GLOBAL WARMING ????

[soonercruiser]

Coldest temps in 15 years!!!
2 degrees F tonight! -1 F tomorrow night!!!
http://www.intellicast.com/Local/Weather.aspx?location=USOK0400

How's that Global Warming thing going Al??

http://members.cox.net/franklipsinic/Other/Gore's%20tongue.jpg

[SunnySooner]

It's "climate change" now, ya idjit, pay 'tention. ;)

[GrandStrandSooner]

Yeah, I haven't heard too many complaining about the polar caps melting away lately. It must have gotten colder.

[Preservation Parcels]

Way back when I was in elementary school, there was a big scare about "The Coming Ice Age". Chicken Littles abound.

[SoonerNate]

I believe in climate change and I think it has an effect on ultra hot summers and ultra cold winters. The difference I have with Gore is that I don't think it is man made.

[soonercruiser]

It's "climate change" now, ya idjit, pay 'tention. ;)

Liberal idjits!!??
They keep chaning the names and titles in order to slither away from what they have said in the past. NOT JUST SAID....HE11! Gore made a religion and multi-billion dollar scam out of GW!
He should be in a jail cell with all his carbon credits piled around him.
And, this idjit Gore could have been President!!
:eek:

[bonkuba]

I believe in climate change and I think it has an effect on ultra hot summers and ultra cold winters. The difference I have with Gore is that I don't think it is man made.

Great post.......

[sooner59]

Yeah. The climate change doesn't mean its hotter everywhere all year. It actually involves more frequent, higher intensity storms, including areas that don't normally see those types of conditions. It means more powerful spring storms, winter storms, droughts, floods, etc. The actual "warming" is fractions of a degree on the global average. These "If global warming was real, then why is it so cold?" arguments just mean you haven't researched the science behind it. Inhofe did this last year with Snowmaggedon in D.C. He made Oklahomans look like uneducated hillbillies.

[Peach Fuzz]

I'd like to add that the 'Global Warming', as mentioned above, is more likely to 3-4 degrees over the course of 50+ years. It's also not just warming like a poster said. It's about significant storms occuring at a much higher intensity. Pick at it all you want. Only time will tell I spose

[PDXsooner]

My favorite part of snowstorms is when douschebags that refute simple science say things like "Hey look at all the snow, so much for global warming"! Thanks for making my day, douschebag!

[OUthunder]

Al Gore is a bigger idiot than Sarah Palin.

[sappstuf]

Yeah. The climate change doesn't mean its hotter everywhere all year. It actually involves more frequent, higher intensity storms, including areas that don't normally see those types of conditions. It means more powerful spring storms, winter storms, droughts, floods, etc. The actual "warming" is fractions of a degree on the global average. These "If global warming was real, then why is it so cold?" arguments just mean you haven't researched the science behind it. Inhofe did this last year with Snowmaggedon in D.C. He made Oklahomans look like uneducated hillbillies.

Can you provide a link to peer reviewed scientific literature that links anthropogenic global warming to the things you mention?

[sooner59]

Can you provide a link to peer reviewed scientific literature that links anthropogenic global warming to the things you mention?

You could probably find it as easy as I could. Its not something I read a few hours ago, its something I learned in college at the famed OU College of Arts and Sciences. My senior capstone class was based on climate change. We read quite a few articles and watched quite a few videos made by climatologists across the globe. That's what they say. I tend to put more weight into things said by Ph.D.'s who are professionals in their respected fields than I do things said by someone who stepped outside and went "brrrr, its cold".

And I don't like Al Gore, either. He is a whiny doosh who just tries to stir **** up to make a dollar and keep himself from becoming forgotten, like so many of us wish. But actual scientists do catch my ear. Is the global warming theory true? Hell, we don't know yet. It takes a long time for that to play out. Is it due to humans? Again, we don't know. But when things begin to fit in with what should happen, it just means that it is possible. Snow doesn't mean anything other than its cold in a certain location. That's what some people don't understand.

[soonercruiser]

Can you provide a link to peer reviewed scientific literature that links anthropogenic global warming to the things you mention?

I believe that the data was lost, after it was altered by the so-called scientists in GB, wasn't it???
:rolleyes:

Perhaps we could convince Captain Kirk to come back out of retirement and rescue the whales so the planet will be saved.
I'll bet Al Gore would go along with this!

[AlboSooner]

The records lows and records highs temperatures add to the climate change theory, and not to the demise of it. Personally, I am not a supporter of the climate change theory. I have my doubts.

I do think that it can't be a bad idea to reduce CO2 production, and pollution in general. America has a tremendous nature, which allows me to hunt, fish, camp, whatever...
God tells us to be good stewards of his creation. There is beauty in nature, which the very mind of God conceived. That thrills me when I think about. Imagine talking a walk in the mountain, and breathing that cleansing clean air, and you see the sun come up form the East. God designed that. He thought that was a fantastic sight.


Some people who tend to support the so-called "right" tend to oppose the climate change theory based on politics. Oil companies are historically tied to the right, and a diminish of their monetary gain is a diminish of the right as oil companies fund many right leaning canidates.

However, many oil companies are energy companies. I have no problem with them remaining energy companies, while finding ways to reduce our foreign oil addiction. They can still support whom they want, while reducing CO2 production, and pollution of our waters.

[Peach Fuzz]

Can you provide a link to peer reviewed scientific literature that links anthropogenic global warming to the things you mention?

Really dude.... Ok let me try piece everything I've read and researched for the past 5-10 years about the subject so you can tell me I'm just regurgitating what I've heard. If you want a link so bad try this

Type Climate change data, or something similar in the 'Search' bar on 'Google' or the search site of your choice... Then you can talk about how stupid scientists are at the next Fox news rally.. :D

[KC//CRIMSON]

Coldest temps in 15 years!!!
2 degrees F tonight! -1 F tomorrow night!!!
http://www.intellicast.com/Local/Weather.aspx?location=USOK0400

How's that Global Warming thing going Al??

Big bolded letters!! Lots of apostrophes!!!!!

[XingTheRubicon]

you keep saying apostrophes...i do not think it means what you think it means

[KC//CRIMSON]

you keep saying apostrophes...i do not think it means what you think it means

wrong poster, exclamation points damn it!!!!!!!

[Sooner_Havok]

Why is it that when it is 72 in January, no mention of global warming. When it is 100 for a week straight in September, no mention of global warming. But if we get a blizzard, it is

"OMFG SEE HOW F*CKING STUPID THE GLOBAL WARMING NUTTERS ARE!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1"

No, I really want an answer this time. Why? I know I won't get one, but I still want one.

g-F8EO3qOVk

[sooner59]

After a quick google, this was one of the first things I saw. It references NASA and NOAA. Short read. Doesn't say it is directly resulting from climate change, but a possible side effect, and certainly not a reason to refute climate change. Also talks about the difference between "weather" and "climate". If that isn't good enough, then by all means look up journal articles...I'm not going to. That crap takes too long, and I honestly don't care to argue over this.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earthtalks-global-warming-harsher-winter


Why Global Warming Can Mean Harsher Winter Weather

Scientists look at the big picture, not today's weather, to see the impact of climate change

Dear EarthTalk: Don’t all these huge snow and ice storms across the country mean that the globe isn’t really warming? I've never seen such a winter!
-- Mark Franklin, Helena, MT

On the surface it certainly can appear that way. But just because some of us are suffering through a particularly cold and snowy winter doesn’t refute the fact that the globe is warming as we continue to pump carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997. And the National Atmospheric and Oceanographic Administration (NOAA) reports that recent decades have been the warmest since at least around 1000 AD, and that the warming we’ve seen since the late 19th century is unprecedented over the last 1,000 years.

“You can’t tell much about the climate or where it’s headed by focusing on a particularly frigid day, or season, or year, even,” writes Eoin O’Carroll of the Christian Science Monitor. “It’s all in the long-term trends,” concurs Dr. Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Most scientists agree that we need to differentiate between weather and climate. The NOAA defines climate as the average of weather over at least a 30-year period. So periodic aberrations—like the harsh winter storms ravaging the Southeast and other parts of the country this winter—do not call the science of human-induced global warming into question.

The flip side of the question, of course, is whether global warming is at least partly to blame for especially harsh winter weather. As we pointed out in a recent EarthTalk column, warmer temperatures in the winter of 2006 caused Lake Erie to not freeze for the first time in its history. This actually led to increased snowfalls because more evaporating water from the lake was available for precipitation.

But while more extreme weather events of all kinds—from snowstorms to hurricanes to droughts—are likely side effects of a climate in transition, most scientists maintain that any year-to-year variation in weather cannot be linked directly to either a warming or cooling climate.

Even most global warming skeptics agree that a specific cold snap or freak storm doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not the climate problem is real. One such skeptic, Jimmy Hogan of the Rational Environmentalist website writes, “If we are throwing out anecdotal evidence that refutes global warming we must at the same time throw out anecdotal evidence that supports it.” He cites environmental groups holding up Hurricane Katrina as proof of global warming as one example of the latter.

If nothing else, we should all keep in mind that every time we turn up the thermostat this winter to combat the cold, we are contributing to global warming by consuming more fossil fuel power. Until we can shift our economy over to greener energy sources, global warming will be a problem, regardless of how warm or cold it is outside.

CONTACTS: NASA, www.nasa.gov; NOAA, www.noaa.gov.

[Ike]

Why is it that when it is 72 in January, no mention of global warming. When it is 100 for a week straight in September, no mention of global warming. But if we get a blizzard, it is

"OMFG SEE HOW F*CKING STUPID THE GLOBAL WARMING NUTTERS ARE!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1"

No, I really want an answer this time. Why? I know I won't get one, but I still want one.

g-F8EO3qOVk

There is only one answer. Some people understand the difference between "global" and "local", and some people do not. Largely correlated are those that understand statistics and those that do not.

[Soonerborn03]

[/url]But just because some of us are suffering through a particularly cold and snowy winter doesn’t refute the fact that the globe is warming as we continue to pump carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.Nor does it mean that greenhouse gases have anything to do with it


According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997. And the National Atmospheric and Oceanographic Administration (NOAA) reports that recent decades have been the warmest since at least around 1000 AD, and that the warming we’ve seen since the late 19th century is unprecedented over the last 1,000years.No one was recording the world's temperature 1,000 years ago, so they create a model that might be what the temperatures were like back then. How can they consider this factual?


Until we can shift our economy over to greener energy sources, global warming will be a problem, regardless of how warm or cold it is outside.These guys have quite the political axe to grind over the issue.

The only proof they had in that article about global warming causing the severe weather was due to a lake not freezing over causing for more evaporating into the atmosphere allowing for more precipitation. That's a decent theory, but I don't think it's known for a fact that that is the cause.

I took a class with a climatologist at OU my first year. Even he believes the "global warming" issue is bull****. At the same time, he also said that it could be true. The fact is, we don't have enough data for a long enough period of time to know what is really going on. People jump to conclusions when they don't have any substantial proof to prove anything.

There's no real need to freak out over a theory that may or may not be true.

[Blue]

It's a scam to tax your happy arse, imo.

[sappstuf]

After a quick google, this was one of the first things I saw. It references NASA and NOAA. Short read. Doesn't say it is directly resulting from climate change, but a possible side effect, and certainly not a reason to refute climate change. Also talks about the difference between "weather" and "climate". If that isn't good enough, then by all means look up journal articles...I'm not going to. That crap takes too long, and I honestly don't care to argue over this.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earthtalks-global-warming-harsher-winter

Thank you.

It's a lot of hubbub about 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1880. How much of that 0.8 degrees do you believe is directly related to human activities?

[SoonerNate]

For any of you suckers that are about to go out and buy some p.o.s. hybrid that runs off of electricity (coal power provides electricity btw) because you are sold by modern pop culture let me inform you of something.

One volcano puts off more carbon dioxide pollutants than the entire world population in a year.

[Peach Fuzz]

Who knows... I think most people agree that greenhouse gasses are potentially harmful. With it only warming up a few degrees since mass industrializing, It's going to take a while to reach conclusive evidence either way. At least they are somewhat educating people. I would love to see people saving where they can, using renewable energy more than fuels. Thats just me.

[SoonerNate]

Who knows... I think most people agree that greenhouse gasses are potentially harmful. With it only warming up a few degrees since mass industrializing, It's going to take a while to reach conclusive evidence either way. At least they are somewhat educating people. I would love to see people saving where they can, using renewable energy more than fuels. Thats just me.

How do you suggest we plug volcanoes?

[Peach Fuzz]

For any of you suckers that are about to go out and buy some p.o.s. hybrid that runs off of electricity (coal power provides electricity btw) because you are sold by modern pop culture let me inform you of something.

One volcano puts off more carbon dioxide pollutants than the entire world population in a year.


