Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

the supreme court rules ...


zmanzzzz
 Share

Recommended Posts

clearly manmade emissions have increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to recent global history. and certainly it appears there has been a clear correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. but you, the goracle, and others repeatedly commit the fallacy of automatically assuming that the fluctuations in CO2 have caused the fluctuations in temperature and not vice versa. in fact, i believe most of the data would indicate that, historically, great increases or decreases in temperature precede corresponding fluctuations in CO2 levels. which would turn the arguments of the whole "socialism is the only thing that can save the planet from manmade catastrophe" crowd totally on their heads.

 

If you'd read further down the thread, you'd have seen that I admitted I have no idea what the effects of this extra CO2 will be. The post you quoted was me pointing out to BB that he'd misread the chart that he himself posted. Let's not get too bogged down in the CO2 thing - there are many more strands to this whole environmental issue (you can call it tree-hugging if you like, I'll stick with being aware of my surroundings).

 

In general, it's probably true to say that interfering or influencing the cycles of nature brings into play the law of unintended consequences. Those consequences may be good or they may be catastrophic. I am not a gambler by nature so my instinct is not to f*ck about with stuff I don't really understand and which certainly has the power to make my life a whole lot worse than it is.

 

In other words, do I want to take the chance of people from the coasts pitching their tent on my Midwest front lawn because their house is a hundred feet underwater? No. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 346
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You still on the "commies" "commies" everywhere track here Az? I expect better from you. :D

 

 

It is a tad ironic those complaining loudest about global warming morphing into a political issue seem to be the ones most likely to induce politics into the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a tad ironic those complaining loudest about global warming morphing into a political issue seem to be the ones most likely to induce politics into the discussion.

 

 

Yet another example of getting cause & effect completely backwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a tad ironic those complaining loudest about global warming morphing into a political issue seem to be the ones most likely to induce politics into the discussion.

 

 

:D so you're saying the people who recognize it's a political issue are the most likely to point out that it's a political issue?

 

wow, that IS ironic :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D so you're saying the people who recognize it's a political issue are the most likely to point out that it's a political issue?

 

wow, that IS ironic :D

 

 

 

No, I don't think anyone disputes that this topic is a political issue. Go back and look at all the politcially based name calling and insults that don't have any degree of importance on the debate. What side did all or almost all of these comments come from? The same side that complains most about global warming being a political issue.

 

Double standards exemplified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter how many how many articles or quotes that are attributted by the underwhleming majority of scientists, the overwhelming majority of leading climate scientists have concluded that it's almost a certainity that humans have caused global warming.

 

The end. :D

 

 

Did you seriously just say that?

 

In other words, "I refuse to allow any information other than that which supports my position to have any impact on the way I think or perceptions I want to maintain so that my world does not come crashing down around my weak, unadaptable mind".

 

Good, open-minded, liberal thinking! :D

 

 

Glad someone called him on it.

 

Negative McBoog, we should all keep our minds open, and yes there is a slim possibility that the consensus could change. I'm just stating a simple fact and not pretending like there is currently some great debate about the anthropengenic effect on global warming. Bronco Billy cherry picking articles from an underwhelming minority doesn't change the facts.

 

If 990,000 out of 1,000,000 of doctors conclude that smoking is bad for your health, BB could post all 10,000 contradictory opinions smoking and health, but it doesn't detract from the reality of the situation.

 

 

Nice back pedal, were you a safety in high school?

 

The earth's atmosphere is getting warmer - we know that. The fact of the matter is, we're barely beginning to understand the possible range of ramifications of continued warming. There's a valid case in court, but the jury is still out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i believe it is a pretty well established scientific fact that warmer oceans release far more CO2 than cooler oceans. in fact, climate alarmists use this fact to argue an even more alarmist claim....that manmade CO2 poses such a threat to the planet because the resulting rise in temperature will cause the oceans to warm and release even more CO2, which will cause more warming, which will release more CO2, which will cause more warming...and where this stops, nobody knows (except the goracle).

