Automatic Jack
Veteran X
Or there's the 2nd Law angle I mentioned. Look it up.
[So] Global Warming is not Man Made maybe?
- Thread starter Code4
- Start date
Or there's the 2nd Law angle I mentioned. Look it up.
nada,
What you don't seem to see, is that most measures to curb CO2 production (especially the ones the greens are most in favor of) are both very expensive and totally ineffective. Caps on carbon emissions are unworkable, expensive expensive, and will stunt economic progress. It is exactly the liberal mindset to find impossible solutions to nonexistant problems. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a vital component to life. Do you want to know what the only proven result of doubling CO2 would be? The average crop yield would increase 33%. Some crops would increase even more.
Furthermore, it is like people like yourself to ignore periods of history without massive CO2 production like the Medieval Warm Period. Completely oblivious to realizing that the frozen greenland of today was once a thawed and thriving Viking colony. And then, when the earth cooled in the Little Ice Age, that colony disappeared, replaced by massive famines in Europe. If I have to choose between things getting a little warmer, and things getting a little cooler, I gladly choose the former.
Yet not the greens of today. Ever eager to hop on the latest bandwagon, people such as yourself, influenced by the media and politician scare tatics, have grasped onto a theory by a relatively closed group of scientists who seemingly isolate themselves from the statistics community. But... but... what about PEER REVIEW. Well, peer review didn't catch Michael Mann's Hockey Stick. It didn't stop him from using flawed statistical methods. Even though it contradicted history, even though the hockey stick could have replicated with red noise, and even though the use of tree rings and pine combs as a climate indicator is laughable [as its generally impossible to isolate the climate signals], it still passed peer review. It was still used as the basis for the IPCC 3rd report, Summary for Policy Makers. So when you say one of the most common gasses and one of the ones most important to life is going to cause an irrevisble worldwide calamity, forgive me when I say "Yeah right."
Thats not to say I'm against CO2 reduction, or for fossil fuels. Renewable energy, increased efficiency, not dependant on the middle east, those are all great things. Bring on the electric car and biodiesel. But do it smartly, in a way that won't hamstring progress for the next hundred years.
What you don't seem to see, is that most measures to curb CO2 production (especially the ones the greens are most in favor of) are both very expensive and totally ineffective. Caps on carbon emissions are unworkable, expensive expensive, and will stunt economic progress. It is exactly the liberal mindset to find impossible solutions to nonexistant problems. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a vital component to life. Do you want to know what the only proven result of doubling CO2 would be? The average crop yield would increase 33%. Some crops would increase even more.
Furthermore, it is like people like yourself to ignore periods of history without massive CO2 production like the Medieval Warm Period. Completely oblivious to realizing that the frozen greenland of today was once a thawed and thriving Viking colony. And then, when the earth cooled in the Little Ice Age, that colony disappeared, replaced by massive famines in Europe. If I have to choose between things getting a little warmer, and things getting a little cooler, I gladly choose the former.
Yet not the greens of today. Ever eager to hop on the latest bandwagon, people such as yourself, influenced by the media and politician scare tatics, have grasped onto a theory by a relatively closed group of scientists who seemingly isolate themselves from the statistics community. But... but... what about PEER REVIEW. Well, peer review didn't catch Michael Mann's Hockey Stick. It didn't stop him from using flawed statistical methods. Even though it contradicted history, even though the hockey stick could have replicated with red noise, and even though the use of tree rings and pine combs as a climate indicator is laughable [as its generally impossible to isolate the climate signals], it still passed peer review. It was still used as the basis for the IPCC 3rd report, Summary for Policy Makers. So when you say one of the most common gasses and one of the ones most important to life is going to cause an irrevisble worldwide calamity, forgive me when I say "Yeah right."
Thats not to say I'm against CO2 reduction, or for fossil fuels. Renewable energy, increased efficiency, not dependant on the middle east, those are all great things. Bring on the electric car and biodiesel. But do it smartly, in a way that won't hamstring progress for the next hundred years.
Interesting. I'll consider your post, as it's the first non-overly aggressive opinion I've seen on the subject yet. In the mean time:
"Ever eager to hop on the latest bandwagon, people such as yourself, influenced by the media and politician scare tatics, have grasped onto a theory by a relatively closed group of scientists who seemingly isolate themselves from the statistics community. "
Durrr? Why would you even say this? You talk of assumptions but what is the point of the above? For the record, you're totally wrong - I haven't even seen An Inconvenient Truth. I have a problem with some of the uninformed hippies I have to deal with in lightninged awareness of issues and getting recycling done at my school. I don't care about bandwagons and I highly resent you trying to think me otherwise. I've read two books and a number of articles on the net, had plenty of informed conversations, and have come to conclusions on my own. The above, coupled with the whole "It is exactly the liberal mindset to find impossible solutions to nonexistant problems." distracts me from what might be an wholly intelligent stance. You're basically calling an entire group of people who happen to disagree with you (including me, apparently), stupid. It's very immature.
"What you don't seem to see, is that most measures to curb CO2 production (especially the ones the greens are most in favor of) are both very expensive and totally ineffective."
So? That just means people keep on trying, it doesn't mean that humans contributing to global warming is a hoax.
What I'm having a hard time figuring out, is why everything has to be a damned hoax to begin with. Is it part of this so-called libral mindset to blindly make shit up and force it down the publics throat? Is this was the new face of evil has come to? What would anyone have to possibly gain by falsifying information to make it appear that humans are negativly effecting the planet? More funds for their evil scientific studies? Let me say I know you'll probably give me some isolated examples (ex: Al Gore gets lots of press and credit all because of stupid uninformed Inconvenient Truth), but I'm talking about the scientists and community leaders who are trying to change the way we deal with energy. What is their secret agenda you seem to be alluding to?
And I'm sorry, but why are you apparently for CO2 reduction if it's "not a pollutant" and apparently not contributing to global warming? For kicks? I mean, it's a vital part of life, as you say, so why reduce it?
Artemis Pockels
Veteran X
nada, you put out CO2 emissions every time you breath. If you really believe that CO2 is harming the Earth then do the noble thing and kill yourself. Don't bother replying to this. The electrons needed to send your internet message are fueled by a fossil fuels.
I was just being an ass.
My position on global warming is as follows:
There is not enough information at this time. There probably will not be enough information to make an informed decision for a few hundred years at least (talking accurate global climate data). I'm highly skeptical that we have anything at all to do with the perceived climate changes. In the meantime, it's not a bad idea to clean up our environment a bit and go after that tasty, tasty, sexy fusion power (Google "tokamak reactor" for some nerd porn).
Artemis Pockels
Veteran X
Isn't France cockblocking the ITER still?
Fuck they better not be!
I posted about this a couple weeks ago...... This is the funniest shit I've heard about 'global warming' in awhile............
Frostbite ends Bancroft-Arnesen trek - Yahoo! News
MINNEAPOLIS - A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.
*Then there was the cold — quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said.
"My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold," Atwood said.
*The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming.
*"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."
HAHAHHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHA.......
Frostbite ends Bancroft-Arnesen trek - Yahoo! News
MINNEAPOLIS - A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.
*Then there was the cold — quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said.
"My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold," Atwood said.
*The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming.
*"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."
HAHAHHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHA.......
They aren't, the difference is the planets ability to absorb the added load. Normally the planet is a pretty balanced eco-system, it produces and it absorbs. We produce but don't absorb. The only reason they are denoted that way is to allow you to differentiate between the two in discussion.
Oh come on, someone else had to see this and laugh.
OMG, the tundra is cold?
I wonder if the Sahara is hot! That would be funny too!
Al Gore ruined Global Warming like skiing ruined Tribes.
Just read it in quotes and I think its hilarious. First, these two are fucking amatuer yahoos not to realize the conditions. Second, they're stupid because they thought this was doable and that global warming would make it doable. Third, they got fucking served by nature for presuming to embark on a propaganda mission (yes, propaganda, if it was anything but they would have realized actual conditions) and not respect that which they profess to protect.
Stupid, ignorant, owned retards.
Automatic Jack
Veteran X
So hot in L.A. yesterday.