The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Political Ammunition => Global Warming, Its Myths and Its Truths => Topic started by: Lauri on February 08, 2008, 01:10:35 PM
-
Should Political Leaders be Jailed for Questioning Global Warming?
By Noel Sheppard | February 7, 2008 - 10:33 ET
Should it be against the law to disagree with an as yet unproven scientific theory?
A Canadian scientist and high-profile television personality thinks so, and has called for the jailing of political leaders that ignore the junk science behind the anthropogenic global warming myth.
It appears the witch hunt has moved from calling non-believers "deniers" to the burning phase, which is comically ironic if you think about it long enough.
While you search for the not so subtle pun, Canada's National Post reported Thursday (h/t NBer landshark, emphasis added throughout):
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change.
At a Montreal conference last Thursday, the prominent scientist, broadcaster and Order of Canada recipient exhorted a packed house of 600 to hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an intergenerational crime. Though a spokesman said yesterday the call for imprisonment was not meant to be taken literally, Dr. Suzuki reportedly made similar remarks in an address at the University of Toronto last month.
[...]
Toward the end of his speech, Dr. Suzuki said that "we can no longer tolerate what's going on in Ottawa and Edmonton" and then encouraged attendees to hold politicians to a greater green standard.
"What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they're doing is a criminal act," said Dr. Suzuki, a former board member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Amazing, wouldn't you agree? Yet, for those actually interested in real science and not the inflammatory hyperbole folks like Suzuki and Nobel Laureate Al Gore are disingenuously peddling, the following statement by the Canadian was quite telling:
"It's an intergenerational crime in the face of all the knowledge and science from over 20 years."
And therein lies the problem, Doctor: all you folks advancing this myth are only interested in recent statistics and data.
By contrast, those truly researching climate choose to look at numbers and measurements through the millenia to reach conclusions about how today's weather-related observations compare to the past.
You should try it sometime, Doctor. It's called "Science."
—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/02/07/should-political-leaders-be-jailed-questioning-global-warming
-
They make Copernicus weep.
-
I want to see someone put a large stethoscope on the sun... :popcorn:
-
Facts: The Anti-moonbat
-
Suzuki has a long history of being dead wrong, as I recall he first came to public visibility due to spearheading the effort to keep the US from launching a deep space probe with radioisotopic batteries, since it would no doubt explode at the worst possible time and poison the entire northern hemisphere, which strangely does not seem to have happened, fortunately a majority of the people in the US Government at the time were sane.
I am quite sick of seeing him on every other science program, he is a total video whore and I can only assume the Canadian government must kick in grant money to producers who use him and enough other stray Canadian psuedo-scientists to qualify in their productions.
-
The witch hunt continues. They'd burn us all at the stake, but think of all the carbon!!!! :censored:
-
I posted an article of how Global Warming could benefit ptarmigans. They did survive the last Ice Age, which was something in the past millions of years. Also, they did survive the Great Ptarmigan/Rabbit War, despite being slaughtered in the billions.
-
I posted an article of how Global Warming could benefit ptarmigans. They did survive the last Ice Age, which was something in the past millions of years. Also, they did survive the Great Ptarmigan/Rabbit War, despite being slaughtered in the billions.
The last ice age ended only about 10,000 years ago, I believe, followed not much later by the earliest agriculture and around 6,000 years ago the first artifacts of metal-working. They think the Ptarmigan/Bunny bloodletting was done entirely with flint weapons and clubs, the horrors of which have come down to the present day in seemingly-harmless remnant phrases that have nothing to do with their terrifying origins, such badminton and Bunny Clubs.
-
Suzuki has a long history of being dead wrong, as I recall he first came to public visibility due to spearheading the effort to keep the US from launching a deep space probe with radioisotopic batteries, since it would no doubt explode at the worst possible time and poison the entire northern hemisphere, which strangely does not seem to have happened, fortunately a majority of the people in the US Government at the time were sane.
I am quite sick of seeing him on every other science program, he is a total video whore and I can only assume the Canadian government must kick in grant money to producers who use him and enough other stray Canadian psuedo-scientists to qualify in their productions.
they have this guy... we have Gore.. :-)
-
The last ice age ended only about 10,000 years ago, I believe, followed not much later by the earliest agriculture and around 6,000 years ago the first artifacts of metal-working. They think the Ptarmigan/Bunny bloodletting was done entirely with flint weapons and clubs, the horrors of which have come down to the present day in seemingly-harmless remnant phrases that have nothing to do with their terrifying origins, such badminton and Bunny Clubs.
Humans found flint weapons and clubs along ptarmigan and rabbit carcasses. Also, they used energy based weapons and guns. Mostly, it was close range fightings with clubs and flint weapons. Humans saw it and recorded it. However, all the bunnies destroyed the record, so there is no record of it.
-
The last ice age ended only about 10,000 years ago, I believe, followed not much later by the earliest agriculture and around 6,000 years ago the first artifacts of metal-working. They think the Ptarmigan/Bunny bloodletting was done entirely with flint weapons and clubs, the horrors of which have come down to the present day in seemingly-harmless remnant phrases that have nothing to do with their terrifying origins, such badminton and Bunny Clubs.
Humans found flint weapons and clubs along ptarmigan and rabbit carcasses. Also, they used energy based weapons and guns. Mostly, it was close range fightings with clubs and flint weapons. Humans saw it and recorded it. However, all the bunnies destroyed the record, so there is no record of it.
But they left us beer, so all was not lost.
-
The last ice age ended only about 10,000 years ago, I believe, followed not much later by the earliest agriculture and around 6,000 years ago the first artifacts of metal-working. They think the Ptarmigan/Bunny bloodletting was done entirely with flint weapons and clubs, the horrors of which have come down to the present day in seemingly-harmless remnant phrases that have nothing to do with their terrifying origins, such badminton and Bunny Clubs.
Humans found flint weapons and clubs along ptarmigan and rabbit carcasses. Also, they used energy based weapons and guns. Mostly, it was close range fightings with clubs and flint weapons. Humans saw it and recorded it. However, all the bunnies destroyed the record, so there is no record of it.
But they left us beer, so all was not lost.
The megafauna would probably still be around, if not for the ptarmigans trying to hide behind them when the rabbits got the momentary edge in particle beam weapon technology.
-
Humans found flint weapons and clubs along ptarmigan and rabbit carcasses. Also, they used energy based weapons and guns. Mostly, it was close range fightings with clubs and flint weapons. Humans saw it and recorded it. However, all the bunnies destroyed the record, so there is no record of it.
That's what we want you to think.
-
The last ice age ended only about 10,000 years ago, I believe, followed not much later by the earliest agriculture and around 6,000 years ago the first artifacts of metal-working. They think the Ptarmigan/Bunny bloodletting was done entirely with flint weapons and clubs, the horrors of which have come down to the present day in seemingly-harmless remnant phrases that have nothing to do with their terrifying origins, such badminton and Bunny Clubs.
Tanker,
Are you sure about that???
It has been my understanding that we are "still" comming out of the ice age and that we have quite a way to go still.
Years back I worked on "R.I.S.P." in Antarctica and we found some samples of plantlife that had been buried for quite a long time under the ice. (Ross Ice Shelf Project)
I myself have no deffinate answers on anything, but I do believe that Antarctica was once a pretty green place. It could be that something like a metor impacted the planet and maybe there was a violent shift in the orbit around the sun that had some contributing factors to the ice age. Maybe it isn't the only ice age that this planet has seen?
The big question is, "Is it really getting warmer"?............... and it's companion question is "Why"?
I really don't know one soul on this planet who can honestly and with 100% certainty answer the first one, and with that being the case the second one is impossible.
There are many factors that can attribute to this planet getting warmer or colder.
Back in the 70's there was groups of scientists who swore up and down that we should all lay in a supply of parkas and long johns. Today some of the same "guessers" are now saying that bechfront property will be shortly at about 300 to 500 foot above sea level as we know it now.
The sun goes in some strange cycles as does the tilt of the earth. I believe that there are just way too many cosmic variables for anyone to figure out what is actually happening today, tomorrow or next month..................... let along years from now.
I believe that if science has progressed to the point where we could predict global climactic change them we would have long ago been able to predict whether or not it's gonna rain next week and in a lot of cases even tomorrow!
But that's just my opinion and after all I will only admit to the fact that I don't know everthing and in most cases not much of anything.
-
Back in the 70's there was groups of scientists who swore up and down that we should all lay in a supply of parkas and long johns. Today some of the same "guessers" are now saying that bechfront property will be shortly at about 300 to 500 foot above sea level as we know it now.
Myth. The theory of global cooling which gained publicity in the 1970s had almost no support in the scientific community and was mostly media driven.
I believe that if science has progressed to the point where we could predict global climactic change them we would have long ago been able to predict whether or not it's gonna rain next week and in a lot of cases even tomorrow!
We can predict climate with much greater certainty than weather because climate is more predictable than weather. For instance, we can predict that winter will be over soon and that it will be followed by spring and then summer and then fall... and so on.
-
Back in the 70's there was groups of scientists who swore up and down that we should all lay in a supply of parkas and long johns. Today some of the same "guessers" are now saying that bechfront property will be shortly at about 300 to 500 foot above sea level as we know it now.
Myth. The theory of global cooling which gained publicity in the 1970s had almost no support in the scientific community and was mostly media driven.
I believe that if science has progressed to the point where we could predict global climactic change them we would have long ago been able to predict whether or not it's gonna rain next week and in a lot of cases even tomorrow!