This is true, however we make it as to where there is always a volcano going off by our pollutants.

Arguing the other way though, The atmosphere is mainly depleted by water vapor (oceans). So we're ****ed either way. Supposedly :D

[sooner59]

Nor does it mean that greenhouse gases have anything to do with it

I never said it did.

No one was recording the world's temperature 1,000 years ago, so they create a model that might be what the temperatures were like back then. How can they consider this factual?

I would question that as well.

These guys have quite the political axe to grind over the issue.

The only proof they had in that article about global warming causing the severe weather was due to a lake not freezing over causing for more evaporating into the atmosphere allowing for more precipitation. That's a decent theory, but I don't think it's known for a fact that that is the cause.

True, its hard to prove something like. May have had nothing to do with it.

I took a class with a climatologist at OU my first year. Even he believes the "global warming" issue is bull****. At the same time, he also said that it could be true. The fact is, we don't have enough data for a long enough period of time to know what is really going on. People jump to conclusions when they don't have any substantial proof to prove anything.

Absolutely. When people jump up and yell about snow and refute warming, that is jumping to conclusions as well. As I said earlier, I am not presenting the theory as fact, but rather weighing the research being done and observing over time. It certainly appears that there is warming. The cause it what is at issue. I don't claim that humans are the cause, but its possible that we contribute. I also don't claim GW is causing winter storms, but rather that it plays into the models, so using that as basis to refute it just means that the argument isn't founded on research, but probably TV or politics instead.

There's no real need to freak out over a theory that may or may not be true.

Agreed.

I didn't look for the perfect article, just something quick because I am not doing a thesis on it, just wanted to show that scientists have thought a little bit about this and there is a bunch of information available.

[SunnySooner]

I would like to see us become less oil dependent, since most of the easily accessible oil in the world is owned by the nuttiest jobs on the planet, but I also believe there are a lot of people who stand to make serious coin in selling the "carbon from people is bad" spiel.

[sooner59]

Thank you.

It's a lot of hubbub about 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1880. How much of that 0.8 degrees do you believe is directly related to human activities?

Good question. That is what they are trying to determine, but its pretty difficult. I would assume very little. I don't equate Global Warming/Climate Change with The Greenhouse Effect, though. The Greenhouse effect may or may not have a significant role. A rise in average global temperature is just based on measurements, not theory. Therefore, I don't get immersed in the human-cause argument. I just wanted to say, hey, just because its snowing doesn't mean that the average global temps aren't rising.

And 0.8 degrees Celsius isn't much, but a trend is more important. A rise of 5 degrees can cause a lot of problems. More of a long-term problem.

[Peach Fuzz]

This has always been a very interesting argument to me. I don't see how people can look at the massive industrialization, for the last 160 years, and not think there is any consequences for the pollution.

Is that really how some of you think? What compels you to think that way? I would really like to hear you guys anwering the questions instead of acting like we're the strange folk/

By the way, Temperature records have been somewhat kept for 600+ years. I'm neither for nor against global warming, climate changes, whatever the hell you want to call it. I'm just pointing out things for the sake or discussion

[jkjsooner]

The only proof they had in that article about global warming causing the severe weather was due to a lake not freezing over causing for more evaporating into the atmosphere allowing for more precipitation. That's a decent theory, but I don't think it's known for a fact that that is the cause.


While the article doesn't provide absolute proof that the localized warming in Buffalo caused the extra snowfall, it sure as hell refutes the theory that an increase in snowfall disproves warming since there was proof of localized warming in the area (the lakes not freezing). If follows that if you can have more snowfall with higher localized temperatures then you damn sure could have more snowfall with higher global temperatures.

Not that an intelligent person would need such an example to disprove such an idiotic notion that snow disproves global warming.

[GKeeper316]

Coldest temps in 15 years!!!
2 degrees F tonight! -1 F tomorrow night!!!
http://www.intellicast.com/Local/Weather.aspx?location=USOK0400

How's that Global Warming thing going Al??

http://members.cox.net/franklipsinic/Other/Gore's%20tongue.jpg

i'm hoping you're retarded, so you'll actually have an excuse.

[PDXsooner]

Amongst scientists (who aren't paid by fossil fuel companies) this isn't even a debate anymore. In Oklahoma for some reason, it still is.

[soonercruiser]

wrong poster, exclamation points damn it!!!!!!!

Exclamations points!!!
Lots of profanity!!!?????
:rolleyes:

[GKeeper316]

Amongst scientists (who aren't paid by fossil fuel companies) this isn't even a debate anymore. In Oklahoma for some reason, it still is.

because oklahoma is full to the brim with evangelical dickwads who think the earth is only 6000 years old and jesus rode his dinosaur to church on sundays.

their tiny tiny little brains aren't able to comprehend the vastness of time, the age of the sun, its orbiting planets, or the earth, specifically.

[SoonerNate]

It isn't settled science. Again, how are you alarmists planning on stopping volcanoes? I want to hear some solutions not some crap you heard on MTV.

[Blue]

because oklahoma is full to the brim with evangelical dickwads who think the earth is only 6000 years old and jesus rode his dinosaur to church on sundays.

their tiny tiny little brains aren't able to comprehend the vastness of time, the age of the sun, its orbiting planets, or the earth, specifically.

Real nice.

[soonercruiser]

i'm hoping you're retarded, so you'll actually have an excuse.

Must be a communist, since you don't believe in free speech, or like a good cartoon??
:rolleyes:

BTW KC// - I like emoticons too. :D :D :D
Profit should have warned you libs!
The creators of the web site included all kinds of post icons, emoticons ;) , and text tools at the top of the posting dialog box.
There is even a way to modify a post and "go advanced". But....."no"!
I thought not.

[Blue]

Amongst scientists (who aren't paid by fossil fuel companies) this isn't even a debate anymore. In Oklahoma for some reason, it still is.

Uh, yeah it is. You already forget Climategate? Fossil Fuel companies aren't the only ones with a dog in the hunt. Seems theres alot of money to be made in cap and trade and "green" technology.

[SoonerNate]

Uh, yeah it is. You already forget Climategate? Fossil Fuel companies aren't the only ones with a dog in the hunt. Seems theres alot of money to be made in cap and trade and "green" technology.

As well as grants. Always follow the $

[hellogoodbye]

almost 2 whole pages w/o a creationist accusation - now thats progress :)

[sooner59]

It isn't settled science. Again, how are you alarmists planning on stopping volcanoes? I want to hear some solutions not some crap you heard on MTV.

I don't watch MTV, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. :D

Not much you can do about a volcano anyway. Hell cows are just as bad as humans. They produce massive amounts of methane, which is about 4 times worse than CO2 when it comes to GH gasses. Time to start taking care of these cows. I'm gonna grill a ribeye tonight! :cool:

[KC//CRIMSON]

Must be a communist, since you don't believe in free speech, or like a good cartoon??
:rolleyes:

BTW KC// - I like emoticons too. :D :D :D
Profit should have warned you libs!
The creators of the web site included all kinds of post icons, emoticons ;) , and text tools at the top of the posting dialog box.
There is even a way to modify a post and "go advanced". But....."no"!
I thought not.

Those shiny tools are for the children of the board, care for some crayons too? They're about as colorful as a grown man driving around in a woman's car with OU logos on it!!!!!!

Wait, do I need more exclamation points? I'm not sure I have enough!!??!!

[GKeeper316]

Real nice.

ya well, i may be an *******, but i'm not wrong.

[KC//CRIMSON]

Again, how are you alarmists planning on stopping volcanoes?

We make a human sacrifice by throwing you in one?

[sappstuf]

Good question. That is what they are trying to determine, but its pretty difficult. I would assume very little. I don't equate Global Warming/Climate Change with The Greenhouse Effect, though. The Greenhouse effect may or may not have a significant role. A rise in average global temperature is just based on measurements, not theory. Therefore, I don't get immersed in the human-cause argument. I just wanted to say, hey, just because its snowing doesn't mean that the average global temps aren't rising.

And 0.8 degrees Celsius isn't much, but a trend is more important. A rise of 5 degrees can cause a lot of problems. More of a long-term problem.

As would I. Let's say we are 25% responsible for argument's sake. That means in 130 years, humans have increased global temperature by .2 degrees Celsius. Do you believe we should pass Cap and Trade and spend billions to fight that earth shattering increase in temperature?

Also one more series of questions. Since we are using the term climate change now, what are we changing from? What is the "perfect" global temperature that we humans should strive to maintain? Why do we assume we are moving away from a "perfect" temperature and not towards it?

[SoonerNate]

We make a human sacrifice by throwing you in one?

What color is your Miata?

[OUinFLA]

Liberal idjits!!??
They keep chaning the names and titles in order to slither away from what they have said in the past.

You have read "1984" haven't you?

[Blue]

ya well, i may be an *******, but i'm not wrong.

I'm a believer. I've read the Bible quite a few times. I have no idea how old the earth is exactly. I don't think it talked about Jesus riding anything but a donkey. I like to study astronomy.

Therefore, :P .

[Peach Fuzz]

OK since you guys had to go there...

Sapp, no one knows what is to come of the 'climate change'. It's happened many, many times before and will happen again. We should like to control some of our GH gas production. NOT control the fate of the climate, which will do whatever the hell its gonna do anyway.

Stop making it seem like we're panicking over this.

To take a stab at your next question, "what are we changing from"... Hmmm gee I don't know, since the concern is about GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RISE I assume they mean change from the current, continental dominant climate to more sporadic, temperature intense (either way), meaning probably Temp rise :rolleyes: Do I need to show rain chart totals too?

BTW the temp increase in the past 142 years is somewhere around 3 degrees, On a global scale that can produce El Nino phenomena( yup that has a lot to do with climate change too) or La nina.

Sea levels have rose 10 inches since 1880 take a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

Next...

[KC//CRIMSON]

What color is your Miata?

Same color as your Subaru and your ex-wife's carpet.

[sooner59]

As would I. Let's say we are 25% responsible for argument's sake. That means in 130 years, humans have increased global temperature by .2 degrees Celsius. Do you believe we should pass Cap and Trade and spend billions to fight that earth shattering increase in temperature?

I honestly really don't know the answer to that. My two cents would probably go along these lines... We don't know how much of an impact humans have right now. If its slim to none, then cap and trade is terrible. However, if there is something to it, then its not terrible. Cap and trade really only applies to those who can't afford extra credits. If a company exceeds the cap, they can either do the trade with other companies to even out the overall limit, or they can just purchase more credits. So the big companies don't have much to worry about other than paying more to produce the same emissions. Then, yes, there would be an incentive for "Green House Effect" supporters to have an agenda. Its a tangled web. I just like to believe that "most" scientists aren't getting paid under the table like politicians.

Also one more series of questions. Since we are using the term climate change now, what are we changing from? What is the "perfect" global temperature that we humans should strive to maintain? Why do we assume we are moving away from a "perfect" temperature and not towards it?

I personally use global warming and climate change interchangeably right now, because that is the current trend. However, climate change doesn't actually mean warming, just a deviation from the average over the past 30 years or so. The perfect global temperature? I guess that is subjective. Depends on one's personal preference of temperature and weather-related issues such as storms/droughts/sea level. The Earth's climate has changed over the history of time plenty without us so I doubt us striving for anything could prevent a climate change that is due from the Earth's cycles. And some believe we are moving away from a "perfect" temp because of the potential for loss of coastal land, displacement of people from their homes, and troubles it would cause if sea levels rose. I doubt Earth cares much. It has been through these cycles many times.

I'm not into the political motivations as much I as I am the actual science and possibilities in the future.

[theresonly1OU]

Same color as your Subaru and your ex-wife's drapes, red.

Resorting to snark and back-handed insults to avert attention away from yet another sham created by liberals.

How.....usual of you, KC.

[KC//CRIMSON]

Resorting to snark and back-handed insults to avert attention away from yet another sham created by liberals.

How.....usual of you, KC.

Oh I make snark and back handed insults all the time. I almost never need anything political as an excuse.

[sappstuf]

OK since you guys had to go there...

Sapp, no one knows what is to come of the 'climate change'. It's happened many, many times before and will happen again. We should like to control some of our GH gas production. NOT control the fate of the climate, which will do whatever the hell its gonna do anyway.

Stop making it seem like we're panicking over this.

To take a stab at your next question, "what are we changing from"... Hmmm gee I don't know, since the concern is about GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RISE I assume they mean change from the current, continental dominant climate to more sporadic, temperature intense (either way), meaning probably Temp rise :rolleyes: Do I need to show rain chart totals too?

BTW the temp increase in the past 142 years is somewhere around 3 degrees, On a global scale that can produce El Nino phenomena( yup that has a lot to do with climate change too) or La nina.

Sea levels have rose 10 inches since 1880 take a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

Next...

I guess you have missed the Kyoto Protocol and all the rest with panic everywhere. Passing Cap and Trade, which would destroy our economy all for .2 degrees Celsius of human caused warming.. And that is being generous.

The IPCC says .74 degrees since 1880 on the high end to .18 on the low end. That is 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit, not 3 degrees as a maximum. I rounded it up to .8 trying to be nice, but IPCC says .74.

Also your link to Wikipedia say the oceans have risen 20 centimeters, which is more like 7.87 inches, not 10. I try not to use Wiki, but I verified the number from the IPCC report here (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf).

In the scary report, the IPCC said that oceans would rise by a meter by 2100. Al gore said 20 feet in his movie.. There is your panicking idiot.

So the ocean would have to rise 5 times faster than they did the past century. Here is the bad news for you. Sea levels rising has slowed down this century. For the IPCC forecast to be correct sea levels must increase by 11mm every year for the next 89 years. The average we have seen is 2.7mm since about 100 years ago, but in the past 5 years it has only been increasing about half of that on average. In 2006 the sea levels dropped(barely). In 2010, the sea level was well below average through the first part of the year, but all the numbers are not in yet. Many predict it will be the largest drop ever recorded. A stunning 2-3mm drop. ;)

We have been told that increased global temperatures will raise sea levels in two ways. One is by melting the polar ice caps and glaciers. The other is that the ocean would get hotter and the water would expand raising ocean levels.

If 2010 was truly the hottest year and the past decade has been the hottest on record then the oceans should also be at their highest levels because of those reasons and accelerating. But they are not. When the official numbers come in on 2010 it looks like 2 of the past 5 years sea levels will have dropped.

Something is wrong with the theory that has been put forward.

Sea levels in relation to global warming appear to not be a valid concern.

[Peach Fuzz]

The data went to 2000, I estimated it to about 9ish inches to then end of 2010, Then I just rounded to 10 for a lump estimation.

I don't GAS about Gore, don't lump me into that crap.
My take wasn't on the protocol, nor the Cap & Trade. My stance is soley on what people can do In their OWN lives to move a little greener, causing energy giants to not have as big of a monopoly, and the field evens out a little so that we have that option to buy something green because it is affordable.

If you're trying to be one of those old southern baptist preachers on me, maybe you should elaborate on your stance on the discussion instead of trying to prove me wrong every chance you get.

And you sir, you don't think pollutants and GHG's do anything to the atmosphere/Climate cycle?

[PDXsooner]

Again, waste of time. Listen to the Scientists, and turn off Fox News.

[SoonerNate]

Hey liberals, have you thanked a taxpayer lately?

[sooner59]

Are you saying that scientists are liberals who don't pay taxes? Because if this is true, we can just have them all thrown in prison and the world will be a better place. :cool:

[Blue]

Again, waste of time. Listen to the Scientists, and turn off Fox News.

Climategate.

[SoonerNate]

First of all, not all scientists believe in your premise and even if they all had let's see if they are ever wrong.

1 – There are 9 planets in our solar system
New information: We have at least 10 planets

Far out! Astronomers discover 10th planet
2000 EB173 orbits sun between Neptune, Pluto
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/orbit26_20001026.htm

Or maybe, we have only 8 ---

“ Planetary scientists at Caltech have discovered a spherical body in
the outskirts of the solar system. The object circles the sun every
288 years, is half the size of Pluto, and is larger than all of the
objects in the asteroid belt combined.

"Quaoar definitely hurts the case for Pluto being a planet," says
Caltech planetary science associate professor Mike Brown. "If Pluto
were discovered today, no one would even consider calling it a planet
because it's clearly a Kuiper belt object."”

Caltech Astronomers Discover Quaoar, a Planet-Sized Object in the
Solar System
http://atcaltech.caltech.edu/tech-today/subpage.tcl?story_id=5881



2 – There are 30 orders of insects
New fact: Now there are 31

“For the first time in 87 years, researchers have discovered an insect
that constitutes a new order of insects. Dubbed "the gladiator" (for
the recent movie), it lives in the Brandberg Mountains of Namibia, on
the west coast of Southern Africa.”

New Insect Order Found in Southern Africa
Bijal P. Trivedi
National Geographic Today
March 28, 2002
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0328_0328_TVstickinsect.html


3 – Ice Age clothing was made of crudely formed animal hides
New Information:

“… the warm weather clothing of at least some of our ancestors
included caps or snoods, belts, skirts, bandeaux (banding over the
breasts), bracelets, and necklaces—all constructed of plant fibers in
a great variety of woven textiles…”

Ice Age Haute Couture
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873336.html


4 – Humans evolved directly from tree dwelling apes
New information – more likely from ground dwelling apes

"Our study demonstrates that our earliest ancestors did not simply
come down from the trees. Rather, they evolved from an ape already
adapted to life on the ground."

THE HAND BONE'S CONNECTED TO THE WRIST BONE...
http://www.archaeology.org/magazine.php?page=online/news/knuckles



5 – There are 109 Elements in the Period Table
New information: Since 1994, six new elements have been discovered

Periodic Table of the Elements
A Resource for Elementary, Middle School, and High School Students
http://pearl1.lanl.gov/periodic/default.htm


6 – The first mammals evolved about 155 million years ago.

New information –

“The shrew-like animal would have run under the feet of dinosaurs at
the start of the Jurassic period, nearly 195 million years ago …
Hadrocodium wui pushes back by another 40 million years its first
appearance in the fossil record.”

Fossil hints at mammal evolution
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1349763.stm

[MR2-Sooner86]

Amongst scientists (who aren't paid by fossil fuel companies) this isn't even a debate anymore. In Oklahoma for some reason, it still is.

because oklahoma is full to the brim with evangelical dickwads who think the earth is only 6000 years old and jesus rode his dinosaur to church on sundays.

their tiny tiny little brains aren't able to comprehend the vastness of time, the age of the sun, its orbiting planets, or the earth, specifically.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_U84fPuQrKzI/Scklwq_5ZYI/AAAAAAAAEaw/gYXsbzBBDHk/s320/head-up-butt.png

Let me help you with that. This is coming from a non-religious person as well.

In the 1970's we were heading towards an ice age.
In the 1990's we were heating up the planet.
Now it's "climate change" so they can't be wrong about weather patterns like in the past.
Climategate showed scientist lying and covering up facts for political agendas.
At the heart of environmentalism is a liberal socialist agenda that's anti-capitalism and anti-globalism. It's why the founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, left the environmental movement.
To prove that point even more, look no further than Al Gore who has made millions scaring people into going green while he doesn't practice what he preaches himself.
If the planet really is warming up, it's not as bad as people think it is. The average temperature in 1900 compared to 2000 rose how much? Just one degree higher.

See, life is much better when you pull your head out, smell the fresh air, and don't blindly follow something, like the religious folks you make fun of, and actually think for yourself.

[sooner59]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_U84fPuQrKzI/Scklwq_5ZYI/AAAAAAAAEaw/gYXsbzBBDHk/s320/head-up-butt.png

Let me help you with that. This is coming from a non-religious person as well.

In the 1970's we were heading towards an ice age.
In the 1990's we were heating up the planet.
Now it's "climate change" so they can't be wrong about weather patterns like in the past.
Climategate showed scientist lying and covering up facts for political agendas.
At the heart of environmentalism is a liberal socialist agenda that's anti-capitalism and anti-globalism. It's why the founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, left the environmental movement.
To prove that point even more, look no further than Al Gore who has made millions scaring people into going green while he doesn't practice what he preaches himself.
If the planet really is warming up, it's not as bad as people think it is. The average temperature in 1900 compared to 2000 rose how much? Just one degree higher.

See, life is much better when you pull your head out, smell the fresh air, and don't blindly follow something, like the religious folks you make fun of, and actually think for yourself.

I see where you are coming from. My only comment is this. 1 degree in 1 century isn't insignificant. Assuming humans haven't destroyed themselves in the next few hundred years, that trend will have major implications on humanity. I want to say, however, that this doesn't mean humans are the cause, but the climate warming in general is something to keep an eye on.

[sooner59]

First of all, not all scientists believe in your premise and even if they all had let's see if they are ever wrong.

1 – There are 9 planets in our solar system
New information: We have at least 10 planets

Far out! Astronomers discover 10th planet
2000 EB173 orbits sun between Neptune, Pluto
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/orbit26_20001026.htm

Or maybe, we have only 8 ---

“ Planetary scientists at Caltech have discovered a spherical body in
the outskirts of the solar system. The object circles the sun every
288 years, is half the size of Pluto, and is larger than all of the
objects in the asteroid belt combined.

"Quaoar definitely hurts the case for Pluto being a planet," says
Caltech planetary science associate professor Mike Brown. "If Pluto
were discovered today, no one would even consider calling it a planet
because it's clearly a Kuiper belt object."”

Caltech Astronomers Discover Quaoar, a Planet-Sized Object in the
Solar System
http://atcaltech.caltech.edu/tech-today/subpage.tcl?story_id=5881



2 – There are 30 orders of insects
New fact: Now there are 31

“For the first time in 87 years, researchers have discovered an insect
that constitutes a new order of insects. Dubbed "the gladiator" (for
the recent movie), it lives in the Brandberg Mountains of Namibia, on
the west coast of Southern Africa.”

New Insect Order Found in Southern Africa
Bijal P. Trivedi
National Geographic Today
March 28, 2002
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0328_0328_TVstickinsect.html


3 – Ice Age clothing was made of crudely formed animal hides
New Information:

“… the warm weather clothing of at least some of our ancestors
included caps or snoods, belts, skirts, bandeaux (banding over the
breasts), bracelets, and necklaces—all constructed of plant fibers in
a great variety of woven textiles…”

Ice Age Haute Couture
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873336.html


4 – Humans evolved directly from tree dwelling apes
New information – more likely from ground dwelling apes

"Our study demonstrates that our earliest ancestors did not simply
come down from the trees. Rather, they evolved from an ape already
adapted to life on the ground."

THE HAND BONE'S CONNECTED TO THE WRIST BONE...
http://www.archaeology.org/magazine.php?page=online/news/knuckles



5 – There are 109 Elements in the Period Table
New information: Since 1994, six new elements have been discovered

Periodic Table of the Elements
A Resource for Elementary, Middle School, and High School Students
http://pearl1.lanl.gov/periodic/default.htm


6 – The first mammals evolved about 155 million years ago.

New information –

“The shrew-like animal would have run under the feet of dinosaurs at
the start of the Jurassic period, nearly 195 million years ago …
Hadrocodium wui pushes back by another 40 million years its first
appearance in the fossil record.”

Fossil hints at mammal evolution
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1349763.stm

Good research! Where did all of that come from? Scientists improving upon earlier scientists' ideas? Oh....cool.

[MR2-Sooner86]

I see where you are coming from. My only comment is this. 1 degree in 1 century isn't insignificant. Assuming humans haven't destroyed themselves in the next few hundred years, that trend will have major implications on humanity. I want to say, however, that this doesn't mean humans are the cause, but the climate warming in general is something to keep an eye on.

I'm all for being environmentally friendly but not when it cost us our quality of life.

Example, the green nuts preach about alternative energy because coal and natural gas is bad. Alright, that's fine, even though there are clean coal technologies out there that could make that argument mute, but lets say we want to get off coal. That's fine but the best power source we have is nuclear and they're against it. They want solar panels and wind farms which is purely idiotic and nothing but a feel good move. If you really want to get us off fossil fuels, nuclear is the only way to go until fusion is possible.

As for the actual climate, are we 100% positive it's us? Did we not just come out of an ice age about 10,000 years ago? How do we know this isn't the planet naturally warming up from said ice age? I mean isn't it a fact the planet has gone through several periods where it warms up and cools down? Our planet has been much warmer in the past than it is now and it cooled down. If it is warming, do we even know if we can stop it?

However, the people screaming we're killing the planet by driving SUVs and need to ride bikes and battery powered smart cars all over the place are the ones who's voices are being heard the most and they need to be shut up.

[PDXsooner]

Climategate.

What about it?

[Blue]

What about it?

It means Global Warming/Climate Change credibility was set back decades if not totally lost.

[sooner59]

I'm all for being environmentally friendly but not when it cost us our quality of life.

Example, the green nuts preach about alternative energy because coal and natural gas is bad. Alright, that's fine, even though there are clean coal technologies out there that could make that argument mute, but lets say we want to get off coal. That's fine but the best power source we have is nuclear and they're against it. They want solar panels and wind farms which is purely idiotic and nothing but a feel good move. If you really want to get us off fossil fuels, nuclear is the only way to go until fusion is possible.

