Anyone who thinks Global Warming isn't real and being caused by humans is a fucking ignorant clown.
The 2012 Global Warming Debate Thread
- Thread starter lukep
- Start date
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were having an open-minded discussion here. My bad. I'll leave now and let you guys have the circle-jerk all to yourselves.
No one would say that planet isn't warming. It's whether or not it's catastrophic. There's a reason most of the time on the news now they don't call it "Global Warming" they call it "Glocal Climate Change" but if any data that has studied the past hundred of thousands of years have any indication is that the climate is always changing, so it's a bit of an oxymoron.
The Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit came out and said that the planet hasn't increased in temperature in the last 15 years. There's lots of talk of the sun entering the 25 cycle which will be a cool cycle.
Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online
With Sun's Activity Set To Diminish, Is Global Cooling Coming? | Fox News
I mean I would love to say that no matter what we are in deep shit but there are multiple sides fighting the facts. At the end of the day it probably doesn't boil down to much more than an educated guess. If I didn't see politicians drooling over the profit of this so hard I might take it seriously, but that's the world we live in and it's hard to separate the chaff from the wheat.
Why are they calling it 'climate change' now? - CSMonitor.com
even through the 1970s, news reports continued to overwhelmingly refer to global temperature increases as "climate change."
This began to change in the 1980s...
And then it started to swing back in the other direction, helped, in part by conservatives who thought "climate change" sounded less threatening.
A couple days ago, The Daily Mail tabloid published this blatantly false info and then Fox News and such also ran with the story.
Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012 « Met Office News Blog
...article includes numerous errors
...for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading
...Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers
...what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850
It sounds like someone is butt hurt, it does go against the globalist agenda after all. I'm sure they won't stand for it, just like the media won't stand for Ron Paul to become president. Also wordpress.com blog *yawn*
If you want to run around and cry *oh nos* that's fine I won't stop you.
just sayin, it's easy to say their is a correlation between c02 and warming, but it isn't perfect and there could have been other factors in play that caused the warming. Again, it's a best guess system, there are time frames where c02 rose without temperature spikes. It's not a perfect system.
The facts are we are due for temperature drop and neither side can claim victory probably for another few hundred years. And as you said Instrumental History, which is relatively new to the planet.
Last edited:
I think Jeff has single handidly ended this debate forever. How can you argue with that? Yeah, didn't think so.
Good job, Jeff. You're da man!
Haha, I linked you straight to the horse's mouth. Would you trust the Daily Mail's reporting about a Ron Paul column more than the actual column itself?
From the same site where that image came from :If you want to run around and cry *oh nos* that's fine I won't stop you.
just sayin
A linear trend line fitted to the temperature data would indicate that the critical +2C level would be reached in about 40 years. But we don't know that the trend is linear. Recent research indicates that it is probably exponential. Or it may be that peak temperatures are more important than mean temperatures. In either of these cases the +2C threshold would be reached much sooner...
As Wallace Broecker likes to say, the Earth's climate system is "an angry beast" and one that we should not be poking with sticks, which of course is exactly what we are doing with all our carbon dioxide and other GTG emissions.
New Ice Core Data: A Closer Look
late to the thread but for what it's worth..
There are more than a few holes within and credible dissent against the concensus line. A couple gems from the The Climate Research Unit of climategate fame
Pick a few
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions - Douglass - 2007 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library
Cookies must be enabled | The Australian
Atmospheric change is part of the the Earth's history - Telegraph
Now tests show the ice ISN'T melting: Sea water under shelf in the East Antarctic is still freezing | Mail Online
Atmospheric change is part of the the Earth's history - Telegraph
'AGW? I refute it THUS!': Central England Temperatures 1659 to 2009 – Telegraph Blogs
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | World News :: Climate change experts say sorry
Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online
Climate scientists admit fresh error over data on rising sea levels | Environment | The Observer
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Climate change 'fraud'
Climate sceptic wins landmark data victory 'for price of a stamp' | Environment | The Guardian
As third Climategate report is published, even computer models turn against AGW alarmists – Telegraph Blogs
Hotter-burning sun warming the planet - Washington Times
Voices - Disproof of Global Warming Hype Published
And the Institute of Physics filing complaints to Parliament about scientific credibility is nothing to worry over. No surely the data is solid and consensus has been reached.