 

of course, all of this relies upon the assumption that CO2 causes temperature to rise....and of course, we came to that conclusion because, well, look at the correlation over history between temperature and CO2. but it seems that in the rush to blame humankind for destroying the planet, no one stopped to consider whether temperature changes drove CO2 changes instead of the reverse.

 

 

 

Well you're getting to the heart of basic data analysis there. Correlations don't prove causality. Just because two things are related does not mean one causes the other. There may be one or more stresses to the climate driving both phenomena.

 

The case for temperature causing increased CO2 is clearly a good one. Melting permafrost - worldwide increased decomposition of plant material being the main reason. Side note: I'm unaware of studies saying the ocean releases CO2. Actually, I've read the opposite. The oceans are becoming more acidic as it absorbs CO2 lowering Ph. But that's neither here nor there really.

 

The argument for CO2 as a cause for warming is based on the Greenhouse effect. The trapping of heat in the air - CO2 as a blanket.

 

What's nice these days is that the debate has turned to the cause/s. Its probably a matter of percentage of contribution from a number of sources.

 

Anyway, I think you're all getting a bit too caught up in the question of who or what is most responsible for warming. Can we do anything about it? Should we do anything about it? These are the more interesting questions at this point IMO. I come down on the side of yes to both. Cutting carbon emissions and movement towards clean/renewable energy sources are worthy goals not just environmentally (at worst I look at it as insurance), but also for national interests regarding foreign energy dependence. The humans as Earth's custodians has some appeal as well.

Edited by The Irish Doggy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a valid case in court, but the jury is still out.

 

 

 

Well, the jury is always out in science. And yes I stated that the overwhelming majority of leading climate scientists have concluded that it's almost a certainity that humans have caused global warming. And I never backpedaled on that statement one inch. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, I think you're all getting a bit too caught up in the question of who or what is most responsible for warming. Can we do anything about it?

 

 

well, the question of who or what is responsible for warming goes straight to the heart of the question "can we do anything about it?" if the historical correlation between CO2 and warming is due to temperature driving CO2 levels, than that cuts very strongly against the theory that CO2 causes global warming via a greenhouse effect. i mean, that whole CO2/temp correlation is really the central piece of scientific evidence behind the greenhouse theory, and if the causation for that correlation is the reverse of what the theory suggests, then that is a major problem for the theory. and if the theory that CO2 levels drive temperature changes falters, then what CAN we as human beings do about global warming? the whole notion that we can slow or reverse climate change rests entirely on the notion that that 3% of CO2 emissions humans are responsible for is somehow decisively affecting grand global trends. and i just don't think the evidence for that particular linkage is as decisive as a lot of people assume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you're getting to the heart of basic data analysis there. Correlations don't prove causality. Just because two things are related does not mean one causes the other. There may be one or more stresses to the climate driving both phenomena.

 

The case for temperature causing increased CO2 is clearly a good one. Melting permafrost - worldwide increased decomposition of plant material being the main reason. Side note: I'm unaware of studies saying the ocean releases CO2. Actually, I've read the opposite. The oceans are becoming more acidic as it absorbs CO2 lowering Ph. But that's neither here nor there really.

 

The argument for CO2 as a cause for warming is based on the Greenhouse effect. The trapping of heat in the air - CO2 as a blanket.

 

What's nice these days is that the debate has turned to the cause/s. Its probably a matter of percentage of contribution from a number of sources.

 

Anyway, I think you're all getting a bit too caught up in the question of who or what is most responsible for warming. Can we do anything about it? Should we do anything about it? These are the more interesting questions at this point IMO. I come down on the side of yes to both. Cutting carbon emissions and movement towards clean/renewable energy sources are worthy goals not just environmentally (at worst I look at it as insurance), but also for national interests regarding foreign energy dependence. The humans as Earth's custodians has some appeal as well.

 

 

Good info here. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the whole notion that we can slow or reverse climate change rests entirely on the notion that that 3% of CO2 emissions humans are responsible for is somehow decisively affecting grand global trends. and i just don't think the evidence for that particular linkage is as decisive as a lot of people assume.

 

 

Greenhouse gases trapping heat isn't just based on correlations. The Chemistry/Physics of the effect is known. We know that the atmosphere acts like a blanket, or else we would all be as cold as space! Well at least when not facing the sun. You challenge the notion that our contribution is the tipping point, and that's valid. Its not 100% decisive, no. You're absolutely right. Even the IPCC, much maligned by the anti-Global Warming crowd admitted that much. They pegged the probability at 90%. But so what? What if its only 10%?

 

We can do something about our CO2 contribution. Decreasing that contribution, is at worst, a form of insurance environmentally. I pay fire insurance for a house fire that I hope will never happen. I think we should be doing the equivalent for CO2. Besides, pursuing non-carbon energy sources has other very useful benefits even if our contribution is not driving Global Warming. The health of our populace and energy independence are good reasons no matter which side of the GW debate you come down on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

:D WOW !!! :tup:

 

If you took part in this discussion you need to watch this!

 

Thank You TimC :clap:

 

That was one of the BEST documentaries I have ever seen. I have NEVER had my opinion about a topic changed as much by one body of work as this one did. It is kind of a dry watch if you don't have much of a scientific background. But a very complete analysis and well done (as are most BBC documentaries). Covers everything from geo-political factors to hard scientific method and analysis!

 

If you have not watched this in its entirety, you have little worth in continuing this discussion here or anywhere else.

 

Some of the biggest hammers for me:

 

The historical beginnings of the topic in the media and its evolution from actions taken by Margaret Thatcher to quell labor unrest in England.

 

The original scientist in the original video himself states that he doesn't know for sure that CO2 has any effect on climate and that is was just a theory that needed further development!

 

Appx. 40 minutes in and the following ten minutes.

 

They show the data Gore uses and how it was applied incorrectly. Real data, but the conclusions are extrapolated slightly off. There have been at least Eight major studies that gather the same data used by Gore, but when looked at in actual time, CO2 rise has a short lag time as it relates to temperature. It is responsive, NOT causal.

 

“The failure of the communist movement and the convenience of how well the “green arguments” lent themselves for infiltration to furthering an anti-capitalist agenda.

 

Part of an IPCC conference, "Global Warming and Sexism" a discussion break-out session. (No I am not joking! :D:doh:)

 

Patrick Moore ( co-founder, Greenpeace ) among other incredible statements, “It is legitimate to call the current Environmental Movement as ANTI-HUMAN”. (~ 1:14). Inclusion in an interesting discussion of the pollution hazards to health and environment in underdeveloped countries that are much greater by burning wood and dung as opposed to using electricity. (But the argument will probably be that he has been republicanized/corrupted/payed off :D ) Eludes to leaving Greenpeace because irrational agenda and extremist hijacking of the movement.

 

A passage that Bushy needs to watch at about 59 minutes to 63 minutes. Also, many of the 2,500 “leading scientists” are not even that. Interesting breakdown of who is actually on that list (and it is NOT mud-slinging, just a discussion of how they ended up there). Some of those "BIG" names listed as authors are not in agreement with the final findings, but because they contributed research to the effort, were included as co-authors, even though they are in complete disagreement with the findings/conclusions. Others actually threatened legal action to have their names removed!

 

Seeing the credentials of these heretics not supporting the "man-at-fault" agendenda, made me realize just how whack this whole topic has become. To destroy the “man at fault for global warming” agenda would be to take down an entire industry that has evolved and would result in a lot of people being out of jobs.

 

Ursa. Interesting breakdown on how much funding there is on both sides of the issue.

 

What it all boils down to for me are these two points:

 

1) Something is happening and we need to figure out how to deal with future ramifications. The time for finger pointing is long past. The planet and her systems are to large to be effected into any transition over night and realistically can take centuries to even be measured. Some environmental lag times are in the CENTURIES. Human arrogance plays a large roll in believing how much direct effect we can have. Much of the hysterical dogma is created out of a fear for personal survival as opposed to real philanthropic motivation.

 

2) The CO2 models are not accurate on their own merit and even less so considering that ALL POSSIBLE factors and the inter-relationships of their effects must be examined simultaneously (solar activity, troposphere and water vapor). CO2 is only a very small part of the equation, and human produced CO2 is a fractional part of the overall CO2 production.

 

Bushwacked and the rest of you who are passionate about this. The only way this doesn’t change your opinion a least somewhat is a testament to the blinders you wear and the Cool-ade you drink.

 

Watch it and learn. I know I did!

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its Kool-ade dum ass

 

 

I'm not "Cool" enough to know that, I guess! BUT, a really solid effort to the discussion! :D

 

The "K" is actually more appropriate at this point anyway. Sorry I missed it. Sort of the way it is used in Kalifornia. A subtlety I would expect to fly over you head!

 

Nice contribution to the topic. Posts like this really do show you are of no substance and really are that stoopid though. Thanx for your support! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“The failure of the communist movement and the convenience of how well the “green arguments” lent themselves for infiltration to furthering an anti-capitalist agenda.

 

 

So the Reds are still under the beds, huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you know what's funny though is that the first politician to really hype the human greenhouse warming angle was margaret thatcher, to try pull the rug out from under striking coal workers.

 

No Red, ol' Maggie. :D

 

ETA: I do find it a little difficult to believe the "anti-capitalist agenda" piece, though I'd be the first to admit there are a ton of smelly hippies on the environmental side of the argument.

Edited by Ursa Majoris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main arguments made in Mr Durkin's film were that climate change had little if anything to do with man-made carbon dioxide and that global warming can instead be linked directly with solar activity - sun spots.

 

One of the principal supports for his thesis came in the form of a graph labelled "World Temp - 120 years", which claimed to show rises and falls in average global temperatures between 1880 and 2000.

 

The programme-makers labelled the source of the world temperature data as "Nasa" but when we inquired about where we could find this information, we received an email through Wag TV's PR consultant saying that the graph was drawn from a 1998 diagram published in an obscure journal called Medical Sentinel.The authors of the paper are well-known climate sceptics who were funded by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the George C Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank.

 

However, there are no diagrams in the paper that accurately compare with the C4 graph. The nearest comparison is a diagram of "terrestrial northern hemisphere" temperatures - which refers only to data gathered by weather stations in the top one third of the globe.

 

However, further inquiries revealed that the C4 graph was based on a diagram in another paper produced as part of a "petition project" by the same group of climate sceptics. This diagram was itself based on long out-of-date information on terrestrial temperatures compiled by Nasa scientists.

 

However, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.

 

Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said.

 

If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument.

 

 

This is the best part....

 

"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said.
:D

 

 

Isn't Durkin also getting sued by one of the guys in his mockumentary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the best part....

 

:D

Isn't Durkin also getting sued by one of the guys in his mockumentary?

 

 

:D ?????

 

Nah, frorget it. The tone here in the Tailgate reminds me why I don't come here anymore.

 

I'll be back again in a few months to remind myself why it isw a waste of time. God Bless!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D ?????

 

Nah, frorget it. The tone here in the Tailgate reminds me why I don't come here anymore.

 

I'll be back again in a few months to remind myself why it isw a waste of time. God Bless!

 

see yah dont let the door hit u in the swerski

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D ?????

 

Nah, frorget it. The tone here in the Tailgate reminds me why I don't come here anymore.

 

I'll be back again in a few months to remind myself why it isw a waste of time. God Bless!

 

McB, I think you'll find BW is dead right.

 

And as for the tone, where did Bushwacked do anything other than refute this mockumentary? I think you just don't like being pwned.

Edited by Ursa Majoris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information