the past three days! :cool:

[Okla-homey]

Not me. Not directly, anyway.

Geez. I guess I SHOULDN'T have given you that credit I did...Lord...

To the gay community "faggot" is the 'n' word.
To the lesbian community "dike" is the 'n' word.

VERY offensive and shows a level of ignorance at best and bigotry at worst.

And since my sister is a lesbian it does offend me to a degree, but it certainly doesn't "enrage me." I just thought you wouldn't want to be one of those guys. I guess you don't care if you are.

Hey Poindexter, thanks for trying to give us unhip provincials a clue, but what with your sister and all, you should know, the word is spelled "dyke." Not dike. Sorry. Couldn't resist.;)

[LosAngelesSooner]

Hey Poindexter, thanks for trying to give us unhip provincials a clue, but what with your sister and all, you should know, the word is spelled "dyke." Not dike. Sorry. Couldn't resist.;)
Sorry. I'm kinda out of date on my "hate speak." Thanks for the expert guidance. :D

[yermom]

well, you put fingers in one and the other...

oh, wait, never mind

[C&CDean]

You know what' ironic here? The guy in LA who constantly uses terms like "mock indignation!" and here he is being all mock indignant.

Saying faggot or dyke is nothing like saying ******. Nothing at all. Saying honkey cracker-assed cracker is like saying ******. Keep up.

[NormanPride]

All of my gay friends call each other fags and dykes.

[Explodo]

So I guess Flannel Wearing, Friend Of Judy Garland is out too?

[Collier11]

Not me. Not directly, anyway.

Geez. I guess I SHOULDN'T have given you that credit I did...Lord...

To the gay community "faggot" is the 'n' word.
To the lesbian community "dike" is the 'n' word.

VERY offensive and shows a level of ignorance at best and bigotry at worst.

And since my sister is a lesbian it does offend me to a degree, but it certainly doesn't "enrage me." I just thought you wouldn't want to be one of those guys. I guess you don't care if you are.

her being a lesbian isnt the reason I call her a dyke, the way she acts as a person is the reason I call her that, she has earned it. There are different ways to use a word and I am fairly pleased and backed up with my usage in this instance

Btw, I have a gay uncle so I guess we are even on that one

[KABOOKIE]

All of my gay friends call each other fags and dykes.

They say it all the time in all their gay music too.

[Howzit]

her being a lesbian isnt the reason I call her a dyke, the way she acts as a person is the reason I call her that, she has earned it. There are different ways to use a word and I am fairly pleased and backed up with my usage in this instance

Btw, I have a gay uncle so I guess we are even on that one

Sir, you are NOT even. Having a gay uncle is MAYBE 83% of having a lesbian sister. Tops.

[Explodo]

My Lesbian Brother Disagees!

[Collier11]

Sir, you are NOT even. Having a gay uncle is MAYBE 83% of having a lesbian sister. Tops.

Well sh*t

[XingTheRubicon]

what about bull dyke?

[C&CDean]

Those are the worst. They scare me.

[Sooner24]

Those are the worst. They scare me.

Is that why you send your wife to work the concession stand at the LNC womens games and you stay home? ;)

[GKeeper316]

i suppose it didnt hit you that all the things we've been doing for the last 20 years in trying to stem the tide of global pollution and wasting natural resources is actually starting to work?

[Sooner24]

i suppose it didnt hit you that all the things we've been doing for the last 20 years in trying to stem the tide of global pollution and wasting natural resources is actually starting to work?

Try to keep up. We are talking about gays and lesbians.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Shut up, you honkey cracker-assed cracker.

[49r]

WTH? I came in here to look at a good ole fashioned SO AGW cripple fight and it's turned into this?

Come on, people, focus!

[Crucifax Autumn]

Maybe we can combine global warming with the dykes and have some hot lipstick lesbians.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Nope. It is my duty to gay up every thread that is ridiculously stupid and boring with tons of gay talk and general gayeree.

Just like the far right did the 2004 elections. :D

[LosAngelesSooner]

All of my gay friends call each other fags and dykes.Ever listen to rap music? :cool: