The Forum › Everything Else FileCabi.net Forum (2007–2008)

Global Warming?

1. envious_silverSalvaged from archive31 Oct 2009, 22:28
   Global warming..... do you believe its happening and is as alarming as the media is making it?
2. BorroSalvaged from archive31 Oct 2009, 22:32
   Global warming..... do you believe its happening and is as alarming as the media is making it? Do you? I think it's just the planet going through a normal planetary climate change. Perhaps the beginning of a new ice age? Who caused the ice age? Humans? Doubt it.
3. TillySalvaged from archive31 Oct 2009, 22:32
   Do you? I think it's just the planet going through a normal planetary climate change. Perhaps the beginning of a new ice age? Who caused the ice age? Humans? Doubt it. :mad: I...I...agree? :think: Shit...
4. envious_silverSalvaged from archive31 Oct 2009, 22:33
   Agreed, up until the 1970s we were in a cooling trend and they were talking about an ice age. I think its just the earth regulating itself.
5. BorroSalvaged from archive31 Oct 2009, 22:37
   :mad: I...I...agree? :think: Shit... NEVER AGREE WITH ME GODDAMN YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6. Josh85Salvaged from archive31 Oct 2009, 23:20
   i agree with the majority of posters in this thread.
7. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive1 Nov 2009, 00:36
   http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_scie… :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/06/07/politics/200… http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/Zippozeppo/08climat… These edits were done by a lawyer, not a scientist.
8. yupSalvaged from archive1 Nov 2009, 01:25
   Global warming is all about fear and control and mostly about money. Keep drinking the Kool Aid Monty. Why are you show us shit thats almost 8 years old? Fact the Earth has been cooling for the last 12 years. Here is a good pod cast with Dr. Don Easterbrook http://mynw.com/?nid=577&a=10187&p=6&n= Dr. Don Easterbrook’s Letter to Andy Revkin, New York Times Story Posted on ICECAP Dr. Don Easterbrook’s letter to Andy Revkin, New York Times Andy I was flying home all day yesterday and just now saw your story on some of the things I said at the conference in NY. You very astutely got my point that no matter what the cause of global warming, the world is going to face huge energy and other resource problems (e.g., food production, water, etc.) in the coming decades with fewer and fewer resources. But that isn’t the whole story – take a look at the attached satellite image of March 9, 2009 and compare it to the satellite image of June, 2008. Notice that cool water in the Pacific that extends from the equator all the way up the west coast of North America into the Gulf of Alaska is still firmly entrenched. This is the cool water phase of the PDO and it isn�t going to change for at least 2-3 decades (at least it never has in the past)and it is unaffected by atmospheric CO2 as shown by the three PDO switches this century that occurred before atmospheric CO2 increased significantly. What this means is that no matter what the cause of global warming and cooling, we cannot escape the conclusion that the Earth is in for global cooling for the next 2-3 decades and will bring increasing energy and resource demands at a time of rapidly escalating population growth. image Satellite image of March 9, 2009 show the cool PDO in the eastern Pacific firmly entrenched. image Satellite image of June 19, 2008 show the cool PDO in the eastern Pacific. Here is where Holdren and I part company – he wants carbon cap and trade that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars to curb ‘global warming’ that the PDO shows isn’t going to happen in the next several decades (no matter what the cause). The PDO data shows conclusively that global cooling is going to continue for several decades, causing increasing demands of energy and resources (while population escalates), but if we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on cap and trade (as Holdren is pushing), we will have little left with which to handle the real problems of increasing demands on dwindling resources. Holdren’s path will lead to a real global catastrophe. Dr. Don Easterbrook http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/dr-…
9. yupSalvaged from archive1 Nov 2009, 01:32
   http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/sydneys-cold…
10. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive1 Nov 2009, 01:37
    ^^^One cool month. Weather, climate: There's a difference. The conference Easterbrook spoke of was sponsored by the Heartland insitute. One of their major contributors: Exxonmobil. Ta Yup, Tar. :D
11. yupSalvaged from archive1 Nov 2009, 10:03
    ^^^One cool month. Weather, climate: There's a difference. The conference Easterbrook spoke of was sponsored by the Heartland insitute. One of their major contributors: Exxonmobil. Ta Yup, Tar. :D ^^^^^ kill yourself! You must be retarded, I put the second link in tongue in cheek because it was about Sydney. Did you even read anything that was posted? I said this,, basically it's about money. Here is what Dr. Eaterbrook said at the bottom of his letter that is a good summery of whats going on. Here is where Holdren and I part company – he wants carbon cap and trade that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars to curb ‘global warming’ that the PDO shows isn’t going to happen in the next several decades (no matter what the cause). The PDO data shows conclusively that global cooling is going to continue for several decades, causing increasing demands of energy and resources (while population escalates), but if we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on cap and trade (as Holdren is pushing), we will have little left with which to handle the real problems of increasing demands on dwindling resources. Holdren’s path will lead to a real global catastrophe. One question for you, why would you think that a Professor at one of our states most liberal schools be in the back pocket of an oil company? Do you know something the rest of the world doesn't or are you just rolling along with the rest of sheep? TA! TARD!
