Who believes the hype of global warming?

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: desy
Davan
You will find arguments to both sides, you have selected one side.
Now the fact that the overwhealming majority of credible scientists are believers of global warming to some extent or another doesn't pursuade you?

Doctors used to believe that bleeding out their patients cured them.

 

[sulanebouxi]

I just wanna say that trusting "facts" from a biased source, in this case evirotruth, is like the three little pigs asking the big bad wolf about the wolf threat in the area. A big name company will not dole out money to these groups unless it is ultimately in their best interest.

On global warming, let's just say that I don't want to find out if it's true by trying.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: desy
Davan
You will find arguments to both sides, you have selected one side.
Now the fact that the overwhealming majority of credible scientists are believers of global warming to some extent or another doesn't pursuade you?

Doctors used to believe that bleeding out their patients cured them.

Well, there was a time when medicine was based on belief. Much of the "alternative" medicine still is. For those of us who are sane and psychologically sound, there is "evidence-based" medicine and science... that cannot be compared to medieval quackery, no matter hard you try.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Davan
Topic Title: Who believes the hype of global warming?

Wheres the emergency?

Obviously you don't believe it and you don't live on the coast so you don't see the Ocean levels rising.

Enjoy

I live near the coast and don't see it.

I bet you would see these:

6-20-2006 Strong waves batter Central American coast

MANAGUA, Nicaragua - Big waves generated by a storm 2,000 miles away battered a long stretch of the Pacific coast, wrecking homes, hotels and restaurants from Peru to Central America, civil defense officials said Tuesday.

Hugh Cobb, a meteorologist at the National Hurricane Center in Miami, said the waves were caused by a powerful South Pacific storm that was sending swells up to 12-feet high across the ocean, hitting beaches from Ecuador's Galapagos Islands to the Mexican resort of Acapulco.

In Nicaragua, 15-foot waves carried water up to 100 yards inland and destroyed about 20 small homes in Puerto Corinto, civil defense official William Rodriguez said.

A few dozen people were evacuated in El Salvador, where waves up to 20 feet were reported and sand was washed into rustic seaside businesses.

In Acapulco, knee-deep water engulfed 2 miles of the resort's coastal boulevard and seawater sloshed inside beachfront restaurants and nightclubs.

 

[Zebo]

Who believes the hype of global warming?

I beleive it, NAS -the governments scientists says so, but I don't worry about it. Humans will destory each other long before we destory mother earth. Armageddon almost happend already four times, seconds from launch and only luck saved us. Add in the mix of Iran getting nukes, pakistan and others I'll be very surprised if we make it to 2025.

 

[desy]

Might want to rethink the bleeding approach, they still use leeches to do it
Bleeding out is good!

 

[DrPizza]

Cities are hot - correct? So if you have a thermometer in a city surrounded by asphalt you have to adjust the recorded temperature down in order to make up for the reflected heat from the blacktop. How much do you adjust it? Who the F*** knows?? Well they are adjusting that data that you see for specifically this reason. Are you ok with that? What about the day the "guy that wrote down the temperatures" calls in sick? Do you think he just wrote down the same temps as the day before? (before computers obviously.) What about when a guage breaks and there are days or weeks without data? How do you think this information is infered?

No, I have no problem with that. Furthermore, I have no problem believing that the task of mathematical modeling to account for heat island effects is relatively simple.

Furthermore, I attacked your reliance on one fact: the temperature in North America. Hellooooo! "GLOBAL" warming. Let's assume a mythical planet for a moment, one that has regions named just like our planet. And, let's say that we know for fact that global warming is occurring on that planet. That does NOT mean that the temperature everywhere is going up. In fact, in a region the size of North America, the average temperature could be going down; yet global warming is occurring.

You can't pick specific geographic locations. You need to consider a much broader picture. Quite important to this broader picture is ocean temperatures, as the ocean serves as a huge heat sink, compared to land. (Not to mention that it takes up roughly 2/3's of the surface of the earth). Ocean temperatures certainly do appear to be rising globally.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: desy
Davan
You will find arguments to both sides, you have selected one side.
Now the fact that the overwhealming majority of credible scientists are believers of global warming to some extent or another doesn't pursuade you?

Doctors used to believe that bleeding out their patients cured them.

Well, there was a time when medicine was based on belief. Much of the "alternative" medicine still is. For those of us who are sane and psychologically sound, there is "evidence-based" medicine and science... that cannot be compared to medieval quackery, no matter hard you try.

I wasn't trying to directly compare it. You missed the "point".

Even with all of the knowledge that mankind has today, there is still so much that we don't know. We are just beginning...

 

[Davan]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Cities are hot - correct? So if you have a thermometer in a city surrounded by asphalt you have to adjust the recorded temperature down in order to make up for the reflected heat from the blacktop. How much do you adjust it? Who the F*** knows?? Well they are adjusting that data that you see for specifically this reason. Are you ok with that? What about the day the "guy that wrote down the temperatures" calls in sick? Do you think he just wrote down the same temps as the day before? (before computers obviously.) What about when a guage breaks and there are days or weeks without data? How do you think this information is infered?

No, I have no problem with that. Furthermore, I have no problem believing that the task of mathematical modeling to account for heat island effects is relatively simple.

Yes, Im sure its really really simple. Which is why there are many differing approaches for how to account for it, and many many scientists are working to rework the entire formula from the ground up to more accurately reflect the truth. Of course. That sounds simple and straightforward. No reason to get all upset about that. Elementary school kids could do the math. Its simple.

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Furthermore, I attacked your reliance on one fact: the temperature in North America. Hellooooo! "GLOBAL" warming. Let's assume a mythical planet for a moment, one that has regions named just like our planet. And, let's say that we know for fact that global warming is occurring on that planet. That does NOT mean that the temperature everywhere is going up. In fact, in a region the size of North America, the average temperature could be going down; yet global warming is occurring.

You can't pick specific geographic locations. You need to consider a much broader picture. Quite important to this broader picture is ocean temperatures, as the ocean serves as a huge heat sink, compared to land. (Not to mention that it takes up roughly 2/3's of the surface of the earth). Ocean temperatures certainly do appear to be rising globally.

Theres not a "Reliance", I said before, Im PERFECTLY AWARE that it is a GLOBAL "problem". Im not trying to ignore all the other data. Im simply pointing out that in the area with the best recording techniques the observed warming trend is SLIGHTLY LOWER than the global rate. THAT IS ALL -- STOP READING THINGS INTO IT THAT IM NOT SAYING.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Davan
Who believes the hype of global warming?

Did you know, did you know, did you know...

Did you know, did you know, did you know... WHAT? For all your speculation, you didn't provide link one to substantiate your bullsh8. Since you didn't, I'll give you one to chomp on.

Don't Miss: Up Close with Melting Ice

June 20, 2006 · Boulder, Colo., is ground zero for ice. It's home to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, a research institute that keeps tabs on the state of the world's ice. NPR's Richard Harris visited the center and on All Things Considered tonight, he offers a profile of two of the scientists, Ted Scambos and Mark Sereeze. Scambos is a button-downed, neat type who studies Antarctic ice. He says he can actually see the effects of global warming, most dramatically in 2002 when the humongous Larson B ice shelf collapsed into the sea. Mark Sereeze has a ponytail and, Harris says, the demeanor of an aging hippy. He studies the Arctic ice. And he, too, has seen it shrink year after year.

It's a fascinating piece on the people who are watching global warming happen.

I believe anyone who doesn't understand that global warming is real, and it's a man made catastrophe in the making is someone with a less than benign agenda, is severely learning impared or suffers from a major case of anal-cranial inversion.

Which are you? ... or did someone cancel your free subscription to google? :roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: sandorski
Global Warming is very real, you should be afraid. <<<<<<FACT

I won't say you should be afraid.

A warmer climate will eventually solve itself, and sadly, humanity will endure. But before anything like that happens, we'll say major flows in population because areas will be completely uninhabitable.
And it won't take many years before everyone will know that a heating climate is a fact, and severe action will most likely be taken.
And the future ofcourse will be a good time for better alternatives that coal and oil.

I read through this entire pile of a steaming ignorance joke for a thread, and your bolded comment is the one thing that stuck to mind. If your position is "sadly, humanity will endure," which clearly implies that you wish humanity wouldn't, then WTF do you even pretend to care?
I think that when you realize the source of this conflict in your thinking, then you (and everyone else who shares in your fearmongering religion) will realize the true purpose behind your actions and beliefs, and your need to force your actions and beliefs on others. Here's a hint: you're not trying to save us (or the earth for that matter).

As to the global warming issue itself, that is really much ado about nothing. The earth warms and cools in a cyclical pattern and has done so for long before humans ever existed on it. 200 years ago, it was a cold cycle. Now, it's warmer. The geological history of the earth is full of natural disasters of nearly unimaginable proportions, 99.999% of which took place before humans. If anything, our current times are extremely peaceful from a natural perspective.

 

[Dritnul]

as im sure many have said its not hype its been proved even in your links they admit to the temp being raised they are often blown out of proportion but global warming does exist

 

[Davan]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Davan
Who believes the hype of global warming?

Did you know, did you know, did you know...

Did you know, did you know, did you know... WHAT? For all your speculation, you didn't provide link one to substantiate your bullsh8. Since you didn't, I'll give you one to chomp on.

Don't Miss: Up Close with Melting Ice

June 20, 2006 · Boulder, Colo., is ground zero for ice. It's home to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, a research institute that keeps tabs on the state of the world's ice. NPR's Richard Harris visited the center and on All Things Considered tonight, he offers a profile of two of the scientists, Ted Scambos and Mark Sereeze. Scambos is a button-downed, neat type who studies Antarctic ice. He says he can actually see the effects of global warming, most dramatically in 2002 when the humongous Larson B ice shelf collapsed into the sea. Mark Sereeze has a ponytail and, Harris says, the demeanor of an aging hippy. He studies the Arctic ice. And he, too, has seen it shrink year after year.

It's a fascinating piece on the people who are watching global warming happen.

Good one. Thank you for posting a biased but nonetheless attempt at factual information, which is more than anyone else has bothered to do. (Coincidentally, I posted a minimum of three outside links in this thread, therefore I can only conclude that you didnt bother to read through the entire thread.) You might want to take a few minutes to do so.

Here is an interesting study that disputes the coorelation of the information you posted to global warming.

-- http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5730/1898

"Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003. Comparisons with contemporaneous meteorological model snowfall estimates suggest that the gain in mass was associated with increased precipitation. A gain of this magnitude is enough to slow sea-level rise by 0.12 ± 0.02 millimeters per year."

Its fine if you want to associate your event with "global warming" but then to do so you need to rationalize these recorded scientific events into your theory. Please do so.

Originally posted by: Harvey
I believe anyone who doesn't understand that global warming is real, and it's a man made catastrophe in the making is someone with a less than benign agenda, is severely learning impared or suffers from a major case of anal-cranial inversion.

Which are you? ... or did someone cancel your free subscription to google? :roll:

Its unfortunate, you were doing fairly well at first. Somewhat smarmy and pretentious, but at least making a cursory attempt at participating, unlike most everyone else. But then you go off the deep end with some nice illogical statements and personal attacks. I suppose if the ONLY choices I have are that I am evil, dumb or dumber, ill pick dumb.

 

[Davan]

Heres some more interesting reading since you claim to want links (not that I think youll actually read them)

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc091002.html

The "Great Debate" in climatology these days focuses on the differences
between two temperature records: surface and satellite. The problem is this:
Thermometer readings from across the planet's surface are warming at a
greater rate than satellite temperature measurements of the lower
atmosphere, or troposphere. That difference is probably real and not a
result of errors in the data sets, since the satellite record is a measure
of the temperature of the overlying atmosphere and not the surface.
Meteorologists call the difference between the surface readings and those
from the overlying atmosphere the "lapse rate," a term that refers to the
rate at which temperature declines with height.