We can predict climate with much greater certainty than weather because climate is more predictable than weather. For instance, we can predict that winter will be over soon and that it will be followed by spring and then summer and then fall... and so on.
I hate to break it to you, but they could do that thousands of years ago.
-
I hate to break it to you, but they could do that thousands of years ago.
Right... Even primitive man could predict the changing of the seasons and that fact serves to demonstrate that climate is more predictable than weather.
-
I hate to break it to you, but they could do that thousands of years ago.
Right... Even primitive man could predict the changing of the seasons and that fact serves to demonstrate that climate is more predictable than weather.
I think primitive man was much more concerned with not getting eaten by something than he was concerned over the fact that winter was cold, and summer was hot. :whatever: :-)
-
(http://lorrainestheplaza.0catch.com/JimsWeatherRock.jpg)
-
I hate to break it to you, but they could do that thousands of years ago.
Right... Even primitive man could predict the changing of the seasons and that fact serves to demonstrate that climate is more predictable than weather.
Well, the seasons are weather, not climate.
-
I hate to break it to you, but they could do that thousands of years ago.
Right... Even primitive man could predict the changing of the seasons and that fact serves to demonstrate that climate is more predictable than weather.
Mr Owl,
So you don't think that "weather" and "climate" have anything to do with one another?
If it snows in Florida in the month of May was it climate change or was it a weather anomaly?
Which one are you saying that you or the scientists that you have faith in can predict?
I also believe that a few hundred years ago there was a cooling period that plagued parts of this planet to the point where it was difficult to get a bite to eat in places.Gee! Did man make that happen? Or is that just something that the "true believers" in global warming just want to forget about?
And please ................. don't say that the global cooling hoax of the 70's didn't have supporters. I sent up quite a few high altitude balloons at the bottom of the world with equipment attached looking for evidence to the yea or nay of it all.
The "Global Warming" believers are no different than the "Global Cooling" believers in the respect that they seem to want to believe in something that they simply can not prove with 100 % accuracy.
Maybe we need to look at what generates funds for and motivates certain segments of the scientific community! It's called funding! And I have aways found it amazing that the more screwey the idea that certain "brain trusts" come up with the more funding that they can get to come up with even more excitingly screwey off the wall theories of gloom and doom.
Of course you must realize that without "gloom and doom" there is no excitement and their funding dries up. And when their funding dries up they revert back to smelly, badly dressed pseudo intellectuals who head back to the Boon's Farm bottle. With funding they still dress and smell bad, but drink much better wine.
It is simply to the advantage of the scientific community to embrace theories such as this so that they can make money without ever producing a a damed thing of value.
When our water was polluted we cleaned it up. When acid rain was taking the paint off of buildings we did something about it. And it truely bennifited this planet and it's inhabitants. We stopped allowing feon and other compounds to be freely expelled into the atmosphere. We made it so that cars didn't smoke and burned the fuel very efficently.
But when people like myself said that maybe we should really think about converting to nuclear power generation we were shouted down by the same scientists who have now switched gears and have even said that nukes are now better than fossil fuel plants.
There are those who still don't like that and say that we should go with wind and solar. Hey! Not a bad idea and I'm actually for it. Hell! Even that Kennedy that's thrown in with that creep Chavez says that wind power is a good thing ......................... unless it's something that he and the rest of his inbred clan have to see from their summer compound. Of course the wind tables back up the fact that where they should be is where the Kennedy's don't want them. Of course if they were somewhere where you had to look at them you can bet your ass that Kennedy would have shoved them down you throat.
I think and believe what we are looking at is simply a way for a sect few to make a zillion dollars off the backs of the US tax payers with hairbrained schemes that will never be proven and will do nothing but give a bunch of educated street people looking scientists a free ride to go off on tangents while making the super rich even richer.
And should you be a democrat you have to go along with the whole play cause thats what Hillary wants you to do!
What I do kinds know is that sometimes things run in cycles and this just might be one of them.
It would be unfortunate if the "Barnum and Bailey" politician talk us all into buying into the biggest hoaxs perpatrated in the history of mankind.
-
^^^*Can open. worms all over. :banghead: :-)
*to borrow a posting habit from DB.
-
Mr Owl,
So you don't think that "weather" and "climate" have anything to do with one another?
Have I claimed that weather and climate have nothing to do with each other? No. Of course I know that weather and climate are related. What I wrote is that climate is more predictable than weather, not that the two are unrelated.
If it snows in Florida in the month of May was it climate change or was it a weather anomaly?
Which one are you saying that you or the scientists that you have faith in can predict?
The basic goal of the effort to study global warming is to predict long term temperature trends, not to predict what the weather will be like during a given day, week, or even month.
And please ................. don't say that the global cooling hoax of the 70's didn't have supporters. I sent up quite a few high altitude balloons at the bottom of the world with equipment attached looking for evidence to the yea or nay of it all.
