Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

More global warming goodies


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
69 replies to this topic

#46 MyDrunkardNC

MyDrunkardNC

    Nervous Farter

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts

Posted 03 January 2009 - 12:07 PM

eek


[attach]28263[/attach]

Attached Files

  • Attached File  eek.jpg   7.82KB   0 downloads


#47 Htar

Htar

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,599 posts

Posted 03 January 2009 - 04:12 PM

You don't think we can. Okay. And your evidence for your disagreement with climate change consist of partisan blogs and platitudes.

You completely ignore the U.S. government's own findings and regulations.

And your primary concern is business being destroyed. So man, to paraphrase Louis Armstrong, if you don't know, then nobody can tell you.


Yeah, our government does everything so well...Come on man. there are hundreds of scientists around the world disputing man-made global warming...I've posted a ton of stuff from different sources and perspectives.

Again, I'm looking for proof...not some dogmatic, al gore, anti-business agenda driven drivel. All the little enviro wackos should stop driving vehicles and using their air conditioners while blogging on their electric powered laptops. The left is all about " DON'T TELL ME HOW TO LIVE MY LIFE" While they persist in telling the rest of the world how to live theirs.

#48 Speed

Speed

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,571 posts

Posted 03 January 2009 - 05:03 PM

People say that the icecaps melting will flood NYC (not that that would be all bad). But how can this be. Put a glass of ice in the freezer and the glass will burst from the expanding ice. Seems to me sea levels will go down after the caps melt. Do try this at home.

#49 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,983 posts

Posted 03 January 2009 - 07:31 PM

I'm sorry but didn't the Global Warming crowed start calling it Global Climate Change? I wonder why they felt like they had to do that???


This is to make it easier to say that Global Warming makes it colder as well as that Global Warming makes it warmer.

#50 MyDrunkardNC

MyDrunkardNC

    Nervous Farter

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts

Posted 04 January 2009 - 12:02 AM

Yeah, our government does everything so well...Come on man. there are hundreds of scientists around the world disputing man-made global warming...I've posted a ton of stuff from different sources and perspectives.

Again, I'm looking for proof...not some dogmatic, al gore, anti-business agenda driven drivel. All the little enviro wackos should stop driving vehicles and using their air conditioners while blogging on their electric powered laptops. The left is all about " DON'T TELL ME HOW TO LIVE MY LIFE" While they persist in telling the rest of the world how to live theirs.


Actually, the U.S. Government does a lot well. That's one reason why we're the best country in the world. Sure, they screw up (bailouts anyone?), but that doesn't mean our entire government can just be dismissed as idiotic. If the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (led by a Republican administration no less) recognizes "global climate change" as a legitimate threat to our safety, and is taking steps to fight it, then I say it is a serious problem.

You keep saying you're looking for proof, yet I doubt that. You're only interested in views that agree with yours. I mean, you're debunking the EPA's proven scientific evidence with a sarcastic comment meant to highlight the incompetence of our government.

Sure, I can see how there can be debates about the degree to which man has harmed the environment. And there are probably serious debates about the timetable for which we have to fix this problem. But to deny that man-made global climate change and/or global warming exists, and to claim that pumping chemicals into the atmosphere has no harmful impact (just like pumping harmful chemicals into our own bodies doesn't hurt us, right?), is just plain ignorant.

#51 Htar

Htar

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,599 posts

Posted 04 January 2009 - 09:05 AM

Actually, the U.S. Government does a lot well. That's one reason why we're the best country in the world. Sure, they screw up (bailouts anyone?), but that doesn't mean our entire government can just be dismissed as idiotic. If the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (led by a Republican administration no less) recognizes "global climate change" as a legitimate threat to our safety, and is taking steps to fight it, then I say it is a serious problem.

You keep saying you're looking for proof, yet I doubt that. You're only interested in views that agree with yours. I mean, you're debunking the EPA's proven scientific evidence with a sarcastic comment meant to highlight the incompetence of our government.

Sure, I can see how there can be debates about the degree to which man has harmed the environment. And there are probably serious debates about the timetable for which we have to fix this problem. But to deny that man-made global climate change and/or global warming exists, and to claim that pumping chemicals into the atmosphere has no harmful impact (just like pumping harmful chemicals into our own bodies doesn't hurt us, right?), is just plain ignorant.


My big problem is that the same people who take this stuff that serious, and believe strongly that MOTHER EARTH is going to wipe us all out, are the same people who downgrade the threat of HUMANS (terrorists) to our global security.

Enviro = biggest threat...Terrorists = propaganda! I think the priorities are a bit askew.

Agree we need to get off fossil fuel, but not until it's as cost effiecient as oil.
I can't afford 50K electric cars whose batteries need to be replaced every 4 years at another 10K. Our technology isn't there yet. Hybrids may be the best short/long term solution.