I'm actually in your court here. I'm all for nuclear energy. Chernobyl was bad, but they weren't competent. I've read up on that and it was similar to a shady restaurant that should have been shut down by the health department.

As for the actual climate, are we 100% positive it's us? Did we not just come out of an ice age about 10,000 years ago? How do we know this isn't the planet naturally warming up from said ice age? I mean isn't it a fact the planet has gone through several periods where it warms up and cools down? Our planet has been much warmer in the past than it is now and it cooled down. If it is warming, do we even know if we can stop it?

If you read my previous posts in this thread, you will find we are basically on the same wave length here. The Earth has cycles and there isn't positive proof that we are causing it. I don't think its bad to investigate, though. This planet will do what it wants, when it wants, and we can't stop it. If we find someday that we are definitely screwing with things, then all we can do is adjust our ways.

However, the people screaming we're killing the planet by driving SUVs and need to ride bikes and battery powered smart cars all over the place are the ones who's voices are being heard the most and they need to be shut up.

The only reason I would drive a battery powered car would be if it ultimately saved me money.

We see eye to eye more than most actually.

[soonerhubs]

When trying to find evidence supporting a theory, the following are necessary

1) An actual correlation that is significant with a meaningful effect size. (For example, in the past the state of Oklahoma's board of education touted significant improvement in test scores that were rather meaningless when calculating the actual beta weights.)

2) Temporal precedence (I.E., A happened before B).

3) The elimination of all possible alternative models.

Fear-mongering about anthropogenic climate change has failed to make this case. IMHO, this is largely tied back to requirement 3. This is the same challenge we social scientists face.

No I don't watch Foxnews, but I'm not that trusting of many studies that seldom meet the rigor needed to provide evidence regarding causality.

[sooner59]

When trying to find evidence supporting a theory, the following are necessary

1) An actual correlation that is significant with a meaningful effect size. (For example, in the past the state of Oklahoma's board of education touted significant improvement in test scores that were rather meaningless when calculating the actual beta weights.)

2) Temporal precedence (I.E., A happened before B).

3) The elimination of all possible alternative models.

Fear-mongering about anthropogenic climate change has failed to make this case. IMHO, this is largely tied back to requirement 3. This is the same challenge we social scientists face.

No I don't watch Foxnews, but I'm not that trusting of many studies that seldom meet the rigor needed to provide evidence regarding causality.

Nothing wrong with being speculative. Questioning things is entirely democratic in nature. In fact, its the best thing you can do. Writing things off for non credible reasons is different. That is where some people deviate.

[soonerhubs]

Nothing wrong with being speculative. Questioning things is entirely democratic in nature. In fact, its the best thing you can do. Writing things off for non credible reasons is different. That is where some people deviate.

The problem is when speculation leads to unfounded regulations that can destroy an already fragile economy.

[sooner59]

I see your point. And I will play both sides. On one side, there is no concrete evidence and there are regulations being enforced on unfounded science that affects the economy negatively. On the other side, there is a change that the science is correct and waiting until the evidence is concrete could mean waiting until we have surpassed a tipping point that not only affects the economy, but quality of life of all people on Earth. There are great points on both sides. I just hope we can figure stuff out before either scenario affects us significantly.

[THE-JROD]

Aint never gonna be any Global Warming...so why talk about it???

[Collier11]

Im sure you can do a search and find about 10 threads about this topic, they are all worthless...why a new one?

[SoonerNate]

I'm not sure what's happening or not but I know one thing, I can't control it.

[Collier11]

I see Sunny has been posting in this thread...that is where the hotness is coming from :D

[THE-JROD]

Hell Nate, none of us can conrol it...but we got all these egotistical fukers that think they can predict it...when in the end...it aint gonna matter!!!

[THE-JROD]

I see Sunny has been posting in this thread...that is where the hotness is coming from :D

I'd like to get me a piece of that there Sunny ;):D

[Collier11]

The more important question is why are my ballz consistently warmer as I get older, is it global warming in my nether regions?

[Collier11]

I'd like to get me a piece of that there Sunny ;):D

She'll womp your azz...plus, Sunny is already mine bud, just ask

[THE-JROD]

Heh, guess i need visual evidence to back up your talk :D

[sooner59]

Wait till Sunny reads this....azz whoopins will commence. :D

[THE-JROD]

AND the reason why I say so..is cuz Sunny likes these more climate controlled nutz that I got fer her :D

[Collier11]

Sunny loves me...JROD doesnt stand a chance

[sooner59]

Sunny's husband is gonna go military on yall's azzes. :D

[Collier11]

not mine, I have faith that Sunny will put in a good word for me :D but he could if he wanted to

[THE-JROD]

Sunny's husband doesnt know that me and Collier have a side thing goin on with her!! Dont ruin it fer us 59'!!!

[Collier11]

Oh Lawdy...nice knowin ya Jrod

[THE-JROD]

http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h331/THE-JROD/hijack.gif

[THE-JROD]

Oh Lawdy...nice knowin ya Jrod

Dont you try strandin me by myself!!! You already been sayin that Sunny been wantin you!!

[Collier11]

im leavin ya to fend for yourself, Sunny gonna get ya

[THE-JROD]

Go to bed ya puss!!!! Sunny knows she caint pass up this here prime rib :D

[sooner59]

Oh man, you're gonna get it tomorrow. :D

[THE-JROD]

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D maybe thats what im lookin fer!!! ;)

[THE-JROD]

All seriousness...goin to bed...Love u Sunny ;):D Good ol' durnky!!!

[ouwino]

most politicians are for anything they can make a buck off of. without regard to what the consequences are to the American public.

[Peach Fuzz]

welp, this thread went to shjt..o well

[pphilfran]

Here is my problem with the whole f'n mess...

1. The following data is the same original massaged data that they scientist used to formulate their theory...400k years of data...each of my data points is approximately 5k years...(as close as I could get to 5k increments with the original massaged data) ice core samples for the earliest data and actual reading from this century...

2. Based on this history with NO human involvement we would expect to see temps climb at least more degree to meet past levels...

3. If CO2 is really the driving force we should see temps increase at least 3 degrees...

4. The data collected this century is by various methods...how did the people round their reading 50 years ago? How often were their thermometers calibrated? Were the thermometers in a field 50 years ago and are now in the middle of a heat sink parking lot?

5. Far too little data to confirm the theory..give me another 1000 years of data and I will have a slightly better idea...

6. Why are other planets warming?

[soonerhubs]

welp, this thread went to shjt..o well

It went there back when the arguments were the following, "If you do/don't believe in anthropogenic global warning you are dumb." I suppose that began with the OP and onward.

(In essence, this is nothing but a small example of American politics for the past two or more decades.)

Arguments and civil discourse... Was there a time when this existed, or am I reminiscing about the fictitious "good old days?"

[pphilfran]

We should hedge our bets...if the theory is correct we would be wise to lower emissions...if the theory is wrong many of the things we could implement would help reduce our reliance on imported crude...

We ain't gonna get there with solar, wind, and electric cars...solar and wind will do nothing to reduce imported crude dependence since most electricity is from coal...also, it will take decades for those to make any significant impact..though we do need to be making strides in each of those areas do not expect to make quantum leaps in the near future...

We should also look closely at NG..yes, it is still a carbon based fuel source but it has lower emissions than crude...we have a massive supply in the US and we could lower emissions and reduce imported crude dependence...it would be a great transportation bridge fuel until electrics and fuel cells hold a much larger share of the market...

[okie52]

Here is my problem with the whole f'n mess...

1. The following data is the same original massaged data that they scientist used to formulate their theory...400k years of data...each of my data points is approximately 5k years...(as close as I could get to 5k increments with the original massaged data) ice core samples for the earliest data and actual reading from this century...

2. Based on this history with NO human involvement we would expect to see temps climb at least more degree to meet past levels...

3. If CO2 is really the driving force we should see temps increase at least 3 degrees...

4. The data collected this century is by various methods...how did the people round their reading 50 years ago? How often were their thermometers calibrated? Were the thermometers in a field 50 years ago and are now in the middle of a heat sink parking lot?

5. Far too little data to confirm the theory..give me another 1000 years of data and I will have a slightly better idea...

6. Why are other planets warming?

Phil-

I never have seen anyone answer your questions/objections. As you know, I tend to believe that man adds to warming since I assume CO2 is a culprit in part of the warming. But in no way do I believe the science is "in" nor do I think the scientists that support the AGW theory have anywhere near enough data to state categorically that AGW is a fact. There is certainly no consensus on when the "tipping point" would occur.

I prefer to err on the side of caution and I support reducing man's footprint on the planet but, of course, my first priority would be to see the US achieve energy independence. Certainly reducing man's footprint and attaining energy independence are not mutually exclusive goals but often the politicians approach would make them so.

[pphilfran]

Phil-

I never have seen anyone answer your questions/objections. As you know, I tend to believe that man adds to warming since I assume CO2 is a culprit in part of the warming. But in no way do I believe the science is "in" nor do I think the scientists that support the AGW theory have anywhere near enough data to state categorically that AGW is a fact. There is certainly no consensus on when the "tipping point" would occur.

I prefer to err on the side of caution and I support reducing man's footprint on the planet but, of course, my first priority would be to see the US achieve energy independence. Certainly reducing man's footprint and attaining energy independence are not mutually exclusive goals but often the politicians approach would make them so.

You have always kept a level head...like you, I suggest we hedge our bets and do what we can to lower emissions...

[okie52]

You have always kept a level head...like you, I suggest we hedge our bets and do what we can to lower emissions...

Ahh, if only.....

[AlboSooner]

4. The data collected this century is by various methods...how did the people round their reading 50 years ago? How often were their thermometers calibrated? Were the thermometers in a field 50 years ago and are now in the middle of a heat sink parking lot?

5. Far too little data to confirm the theory..give me another 1000 years of data and I will have a slightly better idea...

Scientists have drilled ice in Antarctica two miles deep, which is like going back in history thousands of years. As ice freezes, water and air, it captures every molecule present in the two. The content of green house gases is much much lower in the old ice than in recent ice in Antarctica.

That's not proof that CO2 is the cause of the warming. Nobody has been able to prove that CO2 directly is the cause of the warming. The planet is warming there is no debate there.

However, since the earth is very old, it could be a cyclical warming. Our planet has seen more tragic changes, when humans weren't even around, or there were only a few of us. For example the mini ice age in the northern hemisphere which enveloped Europe in ice. The floods and events which caused the formation of continents. The various volcanoes and earthquakes which wiped entire species. Human history is simply a blimp in the long history of this planet; even less human scientific history.

1. Can humans affect the planet for the worse? Without a doubt.

2. Can the planet be destroyed? No. Only human can be destroyed and wiped off.

3. Are pollution and CO2 harmful in general. Yes. Waste products aren't good, that's why they are waste.

4 Should we try to find more efficient ways to make energy? Absolutely.

[PDXsooner]

Blah blah blah. If everyone would quit trying to be a scientist and listen to the actual scientists, this argument is over. Nothing like a mortgage guy or a fireman trying to explain thousands of years of climate history and sound smart.

[sappstuf]

Scientists have drilled ice in Antarctica two miles deep, which is like going back in history thousands of years. As ice freezes, water and air, it captures every molecule present in the two. The content of green house gases is much much lower in the old ice than in recent ice in Antarctica.

That's not proof that CO2 is the cause of the warming. Nobody has been able to prove that CO2 directly is the cause of the warming. The planet is warming there is no debate there.

However, since the earth is very old, it could be a cyclical warming. Our planet has seen more tragic changes, when humans weren't even around, or there were only a few of us. For example the mini ice age in the northern hemisphere which enveloped Europe in ice. The floods and events which caused the formation of continents. The various volcanoes and earthquakes which wiped entire species. Human history is simply a blimp in the long history of this planet; even less human scientific history.

1. Can humans affect the planet for the worse? Without a doubt.

2. Can the planet be destroyed? No. Only human can be destroyed and wiped off.

3. Are pollution and CO2 harmful in general. Yes. Waste products aren't good, that's why they are waste.

4 Should we try to find more efficient ways to make energy? Absolutely.

Funny you should say that because the mini ice age correlates to sun activity when it was at it's minimum and very low maximums.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png

The Maunder Minimum was happening in the Little Ice Age. 1816, the Year without a Summer happened right in the middle Dalton Minimum.

You can see from the chart that the number of sunspots has been relatively high recently, but that is about to change. This is a chart that NASA just released about their prediction of sunspots.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif

Sunspots bottomed out 2 years ago. Oceans hold a lot of heat and it takes awhile for that heat to dissipate, but lo and behold, what do we have this year? La Nina.

The next couple of years are going to be interesting because people who study the sun think it is going to get cold the next couple of years based on the activity and predictions of the sun immediate future with NASA's prediction that the next solar maximum being about 40% of the last around 2000 when temperature. The solar maximum they are predicting is almost the same as the maximum in 1800 during the Dalton Minimum.

I personally, put more stock into that the giant ball of fire that will eventually destroy the earth than a trace gas when it comes to the controlling factor of our global temperature.

As a personal aside, I think a global drop in temperature of say 2 degree C would be far more devastating than a 2 degree increase to the human population.

[soonercruiser]

Blah blah blah. If everyone would quit trying to be a scientist and listen to the actual scientists, this argument is over. Nothing like a mortgage guy or a fireman trying to explain thousands of years of climate history and sound smart.

And you think that scientists are "pure" as the driven snow and have no bias??? I see it every day in my areas of medical research.
Any time there is money involved, the process is corrupted.
The more govment $$, the more corruption, as to justify further need for research.

Science is fine. But, I'll take good ole common sense (based on any available science) first any day.

[PDXsooner]

And you think that scientists are "pure" as the driven snow and have no bias??? I see it every day in my areas of medical research.
Any time there is money involved, the process is corrupted.
The more govment $$, the more corruption, as to justify further need for research.

Science is fine. But, I'll take good ole common sense (based on any available science) first any day.

There are plenty of true scientists.

[jkjsooner]

It went there back when the arguments were the following, "If you do/don't believe in anthropogenic global warning you are dumb." I suppose that began with the OP and onward.


I'm going to disagree with this. I don't see people calling others dumb for not believing in global warming. I do see people get called dumb for saying, "Look it's cold and snowing outside so global warming is a hoax."

I think most educated people who do not believe in man-made global warming but understand statistics, the difference between weather and climate, and the concept of confirmation bias would agree.

I also think that most rational people understand that nature can present things that appear to defy intuition but when investigating further no contradiction exists.

[soonerhubs]

I'm going to disagree with this. I don't see people calling others dumb for not believing in global warming. I do see people get called dumb for saying, "Look it's cold and snowing outside so global warming is a hoax."

I think most educated people who do not believe in man-made global warming but understand statistics, the difference between weather and climate, and the concept of confirmation bias would agree.

I also think that most rational people understand that nature can present things that appear to defy intuition but when investigating further no contradiction exists.

Fair enough.

[SCOUT]

I'm going to disagree with this. I don't see people calling others dumb for not believing in global warming. I do see people get called dumb for saying, "Look it's cold and snowing outside so global warming is a hoax."

I think most educated people who do not believe in man-made global warming but understand statistics, the difference between weather and climate, and the concept of confirmation bias would agree.

I also think that most rational people understand that nature can present things that appear to defy intuition but when investigating further no contradiction exists.

I give you...

because oklahoma is full to the brim with evangelical dickwads who think the earth is only 6000 years old and jesus rode his dinosaur to church on sundays.

their tiny tiny little brains aren't able to comprehend the vastness of time, the age of the sun, its orbiting planets, or the earth, specifically.

[sappstuf]

There are plenty of true scientists.

Very true. They just might not be in the right spots..

For example, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri is a train engineer.

[sappstuf]

Speaking of near future weather predictions.


Bastardi: Three of Next Five Winters Could be as Cold or Colder (http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/45220/bastardi-three-of-next-five-wi.asp)

This winter is on track to become the coldest for the nation as a whole since the 1980s or possibly even the late 1910s. According to AccuWeather.com Chief Long Range Forecaster Joe Bastardi, three or four out of the next five winters could be just as cold, if not colder.

He is worried that next winter, for example, will be colder than this one.

Bastardi adds that with the U.S. in the middle of one of its worst recessions in its history and the price of oil in question, he is extremely concerned about the prospect for more persistent cold weather in the coming years putting increased financial hardship on Americans.

"Cold is a lot worse than warm," Bastardi said, "and that's why your energy bill goes up during the winter time: because of the fact that it takes a lot to heat a house."

While there are many different factors that are playing into Bastardi's forecast, one of the primary drivers is La Niña and the trends that have been observed in winters that follow the onset of a La Niña.

Current La Nina Signals More Cold Winters Ahead

La Niña occurs when sea surface temperatures across the equatorial central and eastern Pacific are below normal. La Niña and its counterpart, El Niño, which occurs when sea surface temperatures of the same region are above normal, have a large influence on the weather patterns that set up across the globe.

The current La Niña, which kicked in this past summer, is unprecedented after becoming the strongest on record in December 2010. Bastardi thinks this La Niña will last into next year, though it will be weaker, and will not disappear completely until 2012.

According to Bastardi, studies over the past 100 years or so show that after the first winter following the onset of a La Niña, the next several winters thereafter tend to be colder than normal in the U.S.

He says the first winter during a La Niña tends to be warm. The next winter that follows is usually less warm, and the winter after that is usually cold.

"There's a natural tendency for that to happen because of the large-scale factors," Bastardi commented. "What's interesting about what we're seeing here is that [the current La Niña] is starting so cold."

Temperatures this winter so far are averaging below normal across much of the eastern two-thirds of the country.

He adds, "If the past predicts the future, then the first year La Niña is warmer than the combination of the following two."

He said that with the exception of the winters of 1916-1917 and 1917-1918, the first year of every moderate or stronger La Niña available for study has featured a warmer-than-normal winter from the Plains eastward. This winter, it has been colder than normal.

Taking a look at one of the exceptions, the La Niña winter of 1916-1917, colder-than-normal conditions were observed across the northern part of the Plains and East (not the South). Bastardi said that never before have colder-than-normal conditions been observed across the South during a first-year La Niña winter, as has been the case this winter.

If this winter, which has been colder than normal across the eastern two-thirds of the country, is historically supposed to be the warmest of the next three winters for the U.S., according to Bastardi, we have some frigid times ahead.

Bastardi: Shift to Colder Climate Predicted Next 20-30 Years

Bastardi thinks that not only will the next few winters be colder than normal for much of the U.S., but that the long-term climate will turn colder over the next 20 to 30 years.

"What's interesting about what we're seeing here is that [the current La Niña] is starting so cold," said Bastardi, "and it's coinciding with bigger things that are pushing the overall weather patterns and climate in the Northern Hemisphere and, in fact, globally over the next 20 to 30 years that we have not really dealt with, nor can we really quantify."

"That ties into a lot of this arguing over climate change," he added.

Bastardi has pointed out that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which is a pattern of Pacific climate variability that shifts phases usually about every 20 to 30 years, has shifted into a "cold" or "negative" phase.

Over the past 30 years or so, according to Bastardi, the PDO has been "warm" or "positive."

This change to a cold PDO over the next 20 to 30 years, he says, will cause La Niñas to be stronger and longer than El Niños. Bastardi adds that when El Niños do kick in, if they try to come on strong like they did last year, they will get "beaten back" pretty quickly.

"When you have a cold PDO and lots of La Niñas, when El Niños do come on, you generally tend to have cold, snowy weather patterns across the U.S.," Bastardi said. "That's what we saw in the 1960s and 1970s."

In Summary

Overall, Bastardi is predicting three or four of the next five winters to be colder than normal for much of the U.S., based on trends observed in La Niñas throughout history.

He is concerned that, amid the current recession, more colder-than-normal conditions in the winters ahead will put extra financial strain on families in the form of higher heating bills.

Bastardi is also predicting the long-term climate to turn colder over the next 20 to 30 years with global temperatures, as measured by satellite, returning to levels they were at in the late 1970s.

[jkjsooner]

Speaking of near future weather predictions.

The article you quoted and the previous sun spot post just points out the absurdity of the initial post in this thread. Both provide evidence and scientific theories that predict a cooling affect. Neither touches on C02 emissions or global warming. It all points out that external factors can influence the average temperatures for periods of time but none of that proves or disproves global warming. The absurdity gets even larger when someone attempts to make a judgement on global warming based on localized variations over a short period of time.

This reminds me of a conservative talk show host (don't remember which one) who talked about the change in sun spot activity and said that it was going to make Gore and other global warming believers look like a fool. The argument made absolutely no sense. The fact that the warming trend could be interrupted by external factors speaks nothing about the legitimacy of the theory of global warming. (Had the host made the argument that the sun spot activity was what caused our recent warming then he would have had an argument but that was not what he was saying.)

[SoonerWood]

For any of you suckers that are about to go out and buy some p.o.s. hybrid that runs off of electricity (coal power provides electricity btw) because you are sold by modern pop culture let me inform you of something.

One volcano puts off more carbon dioxide pollutants than the entire world population in a year.


Whats your source for this? A quick check shows otherwise.

Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Thats for all volcanoes.

Source - http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

Humans produce 29 billion tons of CO2 per year.

Source - http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm

[EnragedOUfan]

I personally believe Global warming is happening. I'm also willing to bet that most politicians do not hold college degrees in Geology/Environmental Science/Meteorology/Physical Science, etc......So when most politicians come up with the idea that they're scientists who study and analyze data as their career and feel that they can debate with actual scientists beats the heck out of me.....

Science has benefited mankind since the beginning of time. The only part of science I disagree on is Evolution (I'm regligious), but that's not the topic. I feel we should believe it when we're told that CO2 levels are increased, especially when its coming from NASA and the National Oceanic Administration because we're not the one's who analyze this data. For people who are against trying to make things more environmental friendly, what the heck are we as a species going to do when we start running low on oil and coal? Then what? Nothing because it would be d@mn late. This is something that I feel sorry for my kids about because I feel we will start having this problem 50 years from now. With the worlds popluation approaching 7 billion people and with no signs of stopping, there is no telling what our future holds....

I'm no scientist, but I believe with increased CO2 levels and increased moisture in the air, the storms will only start to become worse.....

And how people argue against greenhouse gases beats the heck out of me......Anyone ever been to Los Angeles? That city (and state I think) recently voted in favor of decreasing Greenhouse gases because their childrens chances of developing Asthma were highly increased........Los Angeles is a smog infested city. Go take a whiff of Cali air....

Just my opinion......

[sooner59]

Want to introduce a variable in this argument?

Google "Global Dimming". :pop:

:D

[soonercruiser]

Speaking of near future weather predictions.

Sapp! Did you just call poor ole Joe a B*******??
:eek:

[soonercruiser]

The article you quoted and the previous sun spot post just points out the absurdity of the initial post in this thread. Both provide evidence and scientific theories that predict a cooling affect. Neither touches on C02 emissions or global warming. It all points out that .........he was saying.)

Whatever!
MY ORIGINAL POST was intended to highlight our localized record low temps; and insert a fantastic cartoon!
In case you didn't notice, the cartoon was by a highly respected and nationally sindicated cartoonist!
His cartoons smack both sides of the political spectrum.
But, GORE is a jerk and opportunist no better than Berny Madoff!
Soooooo ENJOY! :P

http://members.cox.net/franklipsinic/Other/Gore's%20tongue.jpg

[sappstuf]

Want to introduce a variable in this argument?

Google "Global Dimming". :pop:

:D

There is much irony that the more **** you throw up into the atmosphere the more it can cool the earth.

[sappstuf]

The article you quoted and the previous sun spot post just points out the absurdity of the initial post in this thread. Both provide evidence and scientific theories that predict a cooling affect. Neither touches on C02 emissions or global warming. It all points out that external factors can influence the average temperatures for periods of time but none of that proves or disproves global warming. The absurdity gets even larger when someone attempts to make a judgement on global warming based on localized variations over a short period of time.

This reminds me of a conservative talk show host (don't remember which one) who talked about the change in sun spot activity and said that it was going to make Gore and other global warming believers look like a fool. The argument made absolutely no sense. The fact that the warming trend could be interrupted by external factors speaks nothing about the legitimacy of the theory of global warming. (Had the host made the argument that the sun spot activity was what caused our recent warming then he would have had an argument but that was not what he was saying.)

Nope, that is not how it goes.

The entire purpose of the Kyoto protocol was that human activity was causing the tempurature to rise. CO2 from humans was the power that was overcoming natural varibility.

Did you hear statements from scientists like, "The earth is warming and we believe that human activity is 5% of the cause, natural varibility is the cause of the other 95% but we must act now to save the planet."? I didn't either. What I heard was:


Global warming is here, it's human-caused, and it will continue for centuries even if greenhouse-gas emissions are stabilized, an international panel of climate experts said in a report issued today (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070202-global-warming.html).

IPCC said that there was a 90% chance that humans caused global warming.

Now that it appears that there may be cooling around the corner, you cannot go back and say that natural variability is at play. To do so undercuts the entire thrust of anthropogenic(human caused) global warming. Because if natural variability can cause a cooling effect then it could have been causing the heating all along and human activity had little or nothing to do with it. It is admitting that human activity and CO2 are NOT the controlling factors in the climate as has been stated. It means other things are at play and we do not understand them. It means accepting a little humility and saying the theory is no longer valid.

Remember all the headlines that 2010 was the hottest year ever? Did you ever hear by how much? .01 Celcius for 2005, .02 for 1998. The margin of error was .09 Celcius. I wonder why that wasn't mentioned. Makes for good headlines though, doesn't it? Nice and scary.

In reality the summer of 2010, was heavily influenced by El Nino and, what do you know, so was 2005 and 1998 the two next closest years. However, 2010 was not really any hotter than 1998 that scientist can accurately determine.

The earth has been slowly warming for 20K years and on El Nino years the temperature jumps a little higher setting "record highs" before falling back down to the slow warming trend. Big deal. Oceans are not rising as predicted, glaciers are not melting as predicted.

Honest question. What would have to happen for you to no longer believe in anthropogenic global warming? After all, it must have falsifiability or it is no longer a theory or hypothesis, just a belief. What would have to happen?

On a side note, if you truly believe that CO2 is a problem, I have good and bad news for you. World CO2 output is down, but I honestly think it will come back up when the world economy does. The bad news is China is putting out 2.3 million tonnes of CO2 more a year than the United States and I promise you they are not going to slow down anytime soon.

Sorry I can't get the picture to load, but here is the link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2#zoomed-picture

[bigfatjerk]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/omg-another-global-warming-snowstorm/



I really can’t decide whether I should hate Al Gore… or thank him for giving me something to write about.

He has caused the spread of more pseudo-scientific incompetence on the subject of global warming (I’m sorry — climate change) than any climate scientist could possibly have ever accomplished. Who else but a politician could spin so much certainty out of a theory?

As someone who has lived and breathed meteorology and climate for 40 years now, I can assure you that this winter’s storminess in the little 2% patch of the Earth we like to call the ‘United States of America’ has nothing to do with your SUV.

Natural climate variability? Maybe.

But I would more likely chalk it up to something we used to call “WEATHER”.

Let me give you a few factoids:

1) No serious climate researcher — including the ones I disagree with — believes global warming can cause colder weather. Unless they have become delusional as a result of some sort of mental illness. One of the hallmarks of global warming theory is LESS extratropical cyclone activity — not more.

2) If some small region of the Earth is experiencing unusually persistent storminess, you can bet some other region is experiencing unusually quiet weather. You see, in the winter we get these things called ’storm tracks’….

3) Evidence for point #2 is that we now have many years of global satellite measurements of precipitation which shows that the annual amount of precipitation that falls on the Earth stays remarkably constant from year to year. The AREAS where it occurs just happen to move around a whole lot. Again, we used to call that “weather”.

4) Global average temperature anomalies (departures from seasonal norms) have been falling precipitously for about 12 months now. Gee, maybe these snowstorms are from global cooling! Someone should look into that! (I know…cold and snow from global cooling sounds crazy….I’m just sayin’….)

I could go on and on.

Now, I know I’m not going to change the minds of any of the True Believers…those who read all of Reverend Al’s sermons, and say things like, “You know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, …”. Can I get an ‘amen’??

But I hope I can still save a few of those out there who are still capable of independent reasoning and thought.

NOW can I go to bed?


There's also a ton of real scientific information on this site, instead of just basically saying there's global warming because everyone else says so.

[jkjsooner]

Nope, that is not how it goes.

The entire purpose of the Kyoto protocol was that human activity was causing the tempurature to rise. CO2 from humans was the power that was overcoming natural varibility.

Did you hear statements from scientists like, "The earth is warming and we believe that human activity is 5% of the cause, natural varibility is the cause of the other 95% but we must act now to save the planet."? I didn't either. What I heard was:

I think they try to simplify it for the public's consumption. I've heard plenty of experts talk about various other factors that cause variability. I'm sure both sudes are guilty of doing this when it suites their purposes and exclude variability when it does not.

My point is that people that don't believe in global warming use two mutually exclusive arguments.

1. It was cooler in year x+1 than year x so global warming is a hoax.
2. External factors that caused it to be cooler in x+1 than in year x proves that there are other natural factors that could have caused past warming.

I'm sure some global warming believers are guilty of the same.

Anyway, the conservative talk show host did not make the argument you cite. He simply said, "Less sun activity causing cooling will make a fool out of global warming advocates." I'm paraphrasing a bit but he in no way tried to make the connection that this proves the existence of external factors which may have caused the warming in the first place. (That's why I listen to NPR. When they have these debates they clearly state what their position is and why it is important instead of trying to throw out sound bites that are enough for the uneducated audience.)


Remember all the headlines that 2010 was the hottest year ever? Did you ever hear by how much? .01 Celcius for 2005, .02 for 1998.

So we agree that 2010 might have been the hottest year on record? I say "might" because of the margin of error. In either case we agree that last year wasn't an extremely cold year? Hmmm. I remember seeing tons of idiotic threads like this one last year that left one to believe that the world was in a mini-Ice Age.

I'm not blaming you for these other posts but I'd like to see more people who do not believe in man-made global warming at least stand up and call the idiots out for these type of threads. Those who do not believe in man-made global warming would be better served if they actively stood up against those on their side who make stupid arguments. (I try to do the same for global warming believers.)


Honest question. What would have to happen for you to no longer believe in anthropogenic global warming? After all, it must have falsifiability or it is no longer a theory or hypothesis, just a belief. What would have to happen?

Good question. Obviously I'm not the person to answer this. I can use my intellect to the best of my ability but, unlike many on your side, I don't pretend to be an expert on this.

I would hope that the scientific community is actually promoting good science which means they're constantly challenging theories.

The problem here is that you assume that these reasoned challenges are not being taken seriously. I don't know if this is the case. I do know that a lot of non-experts challenge the theories with arguments that have little scientific merits and these challenges are rightfully criticized by the scientific community.

Your side throws out guys like the founder of The Weather Channel (a guy with a journalism degree) as if these are reputable sources.


The bad news is China is putting out 2.3 million tonnes of CO2 more a year than the United States and I promise you they are not going to slow down anytime soon.

That's actually 2.3 billion tonnes.


I think you do make some good points. As I see it, the majority of scientists who are actually trained in these areas believe that C02 is warming the Earth. These people are trained in modern science as as such will tend to be skeptics by nature. Skepticism and proving something yourself is an integral part of science.

Both sides have conflicts of interest that can get in the way. As I see it the non-believers have a much larger conflict of interest. Almost every study that goes against global warming (at least that I've seen) has been funded by oil companies or pro-business groups who are opposed to any regulation of C02 emissions for non-scientific reasons.

Because of all of these factors I tend to believe the researchers who support the idea of global warming.

[jkjsooner]

I want to point out a couple of other things. Things that are understood and I don't think seriously debated.

1. Our atmosphere provides a greenhouse effect. It always has and always will. Physics models would predict a vastly different temperature without natural greenhouse gases.

2. I don't think it's even debated that C02 is one of the greenhouse gases.

3. Average C02 levels can be measured and have been shown to be rising.

The question, as I see it, isn't if an increase in C02 (everything else equal) would cause warming. I think it's basic science that it would indeed cause warming. The question is how much warming and is that the cause of the warming we've seen over the last 100 years.

[jkjsooner]

There is much irony that the more **** you throw up into the atmosphere the more it can cool the earth.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

It's no different than putting some fine ash on the roof of your greenhouse. It would block some sunlight and cool your greenhouse. It doesn't disprove that the glass roof in your greenhouse causes a warming affect.

There are two factors here. Sunlight consists of shorter wavelength radiation. The heat emitted from the earth is longer wave infrared radiation. A greenhouse gas has a tendency to allow the shorter wavelength radiation through and block the longer wavelength radiation.

Other less transparent gases or particles will block the shorter wavelength radiation. Call it irony if you like.

[Aldebaran]

Mouthbreathers trying to discuss atmospheric physics makes the baby Jesus cry.

[jkjsooner]

This is an older post but I simply can't let this go without comment. If you were trying to prove the fallability of science you did a very poor job.


First of all, not all scientists believe in your premise and even if they all had let's see if they are ever wrong.

1 – There are 9 planets in our solar system
New information: We have at least 10 planets

Far out! Astronomers discover 10th planet
2000 EB173 orbits sun between Neptune, Pluto
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/orbit26_20001026.htm

Or maybe, we have only 8

I missed it when scientists stated with absolute certainty that they've found every planet.

And, as far as Pluto goes, it was a reclassification based on new definitions of planets.

None of this points to any kind of failure with the science.



2 – There are 30 orders of insects
New fact: Now there are 31

“For the first time in 87 years, researchers have discovered an insect
that constitutes a new order of insects. Dubbed "the gladiator" (for
the recent movie), it lives in the Brandberg Mountains of Namibia, on
the west coast of Southern Africa.”

Funny thing, scientists have always claimed that they've only discovered a fraction of the species on earth. Obviously anyone could conclude that a new species could in fact constitute a new order.



3 – Ice Age clothing was made of crudely formed animal hides
New Information:

“… the warm weather clothing of at least some of our ancestors
included caps or snoods, belts, skirts, bandeaux (banding over the
breasts), bracelets, and necklaces—all constructed of plant fibers in
a great variety of woven textiles…”

These are assumptions made by anthropologists. They try to solve mysteries based on limited evidence and constantly adjust their assumptions as new evidence comes to light.

This is expected, shows good science, and hardly has anything in common with science about the theories of global warming.



4 – Humans evolved directly from tree dwelling apes
New information – more likely from ground dwelling apes

"Our study demonstrates that our earliest ancestors did not simply
come down from the trees. Rather, they evolved from an ape already
adapted to life on the ground."

Again, this is much like the archaeology example. We have theories based on evidence and as new evidence comes to light we adjust the theories.

This all shows how science works. Despite your objections science is about constantly reevaluating theories.



5 – There are 109 Elements in the Period Table
New information: Since 1994, six new elements have been discovered

Periodic Table of the Elements
A Resource for Elementary, Middle School, and High School Students
http://pearl1.lanl.gov/periodic/default.htm

In most cases "discovered" means "created." It's not hard to predict what would constitute a new element. Add an electron and proton and there you go.

The fact is most of these are highly unstable which is why it takes a laboratory to create them.

The fact that science can create a new element in a laboratory is hardly a criticism of science. I'll also point out that, like the insect case, we list the ones we've discovered and/or created. Nowhere has anyone stated that it was impossible to create more.

This one is even worse than the insect case. It's like if I created an new species of insect in the lab and then said science was flawed because they hadn't yet discovered it.



6 – The first mammals evolved about 155 million years ago.

New information –

“The shrew-like animal would have run under the feet of dinosaurs at
the start of the Jurassic period, nearly 195 million years ago …
Hadrocodium wui pushes back by another 40 million years its first
appearance in the fossil record.”

Fossil hints at mammal evolution
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1349763.stm

Again, we're adjusting theories based on new information. This is hardly an indictment of science.


I'll also point out in the archaeology and evolution fields their theories are very loose and based on current limited knowledge. They expect to adjust their theories when new fossils are found.


You really didn't try very hard did you? I'm sure you can find real cases where science failed. Your attempt here was what failed.

[Aldebaran]

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e118/Ald3baran/Religion/science-vs-religion.jpg

[TitoMorelli]

As usual, alde, your screeds have added nothing to this thread. Why don't you take your soiled britches and go play somewhere else, so that intelligent posters can continue their debate?

[bigfatjerk]

I want to point out a couple of other things. Things that are understood and I don't think seriously debated.

1. Our atmosphere provides a greenhouse effect. It always has and always will. Physics models would predict a vastly different temperature without natural greenhouse gases.

2. I don't think it's even debated that C02 is one of the greenhouse gases.

3. Average C02 levels can be measured and have been shown to be rising.

The question, as I see it, isn't if an increase in C02 (everything else equal) would cause warming. I think it's basic science that it would indeed cause warming. The question is how much warming and is that the cause of the warming we've seen over the last 100 years.

I linked this site earlier but here's some more info on CO2 and weather.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/


Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)

So basically we aren't even half way from doubling the CO2 levels and that doubling of it would actually increase temperature by 1 degree on it's own.

In earth's past we've also had as much as 4 times the CO2 we have right now. And that's relatively recent. Last few hundred million years or so. And people weren't around to cause that. 1 volcano eruption puts out way more CO2 than humans do.

I'm not too worried about co2 rising so much to warm us because the only way that happens is if we have some catastrophic event. An asteroid hitting the Earth killing billions if not everyone on Earth, changes in our tectonic plates that cause the volcanoes on earth to all erupt. Some weird thing like that, which isn't really under human control, and would probably destroy all human or most life before the warming were to really begin. Supposedly in roughly a billion years the earth will lose all of his atmosphere so we will end with global warming, but it's going to be because of that yellow ball in our sky.