Seems to me like a typical hose job by elitist malthusian douchebags.
I think the issue took a big step onto the big stage with Gore's Academy Award, which was essentially the elite using Hollywood to promote regressive taxation and juice wall street by preying on enviro libtards using a government figurehead to garner support. And Gore is among many other things a gofer of Maurice Strong, Illuminatti upper management, who somehow managed to even spin global warming into a derivative on the CME.
In Anglo Saxon lore magic wands are made of holly wood, which is associated with sleep and dreaming.
Oh and Gore's daughter also married Andrew Schiff, great great grandson of Jacob Schiff, the Rothschild banker who helped create the Fed, financed Trotsky, and seeded the Rockefellers.
I for one am definitely getting behind global warming. After all Ted Turner's on board and he's good people cuz he helped found the UN and wants a global one child policy.
Oh and Prince Philip too who steals land so people can't live on it and wants to come back in his next life as a depopulating virus and kills billions of people.
And don't forget Soros. These are my kind of guys.
Hell even bil Laden endorsed it lulz. Cuz you know bin laden tapes were definitely not intelligence psyops. Not at all.
It's OK though. If we do need to do something about it we're covered.
PS co2 is not a pollutant. co2 = oxygen = life. Except.. you need plants, and unfortunately we have half the plants we did 10 thousand years ago. And isn't it convenient that deforestation and algae dieoffs are never mentoined in the debate. And funny how the media won't touch the possibility that the earth is indeed running out of oxygen which actually is of slight to concern to things that breathe it.
PPS we don't need oil or green energy. Tesla discovered infinite free radiant energy from the vacuum a century ago and JP Morgan shut him down. No plugs, no wires, no recurring charges. It's fun imagining the kind of world possible if Tesla's discoveries were available in commercial markets. It would certainly make petrodollars a fruitless subject.
There are more than a few holes within and credible dissent against the concensus line. A couple gems from the The Climate Research Unit of climategate fame
That's called fixing data around policy
Pick a few
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions - Douglass - 2007 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library
Cookies must be enabled | The Australian
Atmospheric change is part of the the Earth's history - Telegraph
Now tests show the ice ISN'T melting: Sea water under shelf in the East Antarctic is still freezing | Mail Online
Atmospheric change is part of the the Earth's history - Telegraph
'AGW? I refute it THUS!': Central England Temperatures 1659 to 2009 – Telegraph Blogs
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | World News :: Climate change experts say sorry
Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online
Climate scientists admit fresh error over data on rising sea levels | Environment | The Observer
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Climate change 'fraud'
Climate sceptic wins landmark data victory 'for price of a stamp' | Environment | The Guardian
As third Climategate report is published, even computer models turn against AGW alarmists – Telegraph Blogs
Hotter-burning sun warming the planet - Washington Times
Voices - Disproof of Global Warming Hype Published
And the Institute of Physics filing complaints to Parliament about scientific credibility is nothing to worry over. No surely the data is solid and consensus has been reached.
Seems to me like a typical hose job by elitist malthusian douchebags.
I think the issue took a big step onto the big stage with Gore's Academy Award, which was essentially the elite using Hollywood to promote regressive taxation and juice wall street by preying on enviro libtards using a government figurehead to garner support. And Gore is among many other things a gofer of Maurice Strong, Illuminatti upper management, who somehow managed to even spin global warming into a derivative on the CME.
In Anglo Saxon lore magic wands are made of holly wood, which is associated with sleep and dreaming.
Oh and Gore's daughter also married Andrew Schiff, great great grandson of Jacob Schiff, the Rothschild banker who helped create the Fed, financed Trotsky, and seeded the Rockefellers.
I for one am definitely getting behind global warming. After all Ted Turner's on board and he's good people cuz he helped found the UN and wants a global one child policy.
Oh and Prince Philip too who steals land so people can't live on it and wants to come back in his next life as a depopulating virus and kills billions of people.
And don't forget Soros. These are my kind of guys.
Hell even bil Laden endorsed it lulz. Cuz you know bin laden tapes were definitely not intelligence psyops. Not at all.
It's OK though. If we do need to do something about it we're covered.
PS co2 is not a pollutant. co2 = oxygen = life. Except.. you need plants, and unfortunately we have half the plants we did 10 thousand years ago. And isn't it convenient that deforestation and algae dieoffs are never mentoined in the debate. And funny how the media won't touch the possibility that the earth is indeed running out of oxygen which actually is of slight to concern to things that breathe it.
PPS we don't need oil or green energy. Tesla discovered infinite free radiant energy from the vacuum a century ago and JP Morgan shut him down. No plugs, no wires, no recurring charges. It's fun imagining the kind of world possible if Tesla's discoveries were available in commercial markets. It would certainly make petrodollars a fruitless subject.
The Governments are controlled very well by those very corporations so you'd better not hold your breath hoping for any kind of a solution from that direction.
Al Gore wrote a book with some light science in it, which kind of explains the feedback loop I mentioned above but very poorly. Since it was aimed at the layman, there were many holes in it that were very easily attacked by the rest of the world that isn't a Climatologist.
Although I appreciate his initial effort Al has not followed through very well and is no longer taken seriously on this subject by many, especially after he proposed a "Cap & Trade" Carbon Credit marketplace that would act like the SEC for carbon pollution. You can watch a short vid here on why that was a very bad idea, at least in practice.
Dude. The last 400,000 years is almost the entire era of humanity. Do you get that? We evolved in this era to be what we are, and we can survive in this climate that exists in this era.
This rock may not always be willing to let us stay here, but let's not hurry in a climate from outside the era of humanity, ok? We may not like it very much!
I love Carlin too; But Carlin doesn't sound very concerned about the comfort of his children or grandchildren very much. Do you think he would choose to recover the US in another sheet of Ice soon? Not if he has family here I'd bet.
Did you think that was a random sampling of people like some damn pew poll?
The ONLY people qualified to be making judgements on this issue are trained Climatologists. -Not even lowly meteorologists, but actual Climate scientists and that number above accounted for ALL of them.
So yeah, it proves quite a lot to me.
Think about the two sides for a moment. Which one has the larger financial incentive?
Is it even close?
I can respect that. There are too many people shouting so it's hard to know which voices are right. Not a dumb move.
I can only say in response though that if you listen to the actual experts only, you won't hear much cross-talk at all. It's pretty cut and dry to them.
Um, you do know that those are two different fields of study, right?
So you've read Algore's book and heard the refutations too I see. Man did some big lobby money come out of the woodwork after he published that book... But like Moxie's link pointed out, there are two problems with this counter-theory:
A. We know the general amount of Carbon we're emitting and it correlates with the amount of extra carbon in the atmosphere that we're observing.
B. This CO2 is Displacing oxygen at the same rate... But natural CO2 lived in equilibrium with it.
B. This CO2 is Displacing oxygen at the same rate... But natural CO2 lived in equilibrium with it.
If your theory about ocean release were true though, then neither of these observable phenomena would be likely to happen at all. Heck, the second would be pretty hard to detect indeed!
The last 20 or so years have been a complete abberation from the entire observed Solar cycles dating back to 1880:
You could argue that perhaps before 1880 we've had solar activity greater than any of this; but we certainly haven't had consistent Temps this high for millions of years... So it's not very likely that could be the cause of this.
So glad you mentioned that one!
Climategate was a serious attempt to discredit some of the best climatologists around. "Someone" hacked into the University of East Anglia and stole a large amount of email correspondance between university climatology department there and Penn State. These are two of the very top Climate science labs on the planet.
The hackers then CHANGED THE WORDING and otherwise took OUT OF CONTEXT many passages in those emails to discredit the people writing them. Sadly, like with the Ron Paul campaign, the media only covered one side of the story; and it wasn't the side of the climatologists...
Proof.
At least Nine different, independent investigations from different countries, universities and governments have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Phrases like "Hide the Decline" and "Mikes Nature Trick" were simply quoted out of context, and all nine of those independent investigations have seen the original emails and can find nothing wrong whatsoever in how those phrases were originally used.
Further, If those two labs had been even suspected of dodgy practices among their fellow climatologists, then they would be shunned and money would flow elsewhere. Yet today they remain among the most respected climate labs in the world.
And the media has yet to apologize, as usual.
So your argument here is that the UN somehow planted the evidence that hundreds of independent climate scientists from around the world are digging up in fossils and Ice core samples? :disgust:
You simply cannot take the 400,000 years in which we evolved in "out of context." Your premise is absurd.
Who needs a complete control over the environment though? They tell us that we gotta stop releasing so damn much CO2 into the air to keep things like they were. That's it.
So after all of this, do you honestly believe that the huge uptick in the graph at the top of this page is caused by natural causes? Or do you just not believe it exists?
+rep MSTeacher
Climate-based legislation/markets == $$$$$$$$$ for the establishment
Also, I don't trust anyone's opinion if they don't get that 400k years is not a credible sample size when talking about geologic time scales.
Edit: I forgot to mention that any Climatologist that wants to have a job is "on board" with global warming, irrespective of their actual fact-based beliefs.
Climate-based legislation/markets == $$$$$$$$$ for the establishment
Also, I don't trust anyone's opinion if they don't get that 400k years is not a credible sample size when talking about geologic time scales.
Edit: I forgot to mention that any Climatologist that wants to have a job is "on board" with global warming, irrespective of their actual fact-based beliefs.
No, ice core data shows that we're way past the top of all previous peaks for the last 400,000 years. We're past 0.8 degrees centigrade above average now, and the last highest peak in temps we can detect was just 0.4 degrees about 1050 years ago... Just before the little ice age.
That's the spirit! :love-smiley-086:
97% of the real climatologists are saying we know enough now. This is too damn hot and there is too damn much CO2 in the air, at amounts that coincide with the amounts of CO2 that we're releasing out of our activities.
I have no idea why I'm taking the time to answer this... But WTF are you talking about?
Sorry, couldn't make it past 30 seconds in when Alex told us Delingpole's credentials. ("He's a writer." Lulz.)
How in the FUCK do people keep thinking that ANYONE but a climatologist is qualified to dispute what climatologists say???
It's like if one doctor told you that you have a brain tumor... Then you go ask a WRITER to give you a second opinion? Sheesh!
Go easy on 'em, Jeff. The media, our school systems, our government, and pretty much everyone else who hasn't dedicated their lives to the Climate is telling them the opposite. I was told it was all hogwash my entire youth and only found out otherwise after curiosity in my late 20's led me to search for truth at the source... Not many people are willing to go do that though, it's not very easy.
If I remember correctly, the papers mentioned in the second quote ended up being included in the report.
"nature trick" and "hide the decline" do not mean what they would appear to the layman, as explained in this video :
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg"]6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails - YouTube[/ame]
And before this, the majority of Illuminati theories and such had the oil companies at the center of the conspiracy. Actually they still do, but for whatever reason the conspiracy theorists seem to be ignoring that the Illuminati apparently must have contradictory agendas going on at the same time within it.
TL;DR (except OP)
Only question, why aren't energy companies staking claim to all our "energy miracle cures" so that they can in turn profit. If they have the money to steer their own insane, antiquated fossil fuel interests, why not also push the technologies of tomorrow and profit/monopolize those as well. Think about how much money there is to gain with new energy ideas. You would have to retool the whole world for any source of energy to become predominant. Not only that but they could also just focus on a controlling interest in electricity alone, which is evergreen no matter how it's generated or used. I don't understand the hard on for shitty stupid oil.