#52 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,983 posts

Posted 04 January 2009 - 09:09 AM

We've had this same discussion multiple times (mainly on the old huddle) and I've always said the same thing... yes we should work towards getting off of fossil fuels, yes we should do what can reasonably be done to limit environmental impacts without destroying the economy, but this blind obedience to Al Gore's vision of apocalypse due to man destroying the earth is just as dumb as those who say man has no impact at all.
There is a middle ground in this argument and that's where I intend to stay.

Having said that, I will admit to making fun of those who are on the far left of this issue. It is amusing to me how the global warming activists (as I alluded to in the post above) can see "global warming" in all types of weather events. If it's hot, it's GW, if it's cold it's GW, if it's windy it's GW, if there are more or fewer hurricanes, it's GW...

#53 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,773 posts

Posted 04 January 2009 - 10:57 AM

If it was not for the far left alarmists, we would be about 10 years behind where we are now in regards to alternative fuels and carbon emissions.

#54 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,005 posts

Posted 05 January 2009 - 02:55 PM

My big problem is that the same people who take this stuff that serious, and believe strongly that MOTHER EARTH is going to wipe us all out, are the same people who downgrade the threat of HUMANS (terrorists) to our global security.

Enviro = biggest threat...Terrorists = propaganda! I think the priorities are a bit askew.

Agree we need to get off fossil fuel, but not until it's as cost effiecient as oil.
I can't afford 50K electric cars whose batteries need to be replaced every 4 years at another 10K. Our technology isn't there yet. Hybrids may be the best short/long term solution.


It's a good thing that oil and terrorism aren't related, otherwise we might be able to find a solution that makes everyone happy.

#55 Epistaxis

Epistaxis

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,184 posts

Posted 05 January 2009 - 03:20 PM

Enviro wackos: I'm not interested in driving a shitty little unsafe car, living in a cave, and wiping with fallen leaves, so you all can kiss my ass.

Pissed off angry wacko conservatives: I'm not interested in fish with three eyes and slime encrusted shorelines, so you all can kiss my ass too.

The fact is, we are stewards of this planet, and our overall effect on it is not well understood. But it sorta makes sense to protect what we have, and I certainly don't need Al Gore's manbearpig propaganda piece to educate me on what should be common sense. We will work towards greater fossil fuel independence, but it will take awhile, and in the meantime I'd like it if everybody stopped acting like the person on the other side of the debate is somehow evil, and that somehow you are smarter/better/enlightened.

None of you know poo, but common sense will get us to a point somewhere in the middle where we can still get where we need to go, have AC, and can enjoy the benefits of modern society. Because I don't give a damn WHAT my "footprint" says, I'm not gonna live in a f*ckin' cave Mr. Nader.

#56 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,773 posts

Posted 21 January 2009 - 11:12 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2...rvey/index.html

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.



#57 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 17,484 posts

Posted 21 January 2009 - 11:37 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2...rvey/index.html


A few thoughts to throw out there:

1) The first question in the poll is biased because the mid 1800's was an exceptionally cold time for the northern hemisphere in the modern era, as most scientists would agree.

2) A vast majority scientists working in climate research are model makers (math majors, basically) and have little understanding of the dynamics of the atmosphere. And meteorologists, the ones who do have significant knowledge of it, are among the biggest dissenters.

3) Interestingly, the scientific poll shows significant dissent in such a small cross section of 3100. 10% and 18% dissenters aren't numbers to sneeze at.

Yet the headline, "Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real", which will be the only thing most people will see, implies a certain consensus.

#58 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,773 posts

Posted 21 January 2009 - 11:43 AM

Yes, climatologists work with modeling. That's their job. They get the big picture. Meterologists might refer to guys like Steve Udelson, who only care about local/regional issues and are not typically in tune with, say, the weather in Karachi.

Anyone can argue a non 100 percent agreement rate. 80-90 percent consensus, when including oil company "scientists" is quite good. With that percentage, the headline is pretty accurate.

#59 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 17,484 posts

Posted 21 January 2009 - 11:59 AM

1) If you saw the fudge factors used to make most of these models work, you'd wonder why these people get paid to do anything. I wish I could arbitrarily make the numbers work in my calculations at my work, without losing my job and any hopes to work in my field in the future.

2) Big picture vs. small picture doesn't really matter in this case, because what happens in the macroclimate has to eventually happen in the microclimate. Meteorologists would be the first to jump on the bandwagon.

3) Given the precise angling of the questions to get the answers they want, I wonder how many oil company researchers they really asked. Did they get 4 guys from exxon, but 300 for al gore's pet organization? The bias of the question makes me question the integrity of the entire survey.

#60 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 17,484 posts

Posted 21 January 2009 - 12:06 PM

Anyone can argue a non 100 percent agreement rate. 80-90 percent consensus, when including oil company "scientists" is quite good. With that percentage, the headline is pretty accurate.


4 out of every 5 is nowhere near consensus. And I seriously doubt that 20% of the poll was among oil company scientists.

Even oil company scientists don't have to answer the way their company would want them to.


Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com