--snip--

The bottom line is that no one seems to know why these differences in
temperature trends exist. Given that, it's unlikely a climate model would
somehow magically figure it out. Indeed it didn't. There seems to be a lapse
in our understanding of heat transfer between the surface and the
atmosphere. And until we figure out that fundamental issue, climate models
will continue to give us the wrong answers.

A discovery that it is much colder over the South Pole than believed has
exposed a major flaw in the computer models used to predict global warming,
a new scientific paper claims.

US scientists based at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station say they have
measured the temperature of the atmosphere 30 to 110 kilometres (18 to 68
miles) over the pole and found it is 20 to 30 degrees Centigrade (68 to 86
degrees Fahrenheit) colder than computer models showed.

So there we have it. A little fact-checking by the Times would have revealed
no trend toward increasing U.S. drought, a slight trend toward increasing
wetness, an increase in "flooding" rains so small that no one could possibly
notice (two out of 27,350 days), an East Coast drought that was not related
to global warming, and no significant changes in monsoonal rain or drought.

But why let the facts get in the way of a good story

 

[rchiu]

Heh, you know what, if global warming is significant to a degree that we have indisputable evidence that it exists, it will be too late for us to do anything about it. And if we really did enough damage to the envirnment to cause fundamental changes, the result is gonna be worse then one terrorist group blowing up one city or two. The last time earth went through fundamental change like that, species where eliminated and the species that dominated the earth no longer dominated.

The point of global warming and the debate about it is this. We need to continue monitor the way this planet works and changes and PREVENT anything from happenning. It is stupid to just say hey, nothing has happened yet so everything is okay. And even if there is not a indisputable evidence that global warming exist, it doesn't mean we should continue to waste energy, consume every resource on this planet and create more unprocessable junk. Maybe you don't give a damn about the environment 10 or even 100 years from now, but I do. I got young kids and I hope they and thier kids can continue to live like we do.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Heh, you know what, if global warming is significant to a degree that we have indisputable evidence that it exists, it will be too late for us to do anything about it. And if we really did enough damage to the envirnment to cause fundamental changes, the result is gonna be worse then one terrorist group blowing up one city or two. The last time earth went through fundamental change like that, species where eliminated and the species that dominated the earth no longer dominated.

The point of global warming and the debate about it is this. We need to continue monitor the way this planet works and changes and PREVENT anything from happenning. It is stupid to just say hey, nothing has happened yet so everything is okay. And even if there is not a indisputable evidence that global warming exist, it doesn't mean we should continue to waste energy, consume every resource on this planet and create more unprocessable junk. Maybe you don't give a damn about the environment 10 or even 100 years from now, but I do. I got young kids and I hope they and thier kids can continue to live like we do.

Natural change is normal. Seeking to PREVENT natural change is not environmentally sound. In fact, it would be about as anti-environment as you could get. Kind of like those idiots who thought natural forest fires were bad and then decades later we have unhealthy forests. In fact, I would say your post sums up that attitude almost exactly, and yeah, I'd say that is the point and the debate. The know-nothings are doing the chicken little thing again... as usual.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: rchiu
Heh, you know what, if global warming is significant to a degree that we have indisputable evidence that it exists, it will be too late for us to do anything about it. And if we really did enough damage to the envirnment to cause fundamental changes, the result is gonna be worse then one terrorist group blowing up one city or two. The last time earth went through fundamental change like that, species where eliminated and the species that dominated the earth no longer dominated.

The point of global warming and the debate about it is this. We need to continue monitor the way this planet works and changes and PREVENT anything from happenning. It is stupid to just say hey, nothing has happened yet so everything is okay. And even if there is not a indisputable evidence that global warming exist, it doesn't mean we should continue to waste energy, consume every resource on this planet and create more unprocessable junk. Maybe you don't give a damn about the environment 10 or even 100 years from now, but I do. I got young kids and I hope they and thier kids can continue to live like we do.