[jkjsooner]

I was curious about some of the new elements created and I discovered something interesting. There was a prediction that some of the heavier elements would actually be more stable. Most of the new elements they created were more and more unstable but more recent ones were becoming more stable. Scientists predicted that even heavier elements might have even more stability.

Anyway, again this shows that science predicted some of these before actually discovering them.

[jkjsooner]

So basically we aren't even half way from doubling the CO2 levels and that doubling of it would actually increase temperature by 1 degree on it's own.

I'll point out that that is one degree celcius. That would be 1.8 degrees F.


In earth's past we've also had as much as 4 times the CO2 we have right now. And that's relatively recent. Last few hundred million years or so. And people weren't around to cause that. 1 volcano eruption puts out way more CO2 than humans do.

I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to reproduce the the inhospitable conditions we had a few hundred million years ago. Hell we had an ice age much more recently but I'd be pretty concerned if we artificially reproduced another ice age.


1 volcano eruption puts out way more CO2 than humans do.

You need to read up on this thread. SoonerWood already addressed this:


Whats your source for this? A quick check shows otherwise.

Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Thats for all volcanoes.

Source - http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

Humans produce 29 billion tons of CO2 per year.

Source - http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm

[MR2-Sooner86]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yV0zrqR6Pbw/Sw780r-R-_I/AAAAAAAAALM/u4nvTOqvdps/s1600/proof-of-global-warming.jpg

[okie52]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yV0zrqR6Pbw/Sw780r-R-_I/AAAAAAAAALM/u4nvTOqvdps/s1600/proof-of-global-warming.jpg

Don't forget about the deforestation.

[PDXsooner]

Mouthbreathers trying to discuss atmospheric physics makes the baby Jesus cry.

Best post in this thread. Posting links and graphs that they don't even understand.

[jkjsooner]

Don't forget about the deforestation.

That's the quote of the day. Nothing more needs to be said.

Actually, one more thing does need to be said. Thank God for global warming.

[OhU1]

Joe Everyman:
1. Duh, it snowed and was cold today.
2. Duh, Al Gore..... internet, Rush Limbaugh said....
3. Duh, I didn't come from no monkey, liberal, blah, derp......

[Cornfed]

These debates allways crack me up since everyone knows everything.

[Peach Fuzz]

Yea glad I'm not the only Environmental Science major...

[GDC]

A good starting point in these debates is to simply understand the difference in weather and climate, which apparently most folks don't.

[jkjsooner]

Whatever!
MY ORIGINAL POST was intended to highlight our localized record low temps; and insert a fantastic cartoon!
In case you didn't notice, the cartoon was by a highly respected and nationally sindicated cartoonist!
His cartoons smack both sides of the political spectrum.


Cruiser, my apologies if this was a little tongue-in-cheek. You have to admit that every time it gets cold or snows there are posts (usually made by RLIMC or Tuba) that are meant to be taken seriously. Because of this, it's easy to mistake a post like your's as being serious.

Please replace "dumb threads like this" with "dumb threads similar to this which are meant to be taken seriously."

I recognize that RLIMC and Tuba may be parodies themselves and the joke is on the rest of us...

[jkjsooner]

I'm just bumping this to show the hypocrisy of those who bring these threads up every time it gets cold but disappear when we get summer like temps in February. A little intellectual honesty is in order.

[KABOOKIE]

Please go jump off a cliff.

[jkjsooner]

Please go jump off a cliff.

Why? Becuase I'm willing to expose the hypocrisy of some here?

I don't think either cold spells or warm spells is in any way evidence for or against global warming but I will point out the hypocrisy of those who bring this up every time it gets cold.

Maybe I made a valid point but instead of admitting it you get abusive?

[soonercruiser]

I'm just bumping this to show the hypocrisy of those who bring these threads up every time it gets cold but disappear when we get summer like temps in February. A little intellectual honesty is in order.

Won't see me complain!
My Clematis and the bermuda grass on golf courses love the heat!

[PrideTrombone]

I recognize that RLIMC and Tuba may be parodies themselves and the joke is on the rest of us...

I don't know about RLIMC, but I remember Tuba from my days in Pride, and I can say that he's the same person he was then, whatever that makes you think of him. :)

[dwarthog]

A good starting point in these debates is to simply understand the difference in weather and climate, which apparently most folks don't.

Which certainly isn't helped by the talking heads at the various news sources since they invariably move from discussing a weather event into talking about climate change, failing to point out one does not mean the other.

[The]

bump

[soonerhubs]

bump

LMAO!!!:gary:

[Mississippi Sooner]

I don't see any resolution here.

[hOUrricane]

This is just weather, not climate.

[sappstuf]

I don't see any resolution here.

Sure there is..

Since this conversation took place a new peer reviewed paper was released. No warming from 1998-2008.


Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/27/1102467108.short?rss=1

[sooner59]

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs46/i/2009/181/1/2/FEAR_manbearpig_by_jupiterjenny.jpg

[bigfatjerk]

Who knew that it would be hot during the summer? Never would have thunk that.

[sooner59]

Sure there is..

Since this conversation took place a new peer reviewed paper was released. No warming from 1998-2008.



http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/27/1102467108.short?rss=1

:mack: IT HASN'T DROPPED BELOW 105 HERE IN A WEEK!!! [hairGel]

[sappstuf]

:mack: IT HASN'T DROPPED BELOW 105 HERE IN A WEEK!!! [hairGel]

:)

It is sad when you need to drive down to San Antonio to cool off!

[Fraggle145]

Who knew that it would be hot during the summer? Never would have thunk that.

You mean sorta like winter?

[The]

You mean sorta like winter?


Oofta.

[thecynic]

here.we.go.

[Fraggle145]

Oofta.

Ufda?

[The]

Ufda?

Oofta. (http://oofta.wordpress.com/about/)

[Fraggle145]

Oofta. (http://oofta.wordpress.com/about/)

Uff da. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oofta)

[The]

Hoofda.

[OutlandTrophy]

http://www.eworldpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Hoda-kotb.jpg

[KABOOKIE]

Sure there is..

Since this conversation took place a new peer reviewed paper was released. No warming from 1998-2008.



http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/27/1102467108.short?rss=1

I expect the university of saxet to lose its funding for AGW research very soon.

[DIB]

I'm thuper therial guys!!! ManBearPig is a big problem!!!!

[hOUrricane]

http://www.eworldpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Hoda-kotb.jpg

Mom has really kept her looks. Tell her I need some of her biscuits and gravy soon!

[OhU1]

Every time it gets cold in the winter someone Paul Harvey's out a thread about it being really cold so what are all those pencil-necked-fancy-book learnin LIBERAL scientists talking about? Ho ho, ha ha.

I'm surprised it took this long for a bump or new thead in light of all this HEAT. Ya'll owe Al Gore and John Kerry an apology.

[PDXsooner]

Every time it gets cold in the winter someone Paul Harvey's out a thread about it being really cold so what are all those pencil-necked-fancy-book learnin LIBERAL scientists talking about? Ho ho, ha ha.

I'm surprised it took this long for a bump or new thead in light of all this HEAT. Ya'll owe Al Gore and John Kerry an apology.

Yet they never make a comment when it's 110 degrees...interesting...

[KABOOKIE]

Yet they never make a comment when it's 110 degrees...interesting...

That's because its never ever been 110 degrees before. :rolleyes:

[PDXsooner]

That's because its never ever been 110 degrees before. :rolleyes:

Except for three days ago

[sooner59]

All kidding aside...I have never seen a heat streak like this. When you go 7-10 days in July without dropping below around 103, its just awful. The bank showed consecutive days of 108, 110, and 108. This is Tulsa, not Phoenix! It clouded up today, sprinkled and dropped to 89 degrees and it felt like 72 degrees to me. :cool:

[KABOOKIE]

Stick around a few more years and you'll see it again. Just remember it was global cooling then global warming and now global climate change. That way any weather phenomenon around the world can be blamed on man-made climate change.

ITS HOT,global climate change, ITS COLD, global climate change, EF5 TORNADO IN JOPLIN, global climate change, ITS RAINING TOO MUCH, global climate change, ITS NOT RAINING ENOUGH, global climate change, MASSIVE SNOW STORM, global climate change, HURRICANES IN NEW ORLEANS OF ALL PLACES, global climate change and on and on and on.

[Fraggle145]

ust remember it was global cooling then global warming and now global climate change.

GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME SCIENCE!!! OTHERWISE IT MUST ALWAYS BE WRONG. FOREVAR. BECAUSE THAT IS HOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS. THAT IS THE MOST LOGICAL CONCLUSION EVAR WRITTEN. :texan:

[soonerscuba]

GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME SCIENCE!!! OTHERWISE IT MUST ALWAYS BE WRONG. FOREVAR. BECAUSE THAT IS HOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS. THAT IS THE MOST LOGICAL CONCLUSION EVAR WRITTEN. :texan:Did you know scientists are allowed to use the scientific method while abortion is still legal, it just doesn't seem right.

[Howzit]

All kidding aside...I have never seen a heat streak like this. When you go 7-10 days in July without dropping below around 103, its just awful. The bank showed consecutive days of 108, 110, and 108. This is Tulsa, not Phoenix! It clouded up today, sprinkled and dropped to 89 degrees and it felt like 72 degrees to me. :cool:

'98, '99, and '00 were all 3 pretty miserable, especially '98 and '00.

I don't remember the number of days, but in 2000 Dallas set records for consecutive days over 100, and there were lots of those over 105. I remember being on a warehouse dock in Ft Worth at 3 am and it was 97.

[Mjcpr]

1980 is always referred to as the hottest summer around here.....I only vaguely remember it.

[Howzit]

What is 1981 referred to as?

[Mississippi Sooner]

What is 1981 referred to as?

The most partly cloudiest.

[49r]

GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME SCIENCE!!! OTHERWISE IT MUST ALWAYS BE WRONG. FOREVAR. BECAUSE THAT IS HOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS. THAT IS THE MOST LOGICAL CONCLUSION EVAR WRITTEN. :texan:

SCIENCE!!! YOU LIE!!!! :mad: THE MAN ON THE RADIO TOLD ME SO AND HE'S NEVER WRONG AND HE SAID THAT TOO SO F YOU SCIENCE!!!!

[Howzit]

The most partly cloudiest.

Ooooh, I wonder if that correlates to the most chance of rainiest.

[silverwheels]

my momma always told me that them sciences is da debil

[KABOOKIE]

LOUD NOISES!!! WE'VE BEEN WRONG BEFORE AND WE THINK WE KNOW MORE NOW SO WE ARE RIGHT. THERE IS NO DEBATE. LOUD NOISES!!!!

[imjebus]

What I find funny about this argument is that people on each side only believe the science that supports the way they want to believe. I don't have a clue which side is right or wrong. My only opinion on the issue is that it should be studied more so maybe we can all come to an truly educated conclusion. Like that could ever happen....

[Sooner24]

1980 is always referred to as the hottest summer around here.....I only vaguely remember it.

I remember it well. This summer isn't even close to that one.......yet. :hot:

[OhU1]

What I find funny about this argument is that people on each side only believe the science that supports the way they want to believe. I don't have a clue which side is right or wrong. My only opinion on the issue is that it should be studied more so maybe we can all come to an truly educated conclusion. Like that could ever happen....

You got it. That's the problem. There should be no "sides". Science is concerned with ascertaining what is true and actually occurring in the physical world. The scientific process works to discover and understand and is a self correcting mechanism ultimately (even if an individual scientist has bias). Political ideology and dogma on the other hand do not self correct when they are in error.

People who approach and discuss the global warming hypothesis with an ideological bias don't care what is true. They use confirmation bias to discard any contrary findings. Many people are going to look rather foolish on this issue 10 -20 years from now when more is known.

[49r]

LOUD NOISES!!! WE'VE BEEN WRONG BEFORE AND WE THINK WE KNOW MORE NOW SO WE ARE RIGHT. THERE IS NO DEBATE. LOUD NOISES!!!!

To be fair, you started the shouting first:


Stick around a few more years and you'll see it again. Just remember it was global cooling then global warming and now global climate change. That way any weather phenomenon around the world can be blamed on man-made climate change.

ITS HOT,global climate change, ITS COLD, global climate change, EF5 TORNADO IN JOPLIN, global climate change, ITS RAINING TOO MUCH, global climate change, ITS NOT RAINING ENOUGH, global climate change, MASSIVE SNOW STORM, global climate change, HURRICANES IN NEW ORLEANS OF ALL PLACES, global climate change and on and on and on.

And second of all, climates change. That's what they do. That's what they HAVE to do. Aren't we allowed to try to ascertain exactly WHY they do it? Aren't we allowed to be wrong about our assumptions, learn from those mistakes and move on in an attempt to get closer to the real answer?