The "Global Warming" believers are no different than the "Global Cooling" believers in the respect that they seem to want to believe in something that they simply can not prove with 100 % accuracy.
People believe all sorts of things. Who cares? What I'm telling you is that the theory of global cooling which gained publicity in the 1970s was supported by only a few research papers at most and I'm not even sure if those made any definite predictions. If you doubt my claim that the science of the 1970s did not support the theory of global cooling then try to find scientific literature on the subject. I can tell you right now that you will find almost nothing except for some goofy articles in Newsweek and maybe National Geographic.
Follow the science, not the hype.
Maybe we need to look at what generates funds for and motivates certain segments of the scientific community! It's called funding! And I have aways found it amazing that the more screwey the idea that certain "brain trusts" come up with the more funding that they can get to come up with even more excitingly screwey off the wall theories of gloom and doom.
It's a conspiracy!
:whatever:
Seriously, dude... Most scientists are decent people trying to earn an honest living. To suggest that scientists are being paid to falsify their work is preposterous. I'm not saying that fraud in science doesn't occur. I just don't think that fraud in science occurs on the large scale you're imagining it occurs on. Besides, the number of people who would have to be involved and coordinated to pull off the kind of fraud you imagine is going on in science makes the kind of fraud you imagine is going on in science nearly impossible to get away with. But, believe whatever you want to believe. I don't care.
Of course you must realize that without "gloom and doom" there is no excitement and their funding dries up. And when their funding dries up they revert back to smelly, badly dressed pseudo intellectuals who head back to the Boon's Farm bottle.
You're mistakenly assuming that whatever activists, politicians, and media figures are saying about climate change is what the scientific thinking on the subject is. Most of the scientific research on climate change thus far has not attempted to predict the impact on mankind.
Moreover, fame and fortune goes to scientists who overturn the conventional thinking, not to those who find evidence to support the conventional thinking.
-
Mr. Owl!
Oh Cow Farts!
Wait Mr. Owl! Scientists did scientific studies on just that subject! Cow Flatus ........... and it's effects on global warming. Do you see any legitamate reason to study what comes out of a cows ass?
From what you've written so far maybe you do. But Mr. Owl I don't and only see it as a great waste of time, effort and money.
After all ............... of course they pass gas ............. so what do you do about that? Shoot them? Get my point?
Mr Owl. Are you a theoretical scientist? Do you know theoretical scientists? Do you even know what a theoretical scientist is without looking it up on the internet? Hey! It's ok if you don't, but some year when you have a lot of time read some books check out the works of some of them. Many of their theories will make you laugh out loud if you can comprehend their meaning.
Here's an "Einsteinism" that you should think about before you believe every bit of grandious fantasy that scientists peddle!
"When I examine myself and my methods of thought I have come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge"
The word "fantasy", of course, equates to such things as, delusion, illusion, misconseption, trick, fools paradise, self-deception, hallucination, figment of the imagination, something unsubstantial, etc...
I have spent a bit of time with scientists and what I write is from personal experience.
There is a bit of humor about how many scientists really are that I would like to share with you.
STANTZ
This is like a major disgrace. Forget MIT or Stanford now .............. they wouldn't touch us with a 10 meter cattle prod.
VENKMAN
You're always so worried about your reputation. We don't need the University. Einstein did his best stuff as a patent clerk. They can't stop progress.
STANTZ
Do you know what a patent clerk makes? I like the university. They gave us money, they gave us a facility and we didn't have to produce anything. I've worked in the private sector ........... they expect results. You've never been out of college. You don't know what it's like out there.
As far as the 70's hoax about the cooling trend and not being able to find much about it on the net it could be that the net wasn't around then and that no one wanted to type all that garbage. There was quite a bit more info back then, but I don't believe that you were around then.
Of course there is a zillion things on the net these days about "global warming". It could be that it's so fashionable these days to run around like chicken little and blaming President Bush for everything under the sun from the sky falling to the hemmoroids on ones ass. It's so Clintonian!
I see that unfortunately you close to "cherry pick" much of what I wrote. It's ok if that's what you wish to do, but it does remove some of the context high points that I was making.
So Mr. Owl ............. what have you heard about the expansion of the universe and the very expansion of this rock that we are sitting on right now? How about the tilt of axis and even the cyclic nature of sun phases and their effect on climate and weather. Hell! Even the jet stream is known to shift a little now and then and that could possibly have some effects ......... don't you think? And better yet what do you think that man has done to effect such natural occurances?
Or how about the industrialazation of parts of the world like China and India along with all the other little shit pot countries of the region? Ever seen satelite shots of those areas with something other than some half assed resolution that you get off the freebe internet sites?
Wanna talk about pollution? Those boys don't give a fat rats ass about the enviorment ........ let alone global warming.