Only question, why aren't energy companies staking claim to all our "energy miracle cures" so that they can in turn profit. If they have the money to steer their own insane, antiquated fossil fuel interests, why not also push the technologies of tomorrow and profit/monopolize those as well. Think about how much money there is to gain with new energy ideas. You would have to retool the whole world for any source of energy to become predominant. Not only that but they could also just focus on a controlling interest in electricity alone, which is evergreen no matter how it's generated or used. I don't understand the hard on for shitty stupid oil.
If that were true, why in hell does the establishment and especially the media bury ANY AND ALL pro-AGW news?
Look what they did to Climategate... Ever seen anyone even remotely connected to the establishment try to defend East Anglia after that?
It's not about our "not getting" that 400K years is too small in geographic timelines. 400K years is only 1 Ten Thousandth of the time since the earth cooled. That's almost nothing...
But that Particular 400k years is exactly what our bodies were born, bred, and raised to make use of. Vary the temperature too much and we can't live here.
I used to think this myself once.
Then I thought about how anyone who cares enough to study all those years and get into the field to make a difference... Must have to "go missing" somehow to make your statement true.
You wouldn't ask a politician or a writer for advice on your spleen. Why would you listen to them about the climate? Its real science, just like medicine.
All it would take is ONE.
They've very likely already gotten their mitts on it. Heck, they could have bought it out in the 1950s, packaged it up like the lost ark, and are sitting on it until the day that Oil isn't mega-profitable anymore... Then they can dust it off and build a huge, evil industry based on that thing instead.
kinda like 'pull it' ended up not meaning what millions of people thought it meant!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100"]WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein - YouTube[/ame]
1. control both sides of the argument
2. ????
3. profit
I feel like the people who don't think global warming is real are the same people who think president Obama wasn't born in America.
the man-made global warming opposition is the one that is more open for debate, while everyone else is just happy that they got the idea (that humans are the ones causing this) across, and that not so much is being done about it - but they sure start charging us money for it.
Politics got very busy with global warming, and rejects almost any attempt for discussion on this, in a couple of years this thing will be taboo and the taxes will keep on coming.
Any effort to decrease the effect that humans have on the planet is a good one, but between this to the global warming hysteria there is still a long way to go...
Politics got very busy with global warming, and rejects almost any attempt for discussion on this, in a couple of years this thing will be taboo and the taxes will keep on coming.
Any effort to decrease the effect that humans have on the planet is a good one, but between this to the global warming hysteria there is still a long way to go...
I really don't know if those things listed above were true or not. All I know is Global Warming nowadays is getting me on my nerves! You can even feel the hotness of air due to broken atmospheres. We should act now about this or else get lost and die. We already the passed some chapters on the bible and were now on the revalation one! Stand up and make up your minds!
- Kris
- Kris
Haha, I linked you straight to the horse's mouth. Would you trust the Daily Mail's reporting about a Ron Paul column more than the actual column itself?
From the same site where that image came from :
A linear trend line fitted to the temperature data would indicate that the critical +2C level would be reached in about 40 years. But we don't know that the trend is linear. Recent research indicates that it is probably exponential. Or it may be that peak temperatures are more important than mean temperatures. In either of these cases the +2C threshold would be reached much sooner...
As Wallace Broecker likes to say, the Earth's climate system is "an angry beast" and one that we should not be poking with sticks, which of course is exactly what we are doing with all our carbon dioxide and other GTG emissions.
New Ice Core Data: A Closer Look
If you take the time to look at the long term data, you are right/wrong. Talk about cherry picking. The graph you have shows the last 200 years when it's shown we where in a fucking ice age 20,000 years ago. After each "ice age" we have gone up quickly in temperature. Good job on that douche bag. Anything to prove your point right? I'm drunk as shit and still spotted your shit.
Again not disputing the rise in temp. I'm disputing the catastrophic rise in temp. Which you can't prove.
Last edited: