[K Galt]

(04-03-2013 09:34 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

some interesting posts, we've had one of the worst winters on record here in the UK, the prime 'climate' tool responsible for that is the gulf stream, during winter it warms Europe, during the summer it cools Europe, however this winter the stream has either moved or slowed down due to freshwater coming from the Arctic and diluting the content at the northernmost extent of the stream, so we've had a harsh cold winter which is still continuing into April. It's the 3rd April, it's supposed to be a few weeks into spring but we've had -1C to about 4C since November now, our livestock has been affected, yeah it's fucked us a bit.

It's not just happening in the UK....but the entire planet.

Check out this website: http://iceagenow.info/

Yes...very soon many of us will be wishing we COULD actually warm the climate up through man made efforts.

"Global Warming" is a political scam that is run for a variety of reasons.

"Climate Change" is the cyclical state of our environment. The history of this planet is largely made up of long, cold epoch's of ice age winters interspersed with short warm periods (short in Geological time...thousands of years).

Ice Ages are an observable cycle, easily deduced from looking at the historical record of the planet's fluctuating climate recorded in ice cores.

Sound crazy? More and more people are starting to realize that our biggest problem is the INEVITABLE return to ice age conditions.

http://www.thepiratescove.us/2013/03/26/...g-ice-age/


Two other points to be made:

The idea that man made burning of carbon fuel will cause a climate catastrophe is ludicrous.

Put it this way, I live on a small island with close to 1,000,000 people on it. We have so many cars, our rush hour looks like LA every weekday. Yet we don't have the smog problem....

...but when we get the South-West winds that blow the volcanic smog from Mauna Kea our way, we get Vog conditions that literally blanket the entire Hawaii island chain worse than LA's worst smoggy day.

One volcano can belch out more pollutants in a single day than all the cars in the world combined.

Secondly, the climate record shows that the world had periods that were much warmer than the current climate, and these short, warm periods occurred long before the Industrial Revolution.

Greenland has archeological sites indicating Viking settlements back in a time where the climate was much warmer. They raised crops, in areas where today's cooler climate makes that nearly impossible.

Global warming due to man made pollution? My ass. And saying so does not mean I favor pollution nor support the current government/corporate industrial complex raping the environment either. Look into it. The WORST environmental practices of mankind is large mono-crop agriculture and CAFO animal factory farming.

Climate change is inevitable. It's a cycle...it's a cycle...it's a cycle.

Get ready for the long winter. It's coming.

[MidniteSpecial]

http://iphone.france24.com/en/20130402-e...lions-risk

[Spike]

(03-28-2013 10:52 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  

Global warming is not real. The sun effects 99% of what happens on this planet. Yet most " scientists " don't even include it in their Global warming models. Secondly CO2 is not a poisonous gas. Millions of years ago it made up almost 20% of our atmosphere and today it makes up less than1%. So the earth has clearly survived and thrived in a high CO2 environment.

Now I do agree we are fucking up our environment in other ways. We are over fishing, polluting our water, spraying the skys, genetically modifying everything and on and on. But we are not causing the planet to warm. The same people from the 60's and 70s who said we were going to die of an ice age and that the world was overpopulated then are the ones who claim global warming is real.

Here is a time line of the scare tactics they have tried to use. Global cooling in the 70's, cutting the rain forest down in the 80's, acid rain in the 90's and holes in the ozone, global warming in the 2000's and finally climate change in 2010 and beyond.

If you scroll down to CO2 in the atmosphere you will see how I arrived at my numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_diox...atmosphere

Also make note that 40% of the CO2 produced on this planet alone comes from Volcanoes. So are you guys going to pass a law to stop volcanoes from producing CO2 ? While you are at it maybe make it illegal for the human body to turn O2 into CO2. After that why don't we make an exchange where we can pay Al Gore to stop earthquakes, Tornado's and Hurricanes.

I was gonna type up something myself but BIGINJAPAN said everything i wanted to say and in the right order.

Climate change is a big hoax just to control and tax the masses. Especially car owners get fucked over big time by my government. I was comparing the dealer prices of an Audi between the US and Holland the other day. The price of a brand new Audi in the US is HALF the price of one in Holland. US dealerships still make big profits and even have to pay around 2000 euro to ship the car over while Holland is a short ride away from the factory. Cars get taxed the fuck out of them over here. And on top of that, the price of gasoline is one of the highest in the world. + a ridiculous high monthly tax for "roads"

All thanks to the tax hungry green maffia.

I once read that cow farts (yes farts) are responsible for most of the CO2. Please consider the other trillians of animals that fart too.

Just to piss some people off here because I'm in one of the moods.
Here in Holland the temperatures still drop to -4 celcius at night and it's f-ing April. I'm wearing thick gloves, a scarf and a f-ing ski jacket during the day. Just last week the real feel temperature was -13 celcius.

[Firestorm]

Pretty obvious it's exaggerated to increase taxation. There was already reports that 'climate change scientists' had falsified findings to exaggerate climate change. Interesting how nobody cared about climate change until they found a way to make money from it.

[PUA_Rachacha]

(03-28-2013 10:34 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

OK, are you ready for the REAL answer?

No, not whether there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere...there is.

No, not whether there is climate "change" -- the climate is ALWAYS changing.

It's this.

CLIMATE CHANGE "SCIENCE" is NOT SCIENCE.

It's not. It's model building.

REAL science puts forth hypotheses that can be tested. Einstein hypothesized that gravity warps space, and light will be bent in the presence of an object with a gravitational field. Guess what? Astronomers took pictures of starlight during a solar eclipse, and lo and behold? The light was bent.

Watson and Crick hypothesized that DNA was a double helixed ladder. Guess what? It was proven true.

NO ONE CAN PROVE CLIMATE SCIENCE IS TRUE.

Why? Because it is about predicting the future. And the future, as we all know, is unpredictable.

Meanwhile the best science is simple. The best science holds all but one parameter constant, and adjusts that one variable, or sees how that one variable reacts under ONE controllable difference.

With climate, there are HUGE variables. Solar cycles. Earth's orbit. Sea current movements. It's not just man burning fossil fuels. Moreover, what IS the earth's "average temperature?" The earth is a pretty big place with large temperature differences owing to geography, dynamic and chaotic atmospheric adjustments, the tilt of the earth's axis relative to the distance from the sun, among many other variables that are hard to measure, let along control experimentally. It is an incredibly complex system that can only be "modeled" in the crudest way.

So, yeah, climate "science" is a misnomer. It is climate "soothsaying." The models may be right, and they may be wrong (models are almost ALWAYS wrong to some degree) but let's not kid ourselves.

This is not science. These guys are reading the equivalent of Tarot cards.

Most cogent response to the climate-change circus I've seen thus far.

The Economist came out with a pretty lengthy article earlier this year admitting that the original climate-warming models were way too aggressive. Regardless, it still recommended continuing all of the hugely punitive carbon-tax, emission-reduction schemes.

I believe that "anthroprogenic global warming" is ultimately a scam used by the Left to expropriate money and funnel it towards themselves. Just like more money for schools, even though PISA scores for America haven't budged in over a decade: the climate is extremely complex with many variables and is impossible to predict. To institute taxes that would have a lasting impact on a nation's economy for some dubious threat is absolutely asinine.

I used to live in Germany and still follow what's going on there. That they've completey shelved their nuclear program and are trying to generate most power from "green" sources is, although commendable, completely absurb and potentially disastrous for that country long-term.

With all that being said, I am an environmentalist and do favor more solar power, carbon filters (on coal power plants), cleaner rivers and lakes, bucolic settings, and natural forests. But I won't stand behind alarmists using some model to say that we now need to detrimentally affect millions of peoples lives for some threat that likely will not materialize as predicted.

[Kingsley Davis]

GLOBAL WARMING RESEARCHERS RESCUED FROM ANTARCTIC ICE

"Because the media are more interested in protecting left-wing narratives than reporting facts, you might not know that a Russian ship, stuck since Christmas Eve in the Antarctic ice and carrying dozens of Global Warming researchers, discovered something more inconvenient than cold weather. What these Global Warming believers found is a lot more ice along their route than their research told them would be there."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/...arctic-ice

[Teutatis]

This whole left/liberal bogeyman conspiracy theories that are thrown around here like they're all real are becoming too much. Just because we're experiencing global warming it doesn't mean cold disappears and earth turns into a desert over night. That's not how it works.

[gusfring]

Recently a russian research ship with about 52 researchers got stuck in antarctic ice and after about 2 weeks of being stranded were eventually rescued. Logistical details here.

But my thoughts are ALL about what happens when 52 researchers of various nationalities (both genders) + 22 russian crew (presumably men) + unlimited supply of food + vodka + cold beautiful weather are kept isolated on a ship for 2+ weeks.

I'm thinking a lot of pining and debauchery should have gone on. I am sure one of these tree huggers will eventually come around and write a book, but until then....Does anyone have more insight on this.

[tmason]

(01-05-2014 06:50 AM)Teutatis Wrote:  

This whole left/liberal bogeyman conspiracy theories that are thrown around here like they're all real are becoming too much. Just because we're experiencing global warming it doesn't mean cold disappears and earth turns into a desert over night. That's not how it works.

Call me a commie liberal but Climate Change is real; every year the average temperature for the planet keeps going higher and higher.

I am seeing far more natural disasters than what I have experienced ten-fifteen years ago and they are happening more frequently. Temperature fluctuations even on a daily basis are also more drastic.

To say 90% of the world's scientists are conspiring to say climate change is real just so they can get what, grant money?

[Switch]

I don't think any reasonable person can make a substantiated argument regarding global warming. Our earth is 4.5 billion years old and you think that you can make judgements about the future temperature of Earth on a few million years of (perhaps) accurate climate data? Let alone the hundred we have of accurate temperature data.

[Jackreacher]

I don't believe it. It looks like a massive scheme to make money and further regulate regular people. The main reason I don't believe it is there have been scientific experiments conducted before global warming even became a hot topic using hundreds of glass columns that were filled with CO2 and sent up into the atmosphere to determine if any significant temperature changes occurred within the columns. They found no noticeable changes in temperature throughout the entire experiment.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Unlike feminism which deals mostly in hearsay, the data for climate change - from gases to ice cores to land and sea temperatures - is publicly available and easily measured. The only possible question is its interpretation. Therefore, people should be very careful of dismissing global warming with the same "oh it's made up" arguments like they do for feminism, which can indeed be objectively proved to be made up.

[Dr. Howard]

(03-06-2014 09:56 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Unlike feminism which deals mostly in hearsay, the data for climate change - from gases to ice cores to land and sea temperatures - is publicly available and easily measured. The only possible question is its interpretation. Therefore, people should be very careful of dismissing global warming with the same "oh it's made up" arguments like they do for feminism, which can indeed be objectively proved to be made up.

yes. I had the opportunity to work with 'real deal' climate change scientists, and data modellers, they produced the models that everyone else then used to support their agendas. They wouldn't say "its going to get hotter" but that there is more energy in the system, the potential for more variable weather. Thats what I see with heatwave one day and snowstorm the next. The averages don't change much, but the deviations do.

[Crackshot]

I was going to post a new thread but searched and found this one. I am not sure about climate change and am looking to do some more research. Any good books/sources I could read as this is one issue I do not feel well informed about.

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

Climate change is clearly happening, but I don't believe the models used by the IPCC are good enough to base policy on.

I don't trust the cadre of scientists pushing AGW and the particular models used by the IPCC. They have committed and continue to commit scientific malpractice.

What many people don't realize about research, especially in fields like this, is that all the researchers know each other and often the younger researchers earned their PhDs or completed post-docs with the older researchers. These people review each others papers "anonymously" but after years of working together everyone knows which reviewers made which particular comments. Journals even allow you to nominate reviewers when you submit a paper. These people have a vested interest in pushing AGW, ignoring evidence to the contrary, and covering up each others malfeasance.

Check out http://climateaudit.org/

[Sonsowey]

If you think global warming isn't real, odds are you are brainwashed by Republicans who are being paid off by oil companies.

It's simple economics. All the money that is made in the fossil fuel industry supports the idea that global warming isn't real, so that these industries aren't taxed or limited in any way that would hurt their bottom line but help the environment.

Just don't buy this stupid propaganda hook line and sinker, you "red pill" guys. See through this shit. It is real. Don't act stupid.

[Sherman]

I believe that climate science is legitimate but it has been hijacked by politicians, big money in the form of federal grants, and followers of an environmental religion. What is needed is reform of climate science so that scientists can get back to doing real science and not pushing political agendas. The person I follow is Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, who is an expert in the field of climate science and critical of global warming research. He is speaking out against the hype and alarmism and wants to get the field back to real science.

From Lindzen:
"The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak –and commonly acknowledged as such."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/pr...testimony/

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/21/scient...h-dissent/

[anonymous123]

- I used to believe in it
- spent a few thousand hours+ on the topic both directly and indirectly
- ended up basically where ElJefe is at (virtual high five, cheers whatever)

I also learned that most people don't know jack on this topic. They read some shit in New York Times which just HAS to be right. I also used to try and reason on this topic, and then one day realized that this is much more about political dogma than facts. Like Democrats vs Republicans, both can try and argue issues...but someone dug into either party is arguing for the sake of arguing, not to learn and potentially change their mind.

[El Chinito loco]

If you're in the ocean a lot or have a basic understanding of marine life you can see the effects of climate change. I'd say it's a very real thing. Coral is bleaching at an irregular rate in some places due to the temperatures changing and certain species of fish are disappearing fast. When the ocean warms it has a chain reaction which effects currents, plankton, etc..

[Faust]

Quote:

If you're in the ocean a lot or have a basic understanding of marine life you can see the effects of climate change. I'd say it's a very real thing. Coral is bleaching at an irregular rate in some places due to the temperatures changing and certain species of fish are disappearing fast. When the ocean warms it has a chain reaction which effects currents, plankton, etc..

Are you in the ocean a lot? What have you seen that you feel makes the most persuasive case for man-made climate change?

[El Chinito loco]

(04-14-2014 09:34 PM)Faust Wrote:  

Quote:

If you're in the ocean a lot or have a basic understanding of marine life you can see the effects of climate change. I'd say it's a very real thing. Coral is bleaching at an irregular rate in some places due to the temperatures changing and certain species of fish are disappearing fast. When the ocean warms it has a chain reaction which effects currents, plankton, etc..

Are you in the ocean a lot? What have you seen that you feel makes the most persuasive case for man-made climate change?

I scuba dive a lot around the coral triangle and other regions in the world. I see the effects of a warming ocean with my own eyes when it comes to the variety and types of marine life that are becoming more scarce. Some of it is due to overfishing but there are a lot of things that aren't..ie. such as coral bleaching when there shouldn't be. It's real for me and i've talked with actual marine biologists who have said as much.

I don't have a single stake in the whole global warming debate. I couldn't give a flying fuck about American politics these days. I've already pretty much come to terms with the reality that the ocean will probably be pretty barren in 50 years and absent of the variety of sea life that we see these days.

[Glaucon]

After seeing this image, how anyone can believe in climate change?

[Jackreacher]

The thing about science that makes it such an excellent endeavor is that when done properly the facts will emerge no matter what. If say you did an experiment and you did it quite a lot of times, got your conclusions and properly recorded them then hey, viola you've got a fact you can report based on your findings. To make sure you're not being deceptive or your methods were not faulty your experiment should be repeatable(by others) and this further adds to the integrity of your findings.

When you do a quick google search using the words "what is the scientific proof of global warming" the first result you should get is from NASA. Big name, solid info right? Lets take a quick look at what you get when you visit their Global Warming Page. Here is what you'll find they have to offer regarding the subject:

"Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response."

So who in the mid-19th century conducted this experiment? Who are they referring to? Nasa sourced their "scientific" reference on the same page, thankfully. Here is the complete reference they provided on their page emphasis mine:

"In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect."

Where is the demonstration? Is the demonstration just suggestions and speculations? Where are the facts? You know the indisputable things that make opinions seem silly in light of the obvious. There's no other way to say it, NASA is bullshitting, completely bullshitting and it's doing so on it's front page for global warming. You can't even get 2 thirds of the way down in the article it's already full of shit from the start.

Here is an actual scientific experiment conducted in the 1900's that has factual conclusions, can be repeated time and again and will produce similar results each time:

"In 1900, Knut Ångström sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. He put in as much of the gas in total as would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas in half or doubled it. The reason was that CO2 absorbed radiation only in specific bands of the spectrum, and it took only a trace of the gas to produce bands that were "saturated" — so thoroughly opaque that more gas could make little difference. Reference

The Ångström unit of length, still used to measure the wavelength of light, was named for Knut's father.
4,000 Ångstroms = 400 nm"

Why is this significant? Because if you can't prove CO2 or other supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can be heated by the sun in any significant way then the whole global warming theory is blown out of the water. You can't even use ice cores to help the theory because it still doesn't say much about the sun's ability to heat carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What you can get from ice cores is that it was hotter or colder in the past, that certain gases were more or less present way back when. But the presence(or absence) of certain gases does not prove the global warming theory. If you want a fact regarding the matter refer to Mr. Knut Amstrom, who successfully demonstrates an observable fact, through actual experimentation, not some silly overblown opinion, like NASA is pushing.

[The Beast1]

Regardless of whether or not global warming exists, the unpopular opinion is to conserve this green gift we have. We need to start moving off planet to continue of US style consumption. The lack of any decent space exploration or focus into improving space propulsion technology is troubling.

Either we expand our research into these areas, or the majority of the population on this planet will die off once the easy resources have been consumed. All of us aren't immune to this curse and i foresee it coming sooner rather than later.

Pollution is dangerous and far more detrimental to economic output. Just look at Shangai on a bad air day:



This cannot continue and will begin to spill over. It won't be pretty.