Oh! If you like, please feel free to call me Nick.
-
Mr. Owl!
Oh Cow Farts!
Oh! If you like, please feel free to call me Nick.
Nick.....I hate to have to tell you this.....but you are wasting your time "debating" with TNO......particularly on this subject.....
AGW is his "religion", and as such you will never convince him that his "beliefs" are inaccurate. "Climate scientists" are his "priests", therefore his entire world would crumble were he to lose his faith in Gia.....
Most reasonable, thinking people do their homework, and arrive at the inevitable conclusion that the entire concept of AGW is a politically motivated attempt to elevate a psuedoscientific myth to sufficient public prominence to force draconian controls and limitations on the lifestyles and economic activities of developed nations (particularly the US) and their citizens at the expense of free trade, capitalism, and individual freedoms. This is why doomshouters like TNO don't like to discuss the real costs and effects of the consequences of what widespread regulations to "curb AGW" will actually do to the lifestyles of "the folks".......if they were to actually place the results of their proposed changes into "real terms" the public would rise up and come for them with pitchforks and torches....
AGW is the "new religion"of the atheist left......no more, no less.....
doc
-
Nick,
If you gave the nocturnal foul one to the Beast, he would take a bite and spit it out then commence to kicking your big ass in a way that only some bulls know :-)
he is worse than PY and the eater of pin fish combined. Though I know you will still have fun with him.
-
As far as the 70's hoax about the cooling trend and not being able to find much about it on the net it could be that the net wasn't around then and that no one wanted to type all that garbage. There was quite a bit more info back then, but I don't believe that you were around then.
If the theory of global cooling was widely accepted in the scientific community of the 1970s, then you should be able to point to at least a few scientific studies which supported it. You can't because those studies don't exist. Regardless, William M. Connolley, a mathematician from the UK has been compiling everything written about global cooling onto a website...
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
Looking at Connolley's compilation, one can easily see that any publicity which the theory of global cooling gained came not from scientific journals or from scientists but rather from dippy articles written by dippy journalists working for dippy magazines.
I see that unfortunately you close to "cherry pick" much of what I wrote. It's ok if that's what you wish to do, but it does remove some of the context high points that I was making.
I'm responding to the parts of your posts which I understand. Maybe it's just me, but I'm finding your style of writing to be difficult to follow.
-
Don't you guys understand? A consensus of scientists, and not-so scientific personnel, doth a scientific theory make. :whatever:
-
Don't you guys understand? A consensus of scientists, and not-so scientific personnel, doth a scientific theory make. :whatever:
Huh? I've never claimed or implied that scientific theories are formed by concensus.
-
Don't you guys understand? A consensus of scientists, and not-so scientific personnel, doth a scientific theory make. :whatever:
Huh? I've never claimed or implied that scientific theories are formed by concensus.
....but you use the same criteria in reverse to discredit global cooling.
If the theory of global cooling was widely accepted in the scientific community of the 1970s, then you should be able to point to at least a few scientific studies which supported it. You can't because those studies don't exist. Regardless, William M. Connolley, a mathematician from the UK has been compiling everything written about global cooling onto a website...
-
....but you use the same criteria in reverse to discredit global cooling.
I'm not trying to discredit any theories. All I'm trying to do is point out that Nick is wrong to attribute claims of a coming ice age to scientists in the 1970s. They weren't the ones floating that idea. The idea was nothing more than stupid speculation in the media. So, when anyone claims that the scientists who are predicting global warming were predicting global cooling not long ago, they are wrong.
People need to separate what the scientific press as represented by scientific journals reports from what the press in general reports or discussion of science becomes pointless.
-
....but you use the same criteria in reverse to discredit global cooling.
I'm not trying to discredit any theories. All I'm trying to do is point out that Nick is wrong to attribute claims of a coming ice age to scientists in the 1970s. They weren't the ones floating that idea. The idea was nothing more than stupid speculation in the media. So, when anyone claims that the scientists who are predicting global warming were predicting global cooling not long ago, they are wrong.
People need to separate what the scientific press as represented by scientific journals reports from what the press in general reports or discussion of science becomes pointless.
And Global warming ISN'T stupid speculation? Lemme ask ya something.... if SUVs, cow farts, my furnace, etc. is to blame for global warming, then why the **** is Mars and Jupiter undergoing the same thing???? Hmmm???
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4266474.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVA
-
And Global warming ISN'T stupid speculation? Lemme ask ya something.... if SUVs, cow farts, my furnace, etc. is to blame for global warming, then why the **** is Mars and Jupiter undergoing the same thing???? Hmmm???
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4266474.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVA
Here we go again with the Sun. If the rising temperatures on Mars, Jupiter, and Earth were due to an increase in solar irradiance, then all the planets would be warming, not just 3 of them.
Scientists studying climate change are well aware of the fact that planets go through natural warming and cooling cycles. Have you considered the possibility that global warming on Earth right now is the result of both a natural process and human activitity?
-
And Global warming ISN'T stupid speculation? Lemme ask ya something.... if SUVs, cow farts, my furnace, etc. is to blame for global warming, then why the **** is Mars and Jupiter undergoing the same thing???? Hmmm???
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4266474.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVA
Here we go again with the Sun. If the rising temperatures on Mars, Jupiter, and Earth were due to an increase in solar irradiance, then all the planets would be warming, not just 3 of them.
Scientists studying climate change are well aware of the fact that planets go through natural warming and cooling cycles. Have you considered the possibility that global warming on Earth right now is the result of both a natural process and human activitity?
Because there is no proof. At this point, it isn't a theory. It is at best a hypothesis. For one thing, it isn't falsifiable. Human-caused AGW meets few of the criteria necessary to be considered a theory. And, as I am sure you know (or should) there is a big difference between a scientific theory and a journalistic one.
-
Mr. TVDOC,
Thank you for your advice .............. it appears to be very correct!
Now Mr. Owl...
I really don't believe that it's my "writting style" that you find difficult to follow, but that I ask you questions that give you the opportunity attempt to prove your point about global warming that you don't have a clue what I'm talking about. And believe me friend.............. they are all valid questions that would take a scientist to answer, or someone who really knew their stuff about the theories surrounding cause of global warming and not just some Bush hating neophyte who has subscribed to the Clintonian Proposition that pulling wool over the eyes of sheep is the first stepping stone to political supremacy.
But don't feel bad. You ain't the only one!
Have a pleasant evening and I wish you the best.
-
And Global warming ISN'T stupid speculation? Lemme ask ya something.... if SUVs, cow farts, my furnace, etc. is to blame for global warming, then why the **** is Mars and Jupiter undergoing the same thing???? Hmmm???
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4266474.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVA
Here we go again with the Sun. If the rising temperatures on Mars, Jupiter, and Earth were due to an increase in solar irradiance, then all the planets would be warming, not just 3 of them.
Scientists studying climate change are well aware of the fact that planets go through natural warming and cooling cycles. Have you considered the possibility that global warming on Earth right now is the result of both a natural process and human activitity?
I'm trying to stay out of this, since it's kind of like talking to a recording, but I have to say that answer of yours was particularly nonresponsive and logically contradictory.
First, did Skizz say the rest of the planets were NOT also increasing in temperature, or just that two others were? I believe it was the latter; if YOU are trying to say the rest are not, do you have any basis for that assertion? None is apparent.
Second, the idea that two other planets could be going through natural heating cycles and that some portion of the Earth's rising temperature might be due to that natural rise would appear to render futile efforts to reduce it which rely entirely on a theoretical grounding in AGW. I do not believe any of the Kyoto 'science' is based on a multi-component theory of warming, it is instead 100% reliant on AGW. Thus if there is a natural component, the underlying assumptions and emission goals which are grounded on a 100% AGW model are not only wrong but possibly dangerously so, unless and until the 'natural' GW component's mechanism can be determined and understood.
-
And Global warming ISN'T stupid speculation? Lemme ask ya something.... if SUVs, cow farts, my furnace, etc. is to blame for global warming, then why the **** is Mars and Jupiter undergoing the same thing???? Hmmm???
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4266474.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVA
Here we go again with the Sun. If the rising temperatures on Mars, Jupiter, and Earth were due to an increase in solar irradiance, then all the planets would be warming, not just 3 of them.
Scientists studying climate change are well aware of the fact that planets go through natural warming and cooling cycles. Have you considered the possibility that global warming on Earth right now is the result of both a natural process and human activitity?
I'm trying to stay out of this, since it's kind of like talking to a recording, but I have to say that answer of yours was particularly nonresponsive and logically contradictory.
First, did Skizz say the rest of the planets were NOT also increasing in temperature, or just that two others were? I believe it was the latter; if YOU are trying to say the rest are not, do you have any basis for that assertion? None is apparent.
Second, the idea that two other planets could be going through natural heating cycles and that some portion of the Earth's rising temperature might be due to that natural rise would appear to render futile efforts to reduce it which rely entirely on a theoretical grounding in AGW. I do not believe any of the Kyoto 'science' is based on a multi-component theory of warming, it is instead 100% reliant on AGW. Thus if there is a natural component, the underlying assumptions and emission goals which are grounded on a 100% AGW model are not only wrong but possibly dangerously so, unless and until the 'natural' GW component's mechanism can be determined and understood.
Standard liberal "science." Any 2 things equal to nothing else are equal to each other.
You are right, it is like debating a liberal is like debating when the response is "Para Espanaol, prensa numerio dos."