[Ike]

If you are a climate change believer, what evidence would it take for you to reverse your position?

If you are a climate change denier, what evidence would it take for you to reverse your position?

If you don't have an actual answer to this question, then there is no way you can contribute anything to human knowledge on the issue.

[Chuck Bao]

If you are a climate change believer, what evidence would it take for you to reverse your position?

If you are a climate change denier, what evidence would it take for you to reverse your position?

If you don't have an actual answer to this question, then there is no way you can contribute anything to human knowledge on the issue.

That is a beautiful point, Ike.

But, I don't harbor any notion of contributing anything to human knowledge.

I think that there is no way to convince either side with any short-term empirical data.

I am stuck on the man-made climate change believer side. There seems to me to be indisputable evidence of melting glaciers and polar ice caps.

I never remember 80-90mph straight line winds in Oklahoma during my first 25 years. I never remember the unseasonable weather. Over the last 21 years of living in Thailand, I never remember the weather to be so unseasonable and just plain weird.

See Royal's thread. It must be hell to be a farmer these days. Oh wait, I am one.

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156391

[pphilfran]

I am a skeptic...trying to use a 100 years of data to justify mans part in global warming seems like far too little..

Since I could be wrong I would hedge my bets...damn near anything that we can do will also reduce our dependence on imported crude...

Hyrbrid, electric, direct injection diesel, fuel cells..they will all reduce CO2 and imported crude...

I am against cap and trade...cap and trade forces high emitters (coal) to buy scrubbers to remove the CO2...too bad we don't have a workable scrubber that uses less than 1/3 of the plant electrical output when it is in use...and if you do somehow manage to capture 90% of the CO2 we are somehow going to safely bury several cubic miles of compressed CO2 each year...and never have a leak...

i would be pushing NG for auto and power plant usage...

[sappstuf]

If you are a climate change believer, what evidence would it take for you to reverse your position?

If you are a climate change denier, what evidence would it take for you to reverse your position?

If you don't have an actual answer to this question, then there is no way you can contribute anything to human knowledge on the issue.

Who wouldn't believe that climate changes? It changes every second.

The real question is if the supposed global warming that is taking place is being caused by man.

And to that question, for me, the answer would be no. The theory that as CO2 increases, it will increase temps, which will increase water vapor, which will in turn retain more heat and cause a positive loop feedback hasn't been seen. CO2 has continued to rise, but temps are not rising as all the models have predicted. Also sea levels are rising, but at an increasingly slower rate. That isn't supposed to be happening under the theory.. It should be getting faster because of a combination of glacial ice melting and that the warmer ocean would expand. The latest explaination on why it isn't is that it actually is, but the continents are still rising from the last ice age. Ohhh.... Then what is the problem?

The models are wrong because the theory is wrong. There are other variables that are not manmade that have much more impact on our temperatures.

I do agree with phil on becoming as energy independent as possible and for generally having a clean enviroment.

But if you believe that CO2 is going to destroy the world, I have more bad news for you...


Germany to fund new coal plants with climate change fund cash


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9TzK4b0yCrw/TE-Sf_9bMJI/AAAAAAAAD78/rqBQUpp9r-c/s1600/Irony.jpg

[Fraggle145]

If you are a climate change believer, what evidence would it take for you to reverse your position?

If you are a climate change denier, what evidence would it take for you to reverse your position?

If you don't have an actual answer to this question, then there is no way you can contribute anything to human knowledge on the issue.

Since models are the best we have right now it would probably take a (good) model that could account for the rise in temperatures with some other quantifiable variable that we have observed changing since the beginning of the industrial era besides CO2.

Or if I saw good research that suggests that the rise in CO2 levels that we have observed in recent years isnt at the fastest rate we have ever seen.

Basically, I see how species that are ecosystem engineers change the environment around them in significant ways all the time. Their changes have far reaching effects on all other species in that environment. We are a globally distributed species that acts in much the same way. To say we are affecting the climate in some way isnt too far of a leap for me.

[hOUrricane]

Since models are the best we have right now it would probably take a (good) model that could account for the rise in temperatures with some other quantifiable variable that we have observed changing since the beginning of the industrial era besides CO2.

Or if I saw good research that suggests that the rise in CO2 levels that we have observed in recent years isnt at the fastest rate we have ever seen.

Basically, I see how species that are ecosystem engineers change the environment around them in significant ways all the time. Their changes have far reaching effects on all other species in that environment. We are a globally distributed species that acts in much the same way. To say we are affecting the climate in some way isnt too far of a leap for me.

Go take a leap into Lake Texoma.

[OutlandTrophy]

Since models are the best we have right now it would probably take a (good) model that could account for the rise in temperatures with some other quantifiable variable that we have observed changing since the beginning of the industrial era besides CO2.

Or if I saw good research that suggests that the rise in CO2 levels that we have observed in recent years isnt at the fastest rate we have ever seen.

Basically, I see how species that are ecosystem engineers change the environment around them in significant ways all the time. Their changes have far reaching effects on all other species in that environment. We are a globally distributed species that acts in much the same way. To say we are affecting the climate in some way isnt too far of a leap for me.

quit smoking the mustard algae, hippie.

[Fraggle145]

Go take a leap into Lake Texoma.

Its like jumping into a giant bath tub right now.

[Fraggle145]

quit smoking the mustard algae, hippie.

You have to do something to deal with the lake people.

[En_Fuego]

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n377/tinkerbell797197/global_warming.jpg

[Fraggle145]

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n377/tinkerbell797197/global_warming.jpg

Mongo was here.

[sappstuf]

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n377/tinkerbell797197/global_warming.jpg

I don't think she can quite mount that mushroom...

[49r]

damn!

[49r]

Is this a political thread?

[MR2-Sooner86]

Is this a political thread?

No, once we get the conspiracy theory forum up and running it'll be moved over there.

[Penguin]

Global Warming/Climate Change has now become a religious issue. No longer do people talk about statistics and computer models. People only talk about their blind faith and their personal beliefs in relation to this issue.

[StoopTroup]

ZUabDrfjATY

[soonercruiser]

Global Warming/Climate Change has now become a religious issue. No longer do people talk about statistics and computer models. People only talk about their blind faith and their personal beliefs in relation to this issue.

This is because the most oft used statistics by the Global Warming crowd have been shown to be corrupted! When the argument is bad science....
So, there are no credible facts left......especially to prove man is the primary cause.

[bigfatjerk]

The thing is that what's the solution to global warming? It's basically a ponzi scheme to sell the extra co2 the company uses to make them feel better. It doesn't make anyone use less emitions, it just makes them pay more. If you really wanted to limit CO2 you would cut down trees, not allow people to breath or eat, since the biproduct of all these is co2 emitions and not allow people to drive.

[TUSooner]

The thing is that what's the solution to global warming? It's basically a ponzi scheme to sell the extra co2 the company uses to make them feel better. It doesn't make anyone use less emitions, it just makes them pay more. If you really wanted to limit CO2 you would cut down trees, not allow people to breath or eat, since the biproduct of all these is co2 emitions and not allow people to drive.

Trees emit CO2 !? Hmm, I think that's the exact opposite of true, or all my high school science teachers were lying liberals. But since science doesn't matter -- only ideology does -- it's OK. Man's role may be debatable, the solution even moreso, but "global warming" or "climate change" is a fact that only the soonercruiser class of ideological zombies can deny. The polar ice isn't hiding; it's melting.

EDIT: I understand that photsynthesis produces more O2 than respiration releases CO2. Anyway, trees = good things.

[TUSooner]

This is because the most oft used statistics by the Global Warming crowd have been shown to be corrupted! When the argument is bad science....
So, there are no credible facts left......especially to prove man is the primary cause.

Overstate much? A coupla guys in England talk about dressing up the facts to look nicer, and suddenly there are NO credible facts? NONE? Your willful ignorance is shocking.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Overstate much? A coupla guys in England talk about dressing up the facts to look nicer, and suddenly there are NO credible facts?

Yeah it's just a couple of guys that goofed and everybody else is in it for pure good.

There's plenty of evidence to show this is 100% fact, supported from everybody, with no criticism, and we should all move on. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest this is used as a political movement to tell me what car I can drive, house I can build, lightbulb I can use, toilets I can sit on, TV I can watch, and impose many more rules and regulations to rule my life just a little bit more.

I mean Al Gore's Carbon-Credit company, with no science to back up what a "Carbon-Credit" is and numbers pulled out of thin air by his people, was suppose to open after his movie and not before. They were just so ahead of schedule however that they were able to be in place so when the movie started, people could start helping right away. There was no ulterior motive at all and all of that money is just an unfortunate consequence from trying to help the planet.

EjmtSkl53h4

Never gets old.

I also think the term "Climate Change" is the funniest thing ever. We went from global cooling, to global warming, and now to climate change so now you can't win with these Greenunist. The climate is changing!? HOLY ****! The past five billion years here on earth has been a nice 85 degrees with a light breeze from the southeast and 45% humidity and it's just now starting to change!?

[Sooners78]

The climate has been changing since the beginning of time. It changes in cycles by design. For any man (Al Gore) to say that he can do anything to change that is the highest form of arrogance. btw, Al has one of the biggest carbon footprints of anyone. By the standards that he preaches, he should probably be in jail.

[TUSooner]

Yeah it's just a couple of guys that goofed and everybody else is in it for pure good.

There's plenty of evidence to show this is 100% fact, supported from everybody, with no criticism, and we should all move on. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest this is used as a political movement to tell me what car I can drive, house I can build, lightbulb I can use, toilets I can sit on, TV I can watch, and impose many more rules and regulations to rule my life just a little bit more.

I mean Al Gore's Carbon-Credit company, with no science to back up what a "Carbon-Credit" is and numbers pulled out of thin air by his people, was suppose to open after his movie and not before. They were just so ahead of schedule however that they were able to be in place so when the movie started, people could start helping right away. There was no ulterior motive at all and all of that money is just an unfortunate consequence from trying to help the planet.

EjmtSkl53h4

Never gets old.

I also think the term "Climate Change" is the funniest thing ever. We went from global cooling, to global warming, and now to climate change so now you can't win with these Greenunist. The climate is changing!? HOLY ****! The past five billion years here on earth has been a nice 85 degrees with a light breeze from the southeast and 45% humidity and it's just now starting to change!?

Feel better after that sarcastic rant? Get any on ya? Your post is a classic example of the false dichotomy: Either the most fanatical proponents of global warming are 100% right, or the whole thing is 100% a sham foisted on us by the "Greenunists." Nothing in between.

There is hard evidence that planet is getting warmer at this time. (See the record melting of polar ice.) Whether it's a normal cycle or whether man has caused all or part of it is unclear, though I question man's ability to wreak great changes in the Earth. I also doubt that the radical remedies proposed by the greenies are necessary, or even effective.

Some scientist who believe in man-caused global warming have fudged their data, or at least talked about spinning their views. But I have not seen where any data has been wholly fabricated. And the presence of a few spinmeisters doesn't mean there's nothing there or that the "green" side is unworthy of any credence, or even that conservation and other "green" measures are not completely reasonable. OTOH, there are also people who deny that anything at all is going on -- other than, of course, the usual vast left-wing conspiracy to take away their SUV's and their money and their liberty to pollute at will. To assert that the pro-warming folks are politcally charged while the anti-warming advocates are pure scientists is absurd. If a dose of spin invalidated an entire argument, the whole anti-warming view would also collapse. The truth is what exists even if you don't believe it. So I want science, not ideologiocal cant.

EDIT: That said, I give you spek for the Carlin link; his rant is much better than yours. :wink:

EDIT 2: re: No data manipulation; denyers make satisfying but non-nutritious meal out of red herring: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/climate-change-scientist-cleared-in-u-s-data-altering-inquiry.html

[JohnnyMack]

It's the sun, stupid.

http://www.economist.com/node/21526788

[TUSooner]

It's the sun, stupid.

http://www.economist.com/node/21526788

I need a translation into politispeak or it means nothing to me.

[Ike]

I need a translation into politispeak or it means nothing to me.

Nobody really understands everything that is going on, so clearly, the appropriate course of action is to pretend that there are no problems. None. At all. ;)

[Caboose]

Nobody really understands everything that is going on, so clearly, the appropriate course of action is to pretend that there are no problems. None. At all. ;)

Nobody really understands everything that is going on, so clearly, the appropriate course of action is enact massive socialistic wealth-transfer programs that destroy the free market and erode personal freedom. Immediately. Now. ;)

[hawaii 5-0]

ZUabDrfjATY


I've been tellin' that one for a few years now.

5-0

Trump/ Perry's phimosis 2012

[soonercruiser]

That was 5-0????

:biggrin: