Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Recently there was a bunch of emails leaked from a leading global research center on climate change which proves Global Warming is scam and that the data has been manipulated but it's been covered up and ignored in Copenhagen ATM that's scattered with lies and propaganda... Do you think you've seen enough to think Global Warming really exists? Or do you think it's a scam? THANK YOU! EDIT: Now you can vote safely!
ITT: Kamuix doesn't realize giving a "this or that" question the options of "Yes or no" is retarded.
EDIT: Sorry my fault I fixed it
Can't we just skip to the part where we spam PLECOS?
Dover wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 03:02 Can't we just skip to the part where we spam PLECOS? you spam too much sarcasm as it is, so shut up and vote lol.
Global Warming imo is real, I don't think the planet is getting hotter tho, I think its getting colder lol
Meh people are to hyped up about global warming the earth puts out more co2 emissions then humans could ever create. All we did is add a little more.
It's real, just not as horrible as greenpeace and crew would have you know.
Gen_Blacky wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 03:16 Meh people are to hyped up about global warming the earth puts out more co2 emissions then humans could ever create. All we did is add a little more. http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
Azazel wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 04:11 Global Warming imo is real, I don't think the planet is getting hotter tho, I think its getting colder lol You are speaking of a Global Climate Shift, not Global Warming. OMG DAY AFTER TOMORROW!!!
It's retarded saying that it doesn't exist. I don't need proof to know it exists or not. It's just how the Earth works. It's natural. The planet is supposed to warm up. Saying it's a scam is like saying the sun doesn't exist. We've had ice ages. It warmed up. Then we had another ice age. Then it warmed up again. It's just the cycle of our planet. Global warming DOES exist, but it's not because of humans, it's because it's SUPPOSED to exist.
R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 15:34 It's retarded saying that it doesn't exist. I don't need proof to know it exists or not. It's just how the Earth works. It's natural. The planet is supposed to warm up. Saying it's a scam is like saying the sun doesn't exist. We've had ice ages. It warmed up. Then we had another ice age. Then it warmed up again. It's just the cycle of our planet. Global warming DOES exist, but it's not because of humans, it's because it's SUPPOSED to exist. This. Yeah, we speed it up a little, and that's bad, but shit would happen anyways. The only way, at this point, to stop that would either be A: Tear down every single factory and remake them into eco-friendly factories ALL ACROSS THE GLOBE (Not just America, China and many other countries would have to support this... good luck getting every single country to agree on this), or B: Let it happen anyways, and find ways for our species to survive it without spending billions- no, TRILLIONS- of dollars attempting to hold off the inevitable. I'm gonna go with B.
Quote: Yeah, we speed it up a little, and that's bad, but shit would happen anyways. Sigh... http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php Choose whatever you feel represents your quote argument quote most and then shut the fuck up. Quote: The only way, at this point, to stop that would either be A: Tear down every single factory and remake them into eco-friendly factories ALL ACROSS THE GLOBE (Not just America, China and many other countries would have to support this... good luck getting every single country to agree on this), or B: Let it happen anyways, and find ways for our species to survive it without spending billions- no, TRILLIONS- of dollars attempting to hold off the inevitable. I'm gonna go with B. BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. Damn, if only we could explain the planet we're in a financial crisis and cant afford to save it right now and could it please come back with this global warming a few decades later..
Scam Though I'm in full support of global warming. Living in a snowy, cold ass state I say warm this place up!
It is 100% real it is a natural process from the earth releasing its own c02 in the air it will soon freeze and even it self out then reheat and repeat all humans have done is speed the process up a bit so its really no big fucking deal
Well first off, the hockey stick graph is seriously flawed, and here's why: The first nine centuries of the millennium were measured by using tree-ring cycles, yet the modern era is represented by temperatures. Why on Earth are they using two totally different measurements in the same graph? If this were a math question, there'd be a big red 'X' because it wasn't calculated properly. Any scientist knows that you need to maintain the same measurements throughout an experiment. Why is it that this graph hasn't been held to the same standards of a Grade 11 Chemistry experiment? Why didn't they stick with tree rings for the twentieth century, hmm? I'll tell you why: the tree rings after the 1960's actually show a decline in temperature. This is the same decline that Phil Jones, one of the men who are implicated with the leaked emails had tried to hide. Had this data been included, then it'd actually show that the Medieval Ages had experience a warm period, warmer than today, actually. Of course, a Mr. Steve McIntyre proved to the world that the 'hockey stick' is a fallacy. Still, the Climatic Research Unit have pressed on with this now discredited graph, and had once again tried to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. They revised the hockey stick graph to now match tree rings for this century, and the results were relatively consistent with their first flawed graph. Unfortunately, it only took a little bit of snooping to realize that the CRU was once again tampering with science, by 'cherry picking' one tree in Siberia whose rings were consistent with the data that the CRU wanted. I'm no scientist, but in all my biology labs, we have a thing called 'replication' . We're taught that hypotheses, in order to be true, must be replicated successfully time and time again. One tree is NOT replication. These scientists are ignoring their own scientific process. But I guess adhering to scientific process must make me a 'denier,' which brings me to my next point: What's with all the hate from people towards us so-called 'deniers?' It's like there's a 'Church of Climate Science' now, where the 'believers' will persecute people who think another way. I make a point to call people who suck down all this climate 'science' members of this church, and they get super angry. You should try it; usually they're atheists, so it's fun times. Here's my biggest beef with the whole situation. Surth keeps linking to this site 'Skeptical Science' which has stock answers for 'climate skeptics' ... ...Aren't scientists supposed to be skeptics? That's the whole point of science, there's always an air of skepticism, which is why the scientific process exists. That's why everything is a theory: the 'theory of evolution,' 'the theory of magnetism,' 'the theory of relativity' to name just a few. All of them are very rock solid with mountains of evidence, and can be tested, and replicated, and yet are called theories because there's a chance that they may yet be unproven - that's skepticism. However, call 'Global Warming' a theory, and oh God, you better get an umbrella and a beer because you'll be sitting through a spit shower about how you're some sort of fossil/dinosaur. This is despite that the hockey stick graph that people bring up is still inherently flawed, and hasn't really been replicated effectively. Any attempts to access the raw data from the CRU has been denied by the CRU, and worse... DELETED!!! Oh gee! The data isn't there, but let's still totally accept that the idea is true and spend billions of dollars on it anyways! I'll bet you ten dollars that if you were to have an argument with a warming 'believer' and told them the evidence isn't there nor is it complete, they'd likely pull out the ol' spiel used by those who believe that there's an old dude who lives in clouds and employs people with wings in their backs. However, bring up Evolution, and say it's a lie, and that very same person will point to the mountain of evidence in support of it. Call them on this, and you'll get an awesome reaction. You ever see a person almost melt their face off from a mixture of embarrassment and rage? I have. It's fun. Do it in university or college for even better results. Finally, let's go right to irony of of Copenhagen: 1,200 limousines 140 private jets flying VIP's in and out of town A menu that includes: Jumbo Shrimp from the Indian Ocean, Norwegian Salmon, fruits and veggies from Africa, South America and Southern Europe. All of this is flown in daily to ensure freshness. The columnist George Will estimates that this conference will add 41,000 tonnes of CO2 to the air. That's the only thing that's going to come from this conference: a ton of useless hot air, with politicos getting fat on our dollar. If they really cared (aka, KNEW global warming was actually true) they would've found a way to telecommute, or lessen the impact.
It may be real. The cause of it no one knows for sure. That's really all there is to it. We haven't got enough information to conclude that we are impacting it completely or not affecting it, whether it exists. So many factors can play into it, so really it's from what I can it's just another way for some people to get rich.
nikki6ixx wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 21:39 Well first off, the hockey stick graph is seriously flawed, and here's why: The first nine centuries of the millennium were measured by using tree-ring cycles, yet the modern era is represented by temperatures. Why on Earth are they using two totally different measurements in the same graph? If this were a math question, there'd be a big red 'X' because it wasn't calculated properly. Any scientist knows that you need to maintain the same measurements throughout an experiment. Why is it that this graph hasn't been held to the same standards of a Grade 11 Chemistry experiment? Why didn't they stick with tree rings for the twentieth century, hmm? I'll tell you why: the tree rings after the 1960's actually show a decline in temperature. This is the same decline that Phil Jones, one of the men who are implicated with the leaked emails had tried to hide. Had this data been included, then it'd actually show that the Medieval Ages had experience a warm period, warmer than today, actually. Of course, a Mr. Steve McIntyre proved to the world that the 'hockey stick' is a fallacy. Still, the Climatic Research Unit have pressed on with this now discredited graph, and had once again tried to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. They revised the hockey stick graph to now match tree rings for this century, and the results were relatively consistent with their first flawed graph. Unfortunately, it only took a little bit of snooping to realize that the CRU was once again tampering with science, by 'cherry picking' one tree in Siberia whose rings were consistent with the data that the CRU wanted. I'm no scientist, but in all my biology labs, we have a thing called 'replication' . We're taught that hypotheses, in order to be true, must be replicated successfully time and time again. One tree is NOT replication. These scientists are ignoring their own scientific process. But I guess adhering to scientific process must make me a 'denier,' which brings me to my next point: What's with all the hate from people towards us so-called 'deniers?' It's like there's a 'Church of Climate Science' now, where the 'believers' will persecute people who think another way. I make a point to call people who suck down all this climate 'science' members of this church, and they get super angry. You should try it; usually they're atheists, so it's fun times. Great thing this site i keep linking to has this explained TOO! how awesome is that! http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-without-tree-rings.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm Quote: Here's my biggest beef with the whole situation. Surth keeps linking to this site 'Skeptical Science' which has stock answers for 'climate skeptics' ... ...Aren't scientists supposed to be skeptics? That's the whole point of science, there's always an air of skepticism, which is why the scientific process exists. That's why everything is a theory: the 'theory of evolution,' 'the theory of magnetism,' 'the theory of relativity' to name just a few. All of them are very rock solid with mountains of evidence, and can be tested, and replicated, and yet are called theories because there's a chance that they may yet be unproven - that's skepticism. you may want to check up on the difference between a scientific theory and a non-scientific one. Quote: I'll bet you ten dollars that if you were to have an argument with a warming 'believer' and told them the evidence isn't there nor is it complete, they'd likely pull out the ol' spiel used by those who believe that there's an old dude who lives in clouds and employs people with wings in their backs. However, bring up Evolution, and say it's a lie, and that very same person will point to the mountain of evidence in support of it. Call them on this, and you'll get an awesome reaction. You ever see a person almost melt their face off from a mixture of embarrassment and rage? I have. It's fun. Do it in university or college for even better results. In other news, this anecdotal story here totally unproves global warming! Guess what, a lot of people are dumb. some people believing in global warming are incidentally dumb too. Some people who believe in gravity are dumb too, but that doesnt change anything about the theory itself. Quote: Finally, let's go right to irony of of Copenhagen: 1,200 limousines 140 private jets flying VIP's in and out of town A menu that includes: Jumbo Shrimp from the Indian Ocean, Norwegian Salmon, fruits and veggies from Africa, South America and Southern Europe. All of this is flown in daily to ensure freshness. The columnist George Will estimates that this conference will add 41,000 tonnes of CO2 to the air. That's the only thing that's going to come from this conference: a ton of useless hot air, with politicos getting fat on our dollar. If they really cared (aka, KNEW global warming was actually true) they would've found a way to telecommute, or lessen the impact. Agreed for most parts. however, a lot of them actually know global warming is true, they just dont care. I wonder if that is because most politicians are ald and thus can afford to not care about the future...
Bottom line: It's true. It's not our fault. It's going to happen. Get over it.
R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 12:37 Bottom line: It's true. It's not our fault. It's going to happen. Get over it. exactly
It snowed during the global warming talks. I lol'd
It's cold as shit in North Dakota right now. Global Warming must be real.. /sarcasm
Well of course the northern part of the world are not gonna instantly turn into tropical vacation destinations... Here in Missouri though there has been an obvious change in climate and weather.
Chew wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 18:45 Well of course the northern part of the world are not gonna instantly turn into tropical vacation destinations... Here in Missouri though there has been an obvious change in climate and weather. Also, the sun is entering it's high-activity cycle so it's probably not because of humans. That's what this documentary was talking about, so don't take what I said necessarily as fact.
R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 12:37 Bottom line: It's true. It's not our fault. It's going to happen. Get over it. wow, sure, JUST IGNORE ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT ITS ANTHROPOLOGICAL. you stupid fuckface. luv2pb wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 18:02 It snowed during the global warming talks. I lol'd ITS SNOWING? IN DECEMBER? IN COPENHAGEN? HOLY COW YOUVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME CALL AL GORE HE WAS WRONG ALL THESE YEARS. asshat. Glock~ wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 18:41 It's cold as shit in North Dakota right now. Global Warming must be real.. /sarcasm same goes for you. Glock~ wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 18:49 Chew wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 18:45 Well of course the northern part of the world are not gonna instantly turn into tropical vacation destinations... Here in Missouri though there has been an obvious change in climate and weather. Also, the sun is entering it's high-activity cycle so it's probably not because of humans. That's what this documentary was talking about, so don't take what I said necessarily as fact. so the fact that the sun enters its high-activity cycle right now (which it isnt) explains the temperature increase of the last decades retroactively! how neat! do you even use your brain? deactivate rage mode.
Quote: so the fact that the sun enters its high-activity cycle right now (which it isnt) explains the temperature increase of the last decades retroactively! how neat! do you even use your brain? Yes, it is actually. It takes many years before it peaks, too. It doesn't just "activate high mode" overnight.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm oh man, you almost proved large parts of the climate scientists wrong with that random lie you found on a random tv show just so you dont have to change your style of living, almost!
It's not a scam. But it's not really something we should fear either. It's nature. Temperature increases and decreases have been on this planet since over 9000 years.
surth? / surth! wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 09:36 http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm oh man, you almost proved large parts of the climate scientists wrong with that random lie you found on a random tv show just so you dont have to change your style of living, almost! I never once said it had anything to do with global warming, but it is true.
SSADMVR wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 03:47 It's not a scam. But it's not really something we should fear either. It's nature. Temperature increases and decreases have been on this planet since over 9000 years. bang your head against a wall. right now. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-globa l-warming.html jnz wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 03:49 surth? / surth! wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 09:36 http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm oh man, you almost proved large parts of the climate scientists wrong with that random lie you found on a random tv show just so you dont have to change your style of living, almost! I never once said it had anything to do with global warming, but it is true. point taken. was mostly referring to glock
surth? / surth! wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 04:02 SSADMVR wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 03:47 It's not a scam. But it's not really something we should fear either. It's nature. Temperature increases and decreases have been on this planet since over 9000 years. bang your head against a wall. right now. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-globa l-warming.html I'm not about to read the whole thing, but at first sight it seems to be about changing temp. in like the last few centuries. Remember, the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
SSADMVR wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 11:43 surth? / surth! wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 04:02 SSADMVR wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 03:47 It's not a scam. But it's not really something we should fear either. It's nature. Temperature increases and decreases have been on this planet since over 9000 years. bang your head against a wall. right now. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-globa l-warming.html I'm not about to read the whole thing How about you shut up then until you do?