-
And Global warming ISN'T stupid speculation? Lemme ask ya something.... if SUVs, cow farts, my furnace, etc. is to blame for global warming, then why the **** is Mars and Jupiter undergoing the same thing???? Hmmm???
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4266474.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVA
Here we go again with the Sun. If the rising temperatures on Mars, Jupiter, and Earth were due to an increase in solar irradiance, then all the planets would be warming, not just 3 of them.
Scientists studying climate change are well aware of the fact that planets go through natural warming and cooling cycles. Have you considered the possibility that global warming on Earth right now is the result of both a natural process and human activitity?
Oh my God, you cannot be this ****in' stupid. THERE ARE NO HUMANS ON OTHER PLANETS!!!! Why would Jupiter, Mars, Venus Saturn, Triton, Enceladus, Neptune, and even the non planet Pluto be experiencing "global warming" if it didn't have a human factor? Because of the ****in' SUN! You libs just wanna pin climate change on human activity to scam others, and get your traitorous side elected. Period.
And no, not all scientists agree with the Goracle. Quite a bit (http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html) are on the more rational side.
-
Oh my God, you cannot be this ******' stupid. THERE ARE NO HUMANS ON OTHER PLANETS!!!! Why would Jupiter, Mars, Venus Saturn, Triton, Enceladus, Neptune, and even the non planet Pluto be experiencing "global warming" if it didn't have a human factor?
Before I say anything, I just want to say that I'm glad to see you jumping into the debate on global warming. I get kind of bored arguing with the same people all the time, so your presence in this debate is welcome... at least by me. Now, back to the debate...
First, none of the material you posted contains any claims that Venus, Saturn, Neptune, or Enceladus are warming, so either bring me scientific articles about warming on those bodies or strike them from your list of planets and moons which are experiencing warming.
Second, the article you cite explains that increasing temperatures observed on Jupiter, Pluto, and Triton are due to causes other than solar activity.
A little bit about the warming being observed on Mars and Jupiter...
A recent study found that warming on Mars is due to dust storms...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html
One physicist theorizes that warming on Jupiter is due to the loss of atmospheric vorticies there...
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/04/21_jupiter.shtml
Because of the ******' SUN!
Temperature increases on some of the planets and moons in our solar system do not necessarily indicate an increase in solar irradiance. In fact, according to satellite readings, solar irradiance has been fairly constant for the past few decades and has even decreased somewhat...
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
And no, not all scientists agree with the Goracle. Quite a bit are on the more rational side.
The very article you cite very clearly states that most climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not the cause of increasing temperatures on Earth...
While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species.
-
Ya know what? **** you and your debate. You're an idiot. You really are buying into this myth that is global warming despite the fact 1. The Earth has only "warmed" 1 degree in the last 100 years, 2. Other planets are experiencing the same thing 3. Co2 in the atmosphere has only increased by a tenth of a percent in the last 200 years and 4. and yes, Virginia... the sun (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313966,00.html) IS getting hotter.
You may buy into this like the mongoloid you are, but the American people won't. I know your type would like to see them jailed and in the camps for "re-education" and for everyone to empty their wallets into planting trees in Bavaria or some shit for a made up cause... but it ain't gonna happen.
Eat shit and live.
-
Ya know what? **** you and your debate. You're an idiot. You really are buying into this myth that is global warming despite the fact 1. The Earth has only "warmed" 1 degree in the last 100 years, 2. Other planets are experiencing the same thing 3. Co2 in the atmosphere has only increased by a tenth of a percent in the last 200 years and 4. and yes, Virginia... the sun (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313966,00.html) IS getting hotter.
You may buy into this like the mongoloid you are, but the American people won't. I know your type would like to see them jailed and in the camps for "re-education" and for everyone to empty their wallets into planting trees in Bavaria or some shit for a made up cause... but it ain't gonna happen.
Eat shit and live.
Our resident troll has appearently never considered variations in orbital eccentricity as a cause of warming/cooling either. Called Milankovitch cycles.
-
Ya know what? **** you and your debate. You're an idiot. You really are buying into this myth that is global warming despite the fact 1. The Earth has only "warmed" 1 degree in the last 100 years, 2. Other planets are experiencing the same thing 3. Co2 in the atmosphere has only increased by a tenth of a percent in the last 200 years and 4. and yes, Virginia... the sun (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313966,00.html) IS getting hotter.
You may buy into this like the mongoloid you are, but the American people won't. I know your type would like to see them jailed and in the camps for "re-education" and for everyone to empty their wallets into planting trees in Bavaria or some shit for a made up cause... but it ain't gonna happen.
Eat shit and live.
Our resident troll has appearently never considered variations in orbital eccentricity as a cause of warming/cooling either. Called Milankovitch cycles.