Natural change is normal. Seeking to PREVENT natural change is not environmentally sound. In fact, it would be about as anti-environment as you could get. Kind of like those idiots who thought natural forest fires were bad and then decades later we have unhealthy forests. In fact, I would say your post sums up that attitude almost exactly, and yeah, I'd say that is the point and the debate. The know-nothings are doing the chicken little thing again... as usual.

Oh yeah, emitting trillion metric tons of CO2 every year is "normal". Stuffing billions and billions of non-biodegradable items like plastic bags in landfills is "normal". If that's not delusional, I dunno what is. Yeap, I guess we are the know nothing people and ya'll know it all ppl got all the answers.

 

[Aisengard]

Vic is trying to say extinction of species like ours is normal, so we shouldn't mess with it.

 

[bdww00]

liberals invented global warming
/thread

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

what could we have to lose by following some simple ecologically and environmentally sound ideas? nothing.
what could we have to lose by following the path were currently on? everything.
there's your end of thread.

 

[desy]

"The bottom line is that no one seems to know why these differences in
temperature trends exist. Given that, it's unlikely a climate model would
somehow magically figure it out. Indeed it didn't. There seems to be a lapse
in our understanding of heat transfer between the surface and the
atmosphere. And until we figure out that fundamental issue, climate models
will continue to give us the wrong answers."

Davan those satellite differences have been proven wrong and error in the data collection and it has been linked here by others already in fact the guy who posted the wikipedia link has it in there.
todays information is that both surface and atmosphere have risen there is no difference in the tempature trend.

 

[Davan]

Originally posted by: desy
"The bottom line is that no one seems to know why these differences in
temperature trends exist. Given that, it's unlikely a climate model would
somehow magically figure it out. Indeed it didn't. There seems to be a lapse
in our understanding of heat transfer between the surface and the
atmosphere. And until we figure out that fundamental issue, climate models
will continue to give us the wrong answers."

Davan those satellite differences have been proven wrong and error in the data collection and it has been linked here by others already in fact the guy who posted the wikipedia link has it in there.
todays information is that both surface and atmosphere have risen there is no difference in the tempature trend.

Underlining it isnt proof. Post proof please.

 

[desy]

Fine it was linked before for you, but here it is again. I took the time to read it first time posted I suggest you do the same.

"Likewise, even though they began with the same data, each of the major research groups has interpreted it with different results. Most notably, Mears et al. at RSS find 0.193 °C/decade for lower troposphere up to July 2005, compared to +0.123 °C/decade found by UAH for the same period. There are ongoing efforts to resolve these differences, however, much of the disparity may have been resolved by the three papers in Science, 11th August 2005, which pointed out errors in the UAH 5.1 record and the radiosonde record in the tropics"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Oh yeah, emitting trillion metric tons of CO2 every year is "normal". Stuffing billions and billions of non-biodegradable items like plastic bags in landfills is "normal". If that's not delusional, I dunno what is. Yeap, I guess we are the know nothing people and ya'll know it all ppl got all the answers.

In fact, it is normal, so you might want to check your delusional ignorance at the door.

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Vic is trying to say extinction of species like ours is normal, so we shouldn't mess with it.

Oooh... nice troll. McOwen has taught you well... :roll:

Even the most cursory study of the history of our planet would show you that that is also normal, but that is NOT what I am trying to say. I'm sorry you're too stupid, too arrogant, and too brainwashed by McOwen to understand what it is I actually said, but I will try to help you.
rchiu said, "We need to continue monitor the way this planet works and changes and PREVENT anything from happenning." The entire message of his post was that we don't know what it happening, we don't know if anything is happening at all, but we are scared of change therefore we must do everything we can to prevent change from happening simply because we fear it.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

you're debating with someone who has his mind set already. it's useless. I just don't get why people don't consider the possibility of it. So what if we act a little greener, what is exactly the harm in that? Other than maintaining a more habitible environment. Trust me, if we keep going in the way we are, the earth will win. It knows how to shut down, it knows how to rebuild itself. It's done it before and if we push it far enough, it will do it again, and not give a crap about us or our children or our children's children, etc.