12. boo_cockySalvaged from archive1 Nov 2009, 11:54
    Do you? I think it's just the planet going through a normal planetary climate change. Perhaps the beginning of a new ice age? Who caused the ice age? Humans? Doubt it. When you consider how old the planet is, we really don't have much data in weather trends...who's to say Earth hasn't gone through these same climate changes 1,000 times already in the past? My gut tells me the only difference this time is we gave it a new name...Global Warming. I haven't read and don't know much about the topic...just my uneducated opinion on the topic. Aren't you glad I enlightened you all with this post?
13. NanabungaSalvaged from archive1 Nov 2009, 12:15
    When you consider how old the planet is, we really don't have much data in weather trends...who's to say Earth hasn't gone through these same climate changes 1,000 times already in the past? Actually there is a large group in the scientific community who have already shown this to be fact, so not only are you 100% correct but you have scientific data to back your assumption. There are core samples taken from the Alaskan Tundra that show that thousands of years ago (or perhaps millions, I forget) a huge forest existed there, possibly even tropical in nature, due to the climate at that time. As the earths climate changed the forest died and an ice age took over, for the next hundred thousand years or so, the tundra has been nothing but a vast grassland during it's warmer months. Photographs taken in the 1950's when compared to photographs taken of the same spot today, show an ever increasing amount of bushes and trees taking hold. Seems like the same cycle is playing itself over again, which if it's true has fuck all to do with man. I believe we may be a small contributing factor to the increasing climate but the earth has gone through these cycles countless times before the invention of the gasoline powered engine... Aren't you glad I enlightened you all with this post? Actually yes, it reminded me of this conversation only in an earlier thread. I wish I knew where it was because I mentioned the program and the channel where I saw this I think...
14. JACKASS2010Salvaged from archive1 Nov 2009, 17:49
    eScDfYzMEEw
15. RaidenatorSalvaged from archive2 Nov 2009, 00:31
    Of course global warming is happening. But fuck if we can do anything about it. I'm sure it's just part of the natural cycle of the earth. Besides, if it was our fault, the earth would figure out a way to fix it. What it boils down to, is I honestly just don't care. The people that bitch about global warming are the same ones that bitch about the swine flu.
16. QuackersSalvaged from archive3 Nov 2009, 01:40
    I don't think the fact that its part of the natural cycle of the world is in dispute, I think it's disputed over how much humans are hastening it on, and how much can be done to marginalize that.
17. OfficerFrankSerpicoSalvaged from archive3 Nov 2009, 11:04
    FACT: Global Warming does not exist
18. YMBOTSSalvaged from archive3 Nov 2009, 11:08
    David Attenborough says its happening, and thats good enough for me! Poor polar bears.
19. envious_silverSalvaged from archive3 Nov 2009, 14:18
    Its Global Climate change. Its a natural fluctuation
20. Outsource Moderator RajanSalvaged from archive4 Nov 2009, 09:23
    Rajan wonder what peoples of Tuvalu have for feeling on climate change?
21. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive6 Nov 2009, 11:53
    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/journey-to-a-hostile… Journey to a hostile climate JO CHANDLER June 13, 2009 THEY'RE on talkback most days. They're writing for the letters page or thundering from opinion columns. You can find several archetypes neatly rounded up in Canberra, in the Senate, where Steve Fielding is the new doubter, Bob Brown is the old believer, Nick Xenophon is alarmed at the problem but unpersuaded by the solution, and Ron Boswell explodes at the very mention. They are individuals finding different voices to reconcile their beliefs, ideologies, aspirations and histories with the alarm bells of climate science. So many voices. It was lighter green versus darker green in Canberra this week, where fellow travellers were in schism on whether the Rudd Government's emissions targets were a creditable start or a poor joke. Analysts and industry were tying themselves in knots over the repercussions of the Government's crafty play in hitching the unloved emissions trading scheme to renewable energy targets. Quiet relief in one camp and wails from another as word seeps through that the Japanese have wimped it on carbon targets. Meanwhile, in Bonn, at talks supposed to ease the way to a hallelujah moment at the Copenhagen climate summit in December, they're bogged in the rich-versus-poor quagmire of who bears the cost. Back on talkback radio, it was such hard going that a switch to FM top 40 suddenly seemed the happier option. Crazy stuff, but every one of these reactions now makes perfectly awful sense to one of Australia's leading climate scientists, Dr Graeme Pearman. After almost 40 years studying the complexities of atmospheric science, Pearman found himself at an impasse late last year and sliding into a deep personal depression. The planet he understood — probably as well as anyone ever could. But the people on it — the species he viewed as increasingly endangered — were doing his head in. The moment spurred him to venture into new, fraught scientific territory — the human psyche. He apprehensively set out to cross the no man's land from the physical sciences to behavioural and social science, looking for answers to questions that the most sophisticated climate models could never answer. Science had made a powerful case on the reality of climate change and the urgent imperative to act, he says. "So why haven't we?" He wanted to know whether humans had it within their nature to understand the problems, and achieve solutions. Or might human nature actually conspire to build barriers to change? "What is it about us that makes it so difficult for us to respond? And then came perhaps the more searching question: are we up to the challenge, or are we destined to just live with what we've instigated?" He enlisted the help of Monash University behavioural scientist and psychologist Professor Charmine Hartel. He swung the focus deep into the most confounding, complex, contradictory environment of all. Himself, Fielding, Brown, Xenophon and Boswell, et al. What factors drive individuals to such different responses to the prospect of a climate emergency? What he found was less than reassuring, but crucial to the next phase of responding to climate change, he argues. Pearman, a former chief of atmospheric research and climate director at CSIRO, has acquired an international reputation for his broad grasp of climate science. Governments, climate change campaigner Al Gore, corporations and citizens seek his advice in trying to figure out the future. His professional journey has coincided with climate peak hour. It began as a young graduate when, in the early 1970s, he and a colleague stumbled on some curious readings as they measured carbon dioxide exchange from wheat crops. "By 1985, the message was pretty clear from the international science community that we had a risk of potentially important magnitude emerging," recalls Pearman. There was lots of talk, not a whole lot of action. Then, when the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change put out its fourth assessment report in early 2007, Pearman hoped this was the clarion call to action. The work of 130 lead authors, with contributions from more than 800 scientists, the oversight of more than 2500 expert reviewers (Pearman was one) — here was a powerful consensus document declaring that global warming was "unequivocal" and that human activity was "very likely" the main cause. Then, suddenly, not much happened. Pearman had a revelation. He had been "suffering under the delusion that as knowledge of the physical world improves, rationally based information would lead to rational responses to such threats as climate change". "Indeed," Pearman says, "it is possible that society in general suffers from this delusion, concluding that with a little more time and money, the answers will be provided and this will solve our problems. "Then I realised, and maybe I had been a bit slow, that it wouldn't really matter if we ever had the physical science perfect … there was no guarantee that we would manage the problem properly." He saw the same insight dawning on colleagues after the Copenhagen meeting early this year, where the despair of scientists was widely reported. "They were coming to the realisation that no matter how good the physical science was, it wouldn't lead to the responses needed." The explanation rested in a parallel universe of science. "What behavioural scientists tell us is that rationality is circumstantially based. So what is rational to me is not rational to the next person, because they come from a different circumstance. They also tell us that when we are confronted by a threat such as climate change, people experience many alternative emotions, and employ different coping mechanisms." The anxious might deny; the sad might avoid; the hopeless become resigned; the frustrated, cynical; the depressed, sceptical; the angry, just fed up. Then an individual of a different temperament might take any one of those emotions and be empowered, turn it into action. All those familiar talkback voices, all shaping the political and commercial and social agenda on climate change. Pearman's exploration of the personal now means he is less surprised by this. It's all part of what Professor Ross Garnaut, in his review of climate change in Australia, identified as the "diabolical" nature of the issue. It is uncertain, insidious, long-term, international and potentially dangerous. These traits push our buttons differently. Understanding this, Pearman argues, is the new frontier in confronting climate change — engaging social and behavioural scientists to move policy discussion to a new level by helping people understand their responses to the issue. As he writes in a forthcoming paper, and has begun telling forums including business leaders at a dinner last week, it is time for the physical and psychological scientists to get together to explain how hidden human traits have underpinned the development of climate change as an issue, our responses thus far, and how to better transfer scientific knowledge of risk into action. "These behavioural issues are likely to be much more important than the development of improved descriptions of exactly what has happened or might happen to the climate. These are the main barriers to the actions that are needed." Pearman and Hartel, in a paper to be submitted to an international psychology journal, explore how rationality is defined by genetics and by our cultural, educational and personal experiences. How collectively and over time, these shape the social structures that organise and control societies, and are embedded as social norms. And how these factors determine the responses of individuals and institutions, from scepticism to activism. "There is so much of what we do day to day that we actually don't think about. It's subconscious … These need to be looked at much more carefully, because the indications are, with climate change, that maybe they have led us in the wrong direction." Indeed Pearman raises a larger question: has social evolution led us towards an unsustainable future? Pearman argues that discussion of human aspiration, the nature of consumerism, the formation of attitudes and the roles of education and ideology need to be on the climate platform alongside emissions targets, carbon trading and renewable energy. "So much of what we do depends on instilled attitudes about who we are and to what we aspire." The power and the growth of marketing — drawn from the science of psychology — shows that these can change. "Climate change is telling us that we have problems in converting expert advice into sensible policy development. We have invested in the development of fundamental knowledge through science. Then the scientists come back and say, well, as best we can judge, there is a risk here. But if no one actually believes it or takes action, then why bother to do it in the first place?" Pearson asks. A better grasp of the psychological issues at play would improve the chances of translating expert advice into action. "Each of us carries a propensity for one kind of behaviour or another. How we deal with change will reflect that predisposition — being conservative or radical, positive or negative, short-term or strategic. Irrespective of whether this is shaped by nature or nurture, it will play a significant role in how we respond to an environmental threat." Much of the psychological response is shaped by natural aversion to uncertainty and complexity. But changing climate is a threat unlike anything we've dealt with before, says Pearman. "If we are waiting for perfect knowledge and perfect solutions, it will be too late. We have to learn to manage this as a risk in which the probability of outcomes is weighted against the impact of those outcomes if they do occur.
22. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive6 Nov 2009, 11:54
    Continued: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/journey-to-a-hostile… "The view of the larger science community is that currently anticipated climate changes are large in terms of what we know occurred in the distant past — and we know how much these changes actually impacted on the planet — and therefore the urgency, the risk, is high. "We need to search deeply within ourselves and as communities for the sense of the responsibility we have towards others, and to the stewardship we owe to the millions of species that share the planet with us." And we have to do this quickly, Pearman says. Responding last month to the latest climate projections, Australia's Chief Scientist, Penny Sackett, said the world had about six years to get emissions under control. Pearman has gained insight, but not much reassurance, from his psychological journey. "We may not be up to the challenge," he says. "I'm an optimist at heart, but I'm actually really pessimistic about us responding to this in time to avoid significant change." Then he looks at his own response — recovering from the inertia of depression by beginning a new field of study. He wonders whether insight into the mysterious internal world of the individual might be the most powerful piece of climate science uncovered to date.
