Global warming 'dips this year'

[AtomicCEO]

it's BULLCRAP like that garbage people like ME who fight for simply the TRUTH have to deal with.

 

There ARE WMDs in Iraq! H8 posted links to them hundreds of times!

 

Why doesn't anyone listen to him!?!?!?

[bushwacked]

regardless the facts, destroy the messenger?

 

 

Retardation assimilation.

[McBoog]

Retardation assimilation.

 

 

Yup. Looks like the NEW YORK TIMES is assimilatin' as well:

When the old gray lady says it's over, it's over.

 

The New York Times -- nearly a year late -- is finally recognizing the scientific reality regarding fears of a man-made climate catastrophe. On March 13, a landmark article stated "scientists argue that some of (former Vice President Al) Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous."

 

It appears we are all skeptics now.

 

Original Times Article

 

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.” ...

 

Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots .

 

I fall squarely in the bolded text. Though environmental impact as opposed to "climate" is more my concern.

 

Just the fact that it appears in the old gray lady is amazing! The article is not as "definitive" as the conclusions drawn from it in the first article, but does approach the topic with a less emotional perspective.

 

Go ahead and cherry pick as you see fit, but taking both articles in their entirety is pretty significant, especially considering the source.

 

 

High profile politician's positions on Climal Warnging (including the presidential candidates)

[whomper]

Ill worry about global warming as soon as I am sure I am not going to die from SARS or the bird flu

[bushwacked]

Yup. Looks like the NEW YORK TIMES is assimilatin' as well:

 

Uhh..the assimilation comment was a tongue and cheek barb on how I joined H8 in destroying the messenger.

[McBoog]

Uhh..the assimilation comment was a tongue and cheek barb on how I joined H8 in destroying the messenger.

 

Uhh... I know! I'm being sarcastic!

[AtomicCEO]

Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.

 

What about this quote do you not see as a total confirmation of every point I've made in this thread?

 

Human activity is a serious threat.

 

Extremism comes from the skeptics as much as from the zealots. In my experience... more so from the skeptics.

Edited April 10, 2008 by AtomicCEO

[McBoog]

What about this quote do you not see as a total confirmation of every point I've made in this thread? Nothing. It is also total confirmation of my points/positions as well. We are in total agreement in general. The only thing that truly seperates us is the fact that you don't want to hear "it" from the other side. You have chosen an immovable position and your mind is made up. Mine is not. I still want to know everything about it and we are not even close to understanding the whole picture!

 

Human activity is a serious threat. I agree. Not particularly in the Climal Warnging Hyseria, but our impact on the earth is a serious threat to the Current World Ecosystem. We may destroy it, kill ourselves off (independent of what we do in the US), but the world and life will go on in some form, with or without us. I am not happy pointing this out and hope WE as a Species, decide to be more reasonable in our global approach. NONE of the taxes or proposals that are on the table will have any short term effect other than to hurt our economy and create other problems that we have proven ourselves to be too shortsighted to address (see ethanol).

 

Extremism comes from the skeptics as much as from the zealots. In my experience... more so from the skeptics. Just look at the New York Times and the rest of the world mainstream media. Global warming fear stories still outnumber the skeptics in a discussion that the zealots say is over. Now that the skeptics are beginning to voice their opinion, there is resistance to accept any oposing viewpoint. The zealots have had their turn for more than a decade, now the other side is speaking up and we are refusinfg to give them their turn? There is NO HARD EVIDENCE that overall world temperature has gone up in the last ten years.

 

Once agian, the biggest danger that we are presented with by he skeptics "winning" this argument would be that we wind up giving up on developing clean, environmentally friendly energy sources and become less dependent on oil. Unfortunately, oil ain't going away in the short term, here and especially in the developing world economies (seen any pictures of Beijing's air recently? I would not want to go there if I were an olympic athlete and breath that crap!).

 

There are much sounder, tangible reasons for us to "do something" than to worry about how much CO2 we are pumping into the air (once again, see Beijing) and all the short term damage that we would do by over-reacting. Mount St. Helens effected world climate for years in a way that humans will never be able to approach (sans nuclear war). What would happen if three or four of these volcanos blew in a year?

 

Everything we do is cause and effect on the world biosystem. The most basic effect is modeled perfectly in the predator prey relationship in a defined ecosystem. There is a lag time between the population growth and decline on each other, action/reaction. See second graph. This can be directly applied to our effect and actions taken related to our effect on the environment. Mexico CIty is a perfect example. It has taken years for their programs to work, but now, it is not nearly as bad as it was a decade ago.

[H8tank]

Mcboog has spoken, and I agree with him 100%.

 

If that post doesn't make atomoranic or bushwhacker think and maybe consider the other side... well it says all we need to know about them.

[H8tank]

Crap, global cooling is really gonna mess everything up!

 

Surface snowmelt in Antarctica in 2008, as derived from spaceborne passive microwave observations at 19.35 gigahertz, was 40% below the average of the period 1987–2007.

[westvirginia]

Crap, global cooling is really gonna mess everything up!

 

Surface snowmelt in Antarctica in 2008, as derived from spaceborne passive microwave observations at 19.35 gigahertz, was 40% below the average of the period 1987–2007.

 

Nah, they'll just say we're heading for another ice age like they did in the 60's and 70's. The reason I'm such a skeptic is because 1) we went from ice age to global warming in 30 years, 2) the weatherman can't accurately predict tomorrow, let alone 100 years from now, and 3) a large majority of the most vocal proponents have other axes to grind which makes this fit neatly into their ideology.

 

I consider myself a conservationist, but I can't go along with so many of these people having considered the three reasons above.

[McBoog]

Nah, they'll just say we're heading for another ice age like they did in the 60's and 70's. The reason I'm such a skeptic is because 1) we went from ice age to global warming in 30 years, 2) the weatherman can't accurately predict tomorrow, let alone 100 years from now, and 3) a large majority of the most vocal proponents have other axes to grind which makes this fit neatly into their ideology.

 

I consider myself a conservationist, but I can't go along with so many of these people having considered the three reasons above.

 

Nice to know someone else remembers the impending ICE AGE we faced as kids in the 60's. This was usually talked about just befor the "duck and cover" drills in case of a bombing attack (nuclear). It is amazing how much this world has changed in my lifetime. And my Grandma used to talk about her first ride in a "motorized carriage".

[AtomicCEO]

tldr

[McBoog]

tldr

 

= rude and uninformed zealot of undefendable position.

[bushwacked]

the weatherman can't accurately predict tomorrow, let alone 100 years from now,

 

Wow.

[AtomicCEO]

= rude and uninformed zealot of undefendable position.

 

... or, it could mean that I've been right throughout this thread... you then linked to an article calling me right, and then you decided to try to somehow say I was wrong.

 

Trying to extract a logical position in your next 1000 words seemed a little pointless, but by all means, keep going. You're convincing someone.

[bushwacked]

you then linked to an article calling me right, and then you decided to try to somehow say I was wrong.

 

He is consistent. Mcboog gets hysterical after complaining about a pre-conceived hysteria all the while accusing people of being rude uninformed zealots after insinuating he is ultra-intelligent and doesn't have an axe to grind. Quite interesting actually.

[AtomicCEO]

He is consistent. Mcboog gets hysterical after complaining about a pre-conceived hysteria all the while accusing people of being rude uninformed zealots after insinuating he is ultra-intelligent and doesn't have an axe to grind. Quite interesting actually.

 

It would be funnier if I could actually make it through one of his posts.

[bushwacked]

It would be funnier if I could actually make it through one of his posts.

 

No need to read for humor sake; I skimmed his light bulb = zombie poison thread, and then chuckled.

[bushwacked]

Mcboog has spoken, and I agree with him 100%.

 

[H8tank]

 

 

You get lulu, a copy boy and watermoran.

[McBoog]

... or, it could mean that I've been right throughout this thread... you then linked to an article calling me right, and then you decided to try to somehow say I was wrong.

 

Trying to extract a logical position in your next 1000 words seemed a little pointless, but by all means, keep going. You're convincing someone.

 

Nope... It just means that you are a rude and uninformed zealot of undefendable position.

[H8tank]

...a fellow Nobel Peace Prize recipient is part of a group asking the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures.”

 

[McBoog]

...a fellow Nobel Peace Prize recipient is part of a group asking the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures.”

 

 

Even more worrysome from link:

 

IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food - maize as biofuel - has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops [5].

 

Ummmm, that's not gud!!! Isn't this where the oxygen comes from?

 

The graph says it all!

 

Oh yeah, what concensus? You may not like the source, but the letter to the IPCC is real.

[AtomicCEO]

...a fellow Nobel Peace Prize recipient is part of a group asking the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures.”

 

 

Did this noted scientist win the Nobel Prize for Chemistry, or Physics? Which specific scientific discipline did he win the Nobel Prize for?

 

Wait... wait... everyone wait for the answer.

 

"Hendriksen was once part of the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces, which collectively received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988."

 

This is utterly hilarious. The award was given to a UN organization, and specifically covered 10 separate missions going from 1948 to 1988, and including 500,000 different people. This guy claiming that he is a "Nobel Prize recipient" is like me claiming to be on the 2007 Red Sox World Series team, because Mike Lowell said he couldn't have done it without the fans.

 

Not to mention, the group that he was an small part of had absolutely nothing to do with climate or science.

 

H8, you make this too fricking easy. You believe EVERYTHING you read on right-wing sites, and post it here without reading it all the way to the bottom, when even they admit it's nonsense.

Edited April 16, 2008 by AtomicCEO