The emails didn't prove it was a scam, they showed that people were exaggerating and falsely presenting data in order to get others to take it seriously. Climate change is real, the planet does have a higher average temperature than it did when we first started recording this data, and the polar ice caps have shrunken. Those facts are not debatable. What caused those events to occur, and what these events will cause is what's in debate. Politicians and news stations are the last places on earth you should be turning to for scientific information. If global warming is a subject you want to take seriously I suggest you educate yourself based on reliable and credible sources, not pop culture.
SSADMVR wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 13:43 surth? / surth! wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 04:02 SSADMVR wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 03:47 It's not a scam. But it's not really something we should fear either. It's nature. Temperature increases and decreases have been on this planet since over 9000 years. bang your head against a wall. right now. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-globa l-warming.html I'm not about to read the whole thing, but at first sight it seems to be about changing temp. in like the last few centuries. Remember, the earth is 4.5 billion years old. We can only go by what has been recorded. To move forward under the assumption that this is just a natural process that the earth is undergoing, AND that this natural process will not be harmful to us, is incredibly foolish. The other extreme is equally as foolish. The logical option is to proceed with caution until we know exactly what is causing these changes, and where these changes will lead us. Experimentation on a global scale based on the equation 'polution = bad' seems like a good way to gather information imo.
surth? / surth! wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 20:35 R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 12:37 Bottom line: It's true. It's not our fault. It's going to happen. Get over it. wow, sure, JUST IGNORE ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT ITS ANTHROPOLOGICAL. you stupid fuckface. Humans ASSIST in it because of all the emissions we put out. But if Humans did not exist on this planet, then it would still happen anyway. It is not our fault, we are only speeding it up.
Renx wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 13:55 SSADMVR wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 13:43 surth? / surth! wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 04:02 SSADMVR wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 03:47 It's not a scam. But it's not really something we should fear either. It's nature. Temperature increases and decreases have been on this planet since over 9000 years. bang your head against a wall. right now. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-globa l-warming.html I'm not about to read the whole thing, but at first sight it seems to be about changing temp. in like the last few centuries. Remember, the earth is 4.5 billion years old. We can only go by what has been recorded. To move forward under the assumption that this is just a natural process that the earth is undergoing, AND that this natural process will not be harmful to us, is incredibly foolish. The other extreme is equally as foolish. The logical option is to proceed with caution until we know exactly what is causing these changes, and where these changes will lead us. Experimentation on a global scale based on the equation 'polution = bad' seems like a good way to gather information imo. Agreed. I'm just saying, the fact that the temp. is rising is only for a really small part caused by human pollution. The temperature has been changing way before there ever was such a thing as human pollution. Anyone remember the ice ages? Was that caused by human pollution? No. Therefore people should stop being so overdramatic about this whole thing.
SSADMVR wrote on Mon, 21 December 2009 09:20 Renx wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 13:55 SSADMVR wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 13:43 surth? / surth! wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 04:02 SSADMVR wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 03:47 It's not a scam. But it's not really something we should fear either. It's nature. Temperature increases and decreases have been on this planet since over 9000 years. bang your head against a wall. right now. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-globa l-warming.html I'm not about to read the whole thing, but at first sight it seems to be about changing temp. in like the last few centuries. Remember, the earth is 4.5 billion years old. We can only go by what has been recorded. To move forward under the assumption that this is just a natural process that the earth is undergoing, AND that this natural process will not be harmful to us, is incredibly foolish. The other extreme is equally as foolish. The logical option is to proceed with caution until we know exactly what is causing these changes, and where these changes will lead us. Experimentation on a global scale based on the equation 'polution = bad' seems like a good way to gather information imo. Agreed. I'm just saying, the fact that the temp. is rising is only for a really small part caused by human pollution. The temperature has been changing way before there ever was such a thing as human pollution. Anyone remember the ice ages? Was that caused by human pollution? No. Therefore people should stop being so overdramatic about this whole thing. Didnt I tell you to bang your head against a wall? Why arent you doing that yet!
Stop being a pretentious douchebag when you have absolutely no reason to be one...
SSADMVR wrote on Mon, 21 December 2009 17:10 Stop being a pretentious douchebag when you have absolutely no reason to be one... http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm stop posting false bullshit. hows that for a change.
What exactly does that article prove about the point I made? I never said humans did not exert a shitload of CO2, I also never said CO2 output does not influence global warming. All I said is, that it is not the pure cause of global warming.
SSADMVR wrote on Mon, 21 December 2009 10:31 What exactly does that article prove about the point I made? I never said humans did not exert a shitload of CO2, I also never said CO2 output does not influence global warming. All I said is, that it is not the pure cause of global warming. SSADMVR wrote on Mon, 21 December 2009 09:20 Agreed. I'm just saying, the fact that the temp. is rising is only for a really small part caused by human pollution. The temperature has been changing way before there ever was such a thing as human pollution. Anyone remember the ice ages? Was that caused by human pollution? No. Therefore people should stop being so overdramatic about this whole thing. SSADMVR wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 09:47 It's not a scam. But it's not really something we should fear either. It's nature. Temperature increases and decreases have been on this planet since over 9000 years. how many personalities do you have? btw: Quote: But it's not really something we should fear either. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
TD wrote on Mon, 21 December 2009 12:09 Surth, wtf happened to you LOL He had sex with me...a lot.
surth? / surth! wrote on Mon, 21 December 2009 12:18 SSADMVR wrote on Mon, 21 December 2009 17:10 Stop being a pretentious douchebag when you have absolutely no reason to be one... http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm stop posting false bullshit. hows that for a change. The difference is a significantly smaller portion of the planet is covered in forests compared to before, so less of both nature and human's CO2 emissions are being filtered.
Renx wrote on Mon, 21 December 2009 20:22 surth? / surth! wrote on Mon, 21 December 2009 12:18 SSADMVR wrote on Mon, 21 December 2009 17:10 Stop being a pretentious douchebag when you have absolutely no reason to be one... http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm stop posting false bullshit. hows that for a change. The difference is a significantly smaller portion of the planet is covered in forests compared to before, so less of both nature and human's CO2 emissions are being filtered. less trees would also mean less emissions by nature, it would roughly be kept in check.
surth? / surth! wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 19:35 luv2pb wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 18:02 It snowed during the global warming talks. I lol'd ITS SNOWING? IN DECEMBER? IN COPENHAGEN? HOLY COW YOUVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME CALL AL GORE HE WAS WRONG ALL THESE YEARS. asshat. Wow. facepalm
luv2pb wrote on Tue, 22 December 2009 11:39 surth? / surth! wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 19:35 luv2pb wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 18:02 It snowed during the global warming talks. I lol'd ITS SNOWING? IN DECEMBER? IN COPENHAGEN? HOLY COW YOUVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME CALL AL GORE HE WAS WRONG ALL THESE YEARS. asshat. Wow. facepalm just overreacting a bit:)
surth? / surth! wrote on Mon, 21 December 2009 11:12 SSADMVR wrote on Mon, 21 December 2009 10:31 What exactly does that article prove about the point I made? I never said humans did not exert a shitload of CO2, I also never said CO2 output does not influence global warming. All I said is, that it is not the pure cause of global warming. SSADMVR wrote on Mon, 21 December 2009 09:20 Agreed. I'm just saying, the fact that the temp. is rising is only for a really small part caused by human pollution. The temperature has been changing way before there ever was such a thing as human pollution. Anyone remember the ice ages? Was that caused by human pollution? No. Therefore people should stop being so overdramatic about this whole thing. SSADMVR wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 09:47 It's not a scam. But it's not really something we should fear either. It's nature. Temperature increases and decreases have been on this planet since over 9000 years. how many personalities do you have? Plenty.
R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 14:47 surth? / surth! wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 20:35 R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 12:37 Bottom line: It's true. It's not our fault. It's going to happen. Get over it. wow, sure, JUST IGNORE ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT ITS ANTHROPOLOGICAL. you stupid fuckface. Humans ASSIST in it because of all the emissions we put out. But if Humans did not exist on this planet, then it would still happen anyway. It is not our fault, we are only speeding it up. the earth will eventually go into another ice age. Earth gets hit with thousands of ice comets every day increasing the water level to like am inch a year. Humans produce a ridiculous amount of harmful emissions and garbage. Humans should be more worried about the garbage we produce then the emissions we but in the atmosphere.
Gen_Blacky wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 11:27 R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 14:47 surth? / surth! wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 20:35 R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 12:37 Bottom line: It's true. It's not our fault. It's going to happen. Get over it. wow, sure, JUST IGNORE ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT ITS ANTHROPOLOGICAL. you stupid fuckface. Humans ASSIST in it because of all the emissions we put out. But if Humans did not exist on this planet, then it would still happen anyway. It is not our fault, we are only speeding it up. "I didn't murder that guy! I only assisted! IT'S NOT MY FAULT!! IT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED ANYWAY!!1!"
No. To assist in a kill, you need to have a conscious means to aid before actually starting. To relate a kill assist to humans aiding in global warming, you would be saying that humans started releasing these emissions because they wanted to assist in global warming. That is not the case. The assistance is a by-product of our ignorance and it is now too late to go back. It is our fault for assisting in speeding up the process, but it is not our fault it exists. That is not to say that we shouldn't do what we can to fix out mistakes, but we don't have to go crazy worrying about something that is irreversible and will inevitably happen.
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 20:12 No. To assist in a kill, you need to have a conscious means to aid before actually starting. To relate a kill assist to humans aiding in global warming, you would be saying that humans started releasing these emissions because they wanted to assist in global warming. That is not the case. The assistance is a by-product of our ignorance and it is now too late to go back. It is our fault for assisting in speeding up the process, but it is not our fault it exists. That is not to say that we shouldn't do what we can to fix out mistakes, but we don't have to go crazy worrying about something that is irreversible and will inevitably happen. "I didn't MEAN to run over all those orphans! I was just ignorant of them being in front of me, and their deaths were a by-product of that ignorance! And it wasn't me, it was the car! I was just assisting! IT'S NOT MY FAULT!!"
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 22:12 The assistance is a by-product of our ignorance and it is now too late to go back. Not when people share that attitude. Quote: That is not to say that we shouldn't do what we can to fix out mistakes, but we don't have to go crazy worrying about something that is irreversible and will inevitably happen. WELL THAT COMET IS UNDOUBTEDLY GONNA KILL US. BUT SINCE WE CANT PREVENT IT ANYWAY, NOBODY PANIC. JUST GO ON AS YOU ALWAYS DID. only difference, we made the comet and we could still prevent it.
'Whatever happens, happens.' Nothing good ever comes out of panicking. That's what I'm saying. If you think something is wrong and there is something you can do to help, stop whining and do it!
Dover wrote on Thu, 24 December 2009 05:21 "I didn't MEAN to run over all those orphans! I was just ignorant of them being in front of me, and their deaths were a by-product of that ignorance! And it wasn't me, it was the car! I was just assisting! IT'S NOT MY FAULT!!" But if you did that, you wouldn't be assisting. You would be the direct source of the problem. Just because someone says they didn't assist doesn't mean they really didn't. To say that, then you would be saying global is happening because we exist and that it directly our fault.
MUDKIPS here (WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED) Since I study archaeology and Quarternary Climate is one of my subjects, I can give some insight. Prepare for one ungodly novel. (ok not as ungodly as I thought, I didn't include some delta-18 readings because frankly that is a little over the top. Let's just say I have a gazillion ice core and foraminifera and pollen and coleoptera graphs to prove at least some part of my point) Climates don't just change because of one factor. In theory they do, but in practice it's always a combination of factors that causes climate changes. Solar activity, Albedo (solar energy that gets reflected off the earth's surface) volcanic activity, shifts in the earth's polarity (Every so often the South Pole becomes the magnetic centre of the earth) continent vs. ocean coverage, the earth's wobble, precession and tilt, etc. Scientists (and I mean REAL scientists, who look at ice cores, pollen data, coleoptera data, whatever, who use real tangible evidence instead of modern-day CO2 measuremeants which are far less reliable and far more biased) have gotten quite good at predicting climatic events, and so we've been able to map out climate changes to GREAT precision for the last 2,7 million years, moderate precision for the past 65 million years, and we only have bits and pieces of the climate before that, we only know it was HOT. To make a long story short, every period is either a glacial (a period in which the ice sheet GROWS) or an interglacial (a period where the ice sheet doesn't grow or is RECEDING), in the earth's history. Within glacials and interglacials we have stadials and interstadials (periods that are hotter or colder than the glacial/interglacial's mean temperature). It's always a back and forth. We have 10,000 year periods with as many as 27 interstadials and stadials, and we have 50,000 years of constant glaciation (periods in which glaciers grow, a sign of glacialism). Now this has been happening for about 2 billion years, and it has ALWAYS been a back-and-forth matter. Average temperatures can drop for 7 degrees across the planet that last just a 100 years (the 8.2k cal BP event for instance) after which they soar back up, after which they drop again (The little ice age in the 1600s, where the temperature was on average 3 degrees celcius lower than it is now, while in the middle ages the average temperature was 2 degrees celcius higher than it is now). So what we have is thousands of factors that are constantly going back and forth, unchangingly, predictably, for millions and millions of years. Whether we eject a shitload of CO2 in the atmosphere or whether we limit it doesn't matter, because the earth IS heating up, and it isn't because of CO2, it's because of a ton of causes that are working together. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be irresponsible with our exhausts and fuel consumption, what it does mean is that everybody is going crazy thinking that WE have any influence on the changing climate, while we at best have regional impacts (for instance a dense city in a mountain region will retain a lot of it's CO2 in the... region obviously, having local effects). So take it easy, sit back, and watch what happens. (Note, a lot of people may call bullshit, and I don't blame them. The difference between our (archaeoloists') data and say, Al Gore's data is that Al Gore set out to prove that we cause climate changes, while the archaeological, geological and paleobotanical data we gather is purely for understanding why and how climate changes and how it affects the world, more specifically, the human(oid) world. Biased vs unbiased.)
SPIKDUM wrote on Thu, 24 December 2009 11:15 MUDKIPS here (WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED) Since I study archaeology and Quarternary Climate is one of my subjects, I can give some insight. Prepare for one ungodly novel. (ok not as ungodly as I thought, I didn't include some delta-18 readings because frankly that is a little over the top. Let's just say I have a gazillion ice core and foraminifera and pollen and coleoptera graphs to prove at least some part of my point) Climates don't just change because of one factor. In theory they do, but in practice it's always a combination of factors that causes climate changes. Solar activity, Albedo (solar energy that gets reflected off the earth's surface) volcanic activity, shifts in the earth's polarity (Every so often the South Pole becomes the magnetic centre of the earth) continent vs. ocean coverage, the earth's wobble, precession and tilt, etc. Scientists (and I mean REAL scientists, who look at ice cores, pollen data, coleoptera data, whatever, who use real tangible evidence instead of modern-day CO2 measuremeants which are far less reliable and far more biased) have gotten quite good at predicting climatic events, and so we've been able to map out climate changes to GREAT precision for the last 2,7 million years, moderate precision for the past 65 million years, and we only have bits and pieces of the climate before that, we only know it was HOT. To make a long story short, every period is either a glacial (a period in which the ice sheet GROWS) or an interglacial (a period where the ice sheet doesn't grow or is RECEDING), in the earth's history. Within glacials and interglacials we have stadials and interstadials (periods that are hotter or colder than the glacial/interglacial's mean temperature). It's always a back and forth. We have 10,000 year periods with as many as 27 interstadials and stadials, and we have 50,000 years of constant glaciation (periods in which glaciers grow, a sign of glacialism). Now this has been happening for about 2 billion years, and it has ALWAYS been a back-and-forth matter. Average temperatures can drop for 7 degrees across the planet that last just a 100 years (the 8.2k cal BP event for instance) after which they soar back up, after which they drop again (The little ice age in the 1600s, where the temperature was on average 3 degrees celcius lower than it is now, while in the middle ages the average temperature was 2 degrees celcius higher than it is now). So what we have is thousands of factors that are constantly going back and forth, unchangingly, predictably, for millions and millions of years. Whether we eject a shitload of CO2 in the atmosphere or whether we limit it doesn't matter, because the earth IS heating up, and it isn't because of CO2, it's because of a ton of causes that are working together. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be irresponsible with our exhausts and fuel consumption, what it does mean is that everybody is going crazy thinking that WE have any influence on the changing climate, while we at best have regional impacts (for instance a dense city in a mountain region will retain a lot of it's CO2 in the... region obviously, having local effects). So take it easy, sit back, and watch what happens. (Note, a lot of people may call bullshit, and I don't blame them. The difference between our (archaeoloists') data and say, Al Gore's data is that Al Gore set out to prove that we cause climate changes, while the archaeological, geological and paleobotanical data we gather is purely for understanding why and how climate changes and how it affects the world, more specifically, the human(oid) world. Biased vs unbiased.) basic science fail... why do i even bother with this?
surth? / surth! wrote on Thu, 24 December 2009 12:22 SPIKDUM wrote on Thu, 24 December 2009 11:15 MUDKIPS here (WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED) Since I study archaeology and Quarternary Climate is one of my subjects, I can give some insight. Prepare for one ungodly novel. (ok not as ungodly as I thought, I didn't include some delta-18 readings because frankly that is a little over the top. Let's just say I have a gazillion ice core and foraminifera and pollen and coleoptera graphs to prove at least some part of my point) Climates don't just change because of one factor. In theory they do, but in practice it's always a combination of factors that causes climate changes. Solar activity, Albedo (solar energy that gets reflected off the earth's surface) volcanic activity, shifts in the earth's polarity (Every so often the South Pole becomes the magnetic centre of the earth) continent vs. ocean coverage, the earth's wobble, precession and tilt, etc. Scientists (and I mean REAL scientists, who look at ice cores, pollen data, coleoptera data, whatever, who use real tangible evidence instead of modern-day CO2 measuremeants which are far less reliable and far more biased) have gotten quite good at predicting climatic events, and so we've been able to map out climate changes to GREAT precision for the last 2,7 million years, moderate precision for the past 65 million years, and we only have bits and pieces of the climate before that, we only know it was HOT. To make a long story short, every period is either a glacial (a period in which the ice sheet GROWS) or an interglacial (a period where the ice sheet doesn't grow or is RECEDING), in the earth's history. Within glacials and interglacials we have stadials and interstadials (periods that are hotter or colder than the glacial/interglacial's mean temperature). It's always a back and forth. We have 10,000 year periods with as many as 27 interstadials and stadials, and we have 50,000 years of constant glaciation (periods in which glaciers grow, a sign of glacialism). Now this has been happening for about 2 billion years, and it has ALWAYS been a back-and-forth matter. Average temperatures can drop for 7 degrees across the planet that last just a 100 years (the 8.2k cal BP event for instance) after which they soar back up, after which they drop again (The little ice age in the 1600s, where the temperature was on average 3 degrees celcius lower than it is now, while in the middle ages the average temperature was 2 degrees celcius higher than it is now). So what we have is thousands of factors that are constantly going back and forth, unchangingly, predictably, for millions and millions of years. Whether we eject a shitload of CO2 in the atmosphere or whether we limit it doesn't matter, because the earth IS heating up, and it isn't because of CO2, it's because of a ton of causes that are working together. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be irresponsible with our exhausts and fuel consumption, what it does mean is that everybody is going crazy thinking that WE have any influence on the changing climate, while we at best have regional impacts (for instance a dense city in a mountain region will retain a lot of it's CO2 in the... region obviously, having local effects). So take it easy, sit back, and watch what happens. (Note, a lot of people may call bullshit, and I don't blame them. The difference between our (archaeoloists') data and say, Al Gore's data is that Al Gore set out to prove that we cause climate changes, while the archaeological, geological and paleobotanical data we gather is purely for understanding why and how climate changes and how it affects the world, more specifically, the human(oid) world. Biased vs unbiased.) it's so hard to admit I'm wrong
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-peri od.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-cl imate.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.htm possible rebuttals: LOL ALL YOU CAN DO IS LINK, YOURE BRAINWASHED IM STUDYING SO I KNOW IT BETTER K
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-peri od.htm 1. Their data is flawed. In terms of Ice ages (like the Last Glacial Maximum) they're off by thousands of years. 2. Once again, climate is a combination of thousands of elements, yet: Quote: Our climate is governed by the following principle: when you add more heat to our climate, global temperatures rise. Conversely, when the climate loses heat, temperatures fall. If temperatures rise, they are balanced out somewhere else. If they drop, they are balanced out somewhere else. They assume that there is one global climate, while earth is a patchwork of thousands of climates. When climate change occurs, it is best seen on the EDGES of those climates, because climate zones start to shift (actually, climate change just IS the shifting of climate zones to other positions, Polar, Mid-latitude, Sub-Tropical and Tropical, and their sub-zones. As I said, during Glacials ICE SHEETS grow, meaning that the Polar zones are far larger. Understanding this leads to understanding why there is no single global climate.). THAT'S how you measure climate sensitivity. Not by: Quote: Once you have the change in temperature and radiative forcing, climate sensitivity can be calculated. The fact that there is no global climate that can kill off everything is proven by for instance, Sequoia trees in the USA. These are so-called "Tertiary Relicts", trees that should have been extinct after the Tertiary period ended, yet still flourish. Why? Because of the western mountain ranges in the USA their ecological niches were protected from climate change, thus, the climate zone stayed the same, and the trees survived. Yet, in all these articles, every argument is based on the assumption that there is a global, fragile, climate that is changing due to CO2 emissions. Through their reasoning, Sequoia trees should not exist, because apparently climate does not occur as a local/regional phenomenon. http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm Based on the assumption that CO2 is the main cause for climate change. Refer to fourth link comment. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-cl imate.htm Funny, they use two different ice cores from two different regions for three different periods to show the rise of CO2 levels. Quite a coincidence that they don't have one SINGLE ice core that shows the CO2 levels over a longer period of time. Also, the readings from Hawaii show a massive increase over the past 100 years or so. HAWAII IS A VOLCANO. Those readings are utterly worthless. Fail. http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.htm Reversal of cause and effect. CO2 does not cause climate change, it's an effect of it and further enhances it. Fail. As you see here (in a PROPER ice core data set) rising CO2 concentrations are an echo, an aftereffect of rising temperatures and climate changes. Why this is so is not known, but one plausible explaination is: Less ice sheets, more inhabitable areas of the earth for flora/fauna > More CO2 production. This is probably just one of many causes for CO2 increases though. The current rising CO2 levels fit in perfectly with the rest of the graph. So if it's our fault that CO2 levels are rising we should go back to the early middle-eastern civilizations 10,000 years ago because look, when humans first started making houses CO2 levels begin te rise! Because they didn't ban housebuilding we now have an unstoppable greenhouse effect! Also, every 90,000-100,000 years the earth gets far closer to the sun due to changes in it's orbit (one of the Milankovitch cycles). When the temperatures start to rise? Every 90,000-100,000 years. In addition to that the earth's tilt changes every 40,000 years, making it more angled towards or away from the sun within it's orbit. So when the earth's eccentricity and it's obliquity coincide in stages where they are both "forcing" the earth closer to the sun, we have even higher temperature increases. The temperature rises we are experiencing now are nothing compared to the temperature heights in the past. Same as I said in my first post. All this is BIASED data. Carefully selected to prove a point, not to gain insight into a process. surth? / surth! wrote on Fri, 25 December 2009 07:47 IM STUDYING SO I KNOW IT BETTER K Nope. It's my business to understand what's going on. Knowledge is useless if you don't understand why and how things happen. You obviously don't know and don't understand.
surth? / surth! wrote on Tue, 22 December 2009 10:43 Renx wrote on Mon, 21 December 2009 20:22 surth? / surth! wrote on Mon, 21 December 2009 12:18 SSADMVR wrote on Mon, 21 December 2009 17:10 Stop being a pretentious douchebag when you have absolutely no reason to be one... http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm stop posting false bullshit. hows that for a change. The difference is a significantly smaller portion of the planet is covered in forests compared to before, so less of both nature and human's CO2 emissions are being filtered. less trees would also mean less emissions by nature, it would roughly be kept in check. ...what?
basically 1 group of countryes telling whole world what to do.
surth just fails he posts links without explaing what he is trying to get at and ever single link is from the same source.
It was 17 degrees where i live in Texas yesterday... i no longer believe in global warming i think its going backward and getting colder