Yeah, I know what those are... the planets are not really on a circular, even orbit. More like a distorted oval pattern. But that may have a very profound effect as well, and can cause cold eras and hot periods and can even vary the tilt of the Earth's axis. Then again, I don't pretend to know it all like the nocturnal strigidae (ala Franksolich :-) )
Also, we had an "ice age" of sorts from around 1300-the end of the 1700's.... maybe this is the warming period in between "Little Ice Ages"... who knows?
-
Ya know what? **** you and your debate. You're an idiot. You really are buying into this myth that is global warming despite the fact 1. The Earth has only "warmed" 1 degree in the last 100 years, 2. Other planets are experiencing the same thing 3. Co2 in the atmosphere has only increased by a tenth of a percent in the last 200 years and 4. and yes, Virginia... the sun (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313966,00.html) IS getting hotter.
Are you reading the articles you're posting? The Fox News article you posted a link to does not contain the claim that the Sun is getting hotter. In fact, the article claims exactly the opposite...
If sunspot activity continues to be so markedly low, then we should prepare for the possibility of a significant global cooling trend that could reduce agricultural yields and bring on the sort of food shortages that occurred during the Little Ice Age.
-
Our resident troll has appearently never considered variations in orbital eccentricity as a cause of warming/cooling either. Called Milankovitch cycles.
A new face in the debate! Welcome to the fray.
Climate scientists are well aware the fact that orbital variations have an effect on climate. I'm not aware of any scientific studies indicating that the warming we are seeing on Earth is the result of orbital variations, but feel free to point out any studies indicating that.
-
Humans found flint weapons and clubs along ptarmigan and rabbit carcasses. Also, they used energy based weapons and guns. Mostly, it was close range fightings with clubs and flint weapons. Humans saw it and recorded it. However, all the bunnies destroyed the record, so there is no record of it.
That's what we want you to think.
:lmao:
-
Don't you guys understand? A consensus of scientists, and not-so scientific personnel, doth a scientific theory make. :whatever:
Huh? I've never claimed or implied that scientific theories are formed by concensus.
if you cant tell me the temps in my town in two months, you cant tell me the temps in my town in 50 years. :whatever:
-
if you cant tell me the temps in my town in two months, you cant tell me the temps in my town in 50 years. :whatever:
I can't tell you what the temperature will be in your town in two months, but I can tell you that April there will probably be warmer than February there.
Scientists studying climate change don't claim to be able to tell people what the temperatures will be in various places in 50 years. What they are attempting to do is predict global climate trends... increases and decreases... not temperature absolutes.
If you're really interested in learning about what scientists are doing to study global warming, a good place to start is here...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/
Some of the material on Real Climate is meant for scientists, but there are a lot of other articles on it which are meant for public consumption.
-
if you cant tell me the temps in my town in two months, you cant tell me the temps in my town in 50 years. :whatever:
I can't tell you what the temperature will be in your town in two months, but I can tell you that April there will probably be warmer than February there.
Scientists studying climate change don't claim to be able to tell people what the temperatures will be in various places in 50 years. What they are attempting to do is predict global climate trends... increases and decreases... not temperature absolutes.
If you're really interested in learning about what scientists are doing to study global warming, a good place to start is here...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/
Some of the material on Real Climate is meant for scientists, but there are a lot of other articles on it which are meant for public consumption.
No shit it's going to be warmer in April than it is in February. What does GW have to do with it??
And isn't that realclimate.org an offshoot of the Weather channel, the same channel that fires meteorologists who don't fall in line with the GW Cult?
By the way, why are the global warming types so tolerant?? :sarcasm:
-
And isn't that realclimate.org an offshoot of the Weather channel, the same channel that fires meteorologists who don't fall in line with the GW Cult?
As far as I know, Real Climate is not associated with The Weather Channel.
About Real Climate...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/
Bios of some of the scientists at Real Climate...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10
-
Man made global warming is just a pseudoscience that governments use to get new taxes. Various "carbon" and "fuel efficiency" taxes.
-
if you cant tell me the temps in my town in two months, you cant tell me the temps in my town in 50 years. :whatever:
I can't tell you what the temperature will be in your town in two months, but I can tell you that April there will probably be warmer than February there.
Scientists studying climate change don't claim to be able to tell people what the temperatures will be in various places in 50 years. What they are attempting to do is predict global climate trends... increases and decreases... not temperature absolutes.
If you're really interested in learning about what scientists are doing to study global warming, a good place to start is here...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/
Some of the material on Real Climate is meant for scientists, but there are a lot of other articles on it which are meant for public consumption.
The Japanese Meteorological Agency's Climate Modelling has been saying since last fall that February was going to be an month where temperatures in Northern Japan were above the norm, and we'd recieve less snow fall then usual.
It's the 14th, and we've already got 3/4 our monthly average of snow fall, and temps have been below the norm. And it's like this across the entire part of Northern Honshu, and Hokkaido.