23. Josh85Salvaged from archive6 Nov 2009, 21:16
    Of course global warming is happening. But fuck if we can do anything about it. I'm sure it's just part of the natural cycle of the earth. Besides, if it was our fault, the earth would figure out a way to fix it. What it boils down to, is I honestly just don't care. The people that bitch about global warming are the same ones that bitch about the swine flu. agreed. The world can look after itself. I'm more worried about overpopulation then global warming. actually that speaks for itself, because i'm not worried about global warming at all. Plus, knowing how much of a bitch karma can be sometimes.. we could probably do all this work to stop global warming.. then a comet will come out of nowhere and destroy the earth.
24. JACKASS2010Salvaged from archive6 Nov 2009, 22:25
    then a comet will come out of nowhere and destroy the earth. we can only hope.
25. RaidenatorSalvaged from archive7 Nov 2009, 12:26
    agreed. The world can look after itself. I'm more worried about overpopulation then global warming. actually that speaks for itself, because i'm not worried about global warming at all. Plus, knowing how much of a bitch karma can be sometimes.. we could probably do all this work to stop global warming.. then a comet will come out of nowhere and destroy the earth. It'd be pimp as fuck if shit went down like in Day After Tomorrow. No more overpopulation muahahaha. Besides, maybe people would stop being stupid fucks for a while and just focus on living instead of bitching about something or another.
26. YMBOTSSalvaged from archive7 Nov 2009, 12:28
    2012 - We were warned......who's gonna host this site when the US is swallowed up?
27. DC ThugSalvaged from archive11 Nov 2009, 00:08
    technically 2012 is going on right now seeing they fucked up the calendar during the aught years damn catholics...
28. OfficerFrankSerpicoSalvaged from archive11 Nov 2009, 16:34
    I'm building an under ground shelter as we speak. Complete with internet connection so I can play WoW and CoD:MW2 for the rest of my days. Everyone is welcome except for Borro and Cyrmu, they can go fuck themselves in the wasteland.
29. hoschiadedodiSalvaged from archive11 Nov 2009, 16:49
    That's really awesome! :omg:
30. OfficerFrankSerpicoSalvaged from archive11 Nov 2009, 17:05
    stfu
31. YourAfuckingMoronSalvaged from archive13 Nov 2009, 09:19
    ROFL @ GLOBAL WARMING. ANOTHER IGNINT ASS LIBERAL SCHEME. SOMETHING TO GET THE HERDS TO FOLLOW. I HONESTLY LIVED WITH 2 LIBERALS THIS PAST SUMMER I HAD TO MOVE OUT AFTER 2 MONTHS. EVERYTHING WAS ABOUT PRAISE OBAMA AND GLOBAL WARMING.
32. PlaneswalkerXSalvaged from archive13 Nov 2009, 09:46
    Moron, are you going to get Starcraft 2?
33. mousewallratSalvaged from archive13 Nov 2009, 17:58
    Moron, are you going to get Starcraft 2? Yeah, maybe you can sell him one of your copies?
34. Josh85Salvaged from archive14 Nov 2009, 01:42
    I'm building an under ground shelter as we speak. Complete with internet connection so I can play WoW and CoD:MW2 for the rest of my days. Everyone is welcome except for Borro and Cyrmu, they can go fuck themselves in the wasteland. are you REALLY building an underground bunker? I want to make my own bunker. Not because i'm paranoid and shit. But because bunkers are awesome.
35. DC ThugSalvaged from archive14 Nov 2009, 03:25
    hitler loved bunkers too
36. Josh85Salvaged from archive14 Nov 2009, 10:14
    hitler loved bunkers too So did jesus. Amirite?
37. BorroSalvaged from archive14 Nov 2009, 10:29
    Jesus loved the whores and the wine.
38. OfficerFrankSerpicoSalvaged from archive21 Nov 2009, 00:24
    Moron, are you going to get Starcraft 2? That game will be the end of me when it is released. Also Korean teenagers all over the world will participate in mass suicides, as if the world is about to end.
39. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive25 Nov 2009, 17:44
    http://mobile.latimes.com/inf/infomo?view=webarticle&… U.S. Chamber of Commerce seeks trial on global warming Tue 25 Aug 2009 By Jim Tankersley Reporting from Washington-- The nation's largest business lobby wants to put the science of global warming on trial. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trying to ward off potentially sweeping federal emissions regulations, is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a rare public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. Chamber officials say it would be "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" -- complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect. "It would be evolution versus creationism," said William Kovacs, the chamber's senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs. "It would be the science of climate change on trial." The goal of the chamber, which represents 3 million large and small businesses, is to fend off potential emissions regulations by undercutting the scientific consensus over climate change. If the EPA denies the request, as expected, the chamber plans to take the fight to federal court. The EPA is having none of it, calling a hearing a "waste of time" and saying that a threatened lawsuit by the chamber would be "frivolous." EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said the agency based its proposed finding that global warming is a danger to public health "on the soundest peer-reviewed science available, which overwhelmingly indicates that climate change presents a threat to human health and welfare." Environmentalists say the chamber's strategy is an attempt to sow political discord by challenging settled science -- and note that in the famed 1925 Scopes trial, which pitted lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan in a courtroom battle over a Tennessee science teacher accused of teaching evolution illegally, the scientists won in the end. The chamber proposal "brings to mind for me the Salem witch trials, based on myth," said Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist for the environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists. "In this case, it would be ignoring decades of publicly accessible evidence." Bill Kovacs: You are a fucking moron. :D
40. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive16 Dec 2009, 09:29
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009… COP15: Climate 'scepticism' and questions about sex Richard Black | 14:05 UK time, Tuesday, 15 December 2009 Why are virtually all climate "sceptics" men? The question first came to mind on the plane to Copenhagen last week while scanning The Guardian's feature (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/04/climate… on movers and shakers in the "sceptical" field. So we go down their list... Bjorn Lomborg, Viscount Monckton, former TV presenter David Bellamy, British National Party leader Nick Griffin, Freakonomics (http://freakonomicsbook.com/) authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, Lord Lawson, social anthropologist Benny Peiser, geologist Ian Plimer, US Senator James Inhofe, Czech President Vaclav Klaus... all men. In the centre of Copenhagen, a group called the International Climate Science Coalition (http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/) (ICSC) has been holding an event giving the "sceptical" version (http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?opti… of the climate science story. The speakers list? Nils-Axel Morner, Cliff Ollier, Stuart Wheeler, and so on down the agenda... all proud possessors of a Y-chromosome. The recently-launched London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation (http://www.thegwpf.org/) numbers a single woman across its Board of Trustees and Academic Advisory Council. I could go on... but I hope the point is demonstrated. In fact, across the entire sceptical landscape, as far as I can see, the female contingent numbers one UK columnist, a couple of Australian bloggers, UK academic Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen and US counterpart Sallie Baliunas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas)... and that's about it, apart from former US vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin who - as the Washington Post reveals (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009… - hasn't always displayed climate scepticism in the past. It's a marked contrast to the world of mainstream climate science, which boasts a number of eminent female practitioners including IPCC lead authors Susan Solomon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Solomon) and Cynthia Rosenzweig; and to the world of UN climate talks, where many delegations include, and are led by, women, including the UK's negotiating team. The renowned environmental commentator Charles Clover noted the trend recently in The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest… writing of "... the born-again climate sceptic, the kind of man (always a man, almost invariably wearing a tweed jacket) who now materialises beside me at parties and confides that he has been having second thoughts about climate change". So what's going on? Why is this issue such a gender-divider? You might think it's a trite question; but I would argue it's not, for the following reason. There are two distinct views of why climate scepticism exists in the way it does today. One - promulgated by many sceptics themselves - speaks to a rigorous, analytical deconstruction of a deeply-flawed scientific edifice that is maintained by a self-interested cabal of tax-hungry politicians and careerist scientists. The other is that climate scepticism has psychological roots; that it stems from a deep-seated inability or unwillingness to accept the overwhelming evidence that humanity has built with coal and lubricated with oil its own handcart whose destination board reads "climate hell". As one ex-scientist and now climate action advocate put it to me rather caustically a while back: "I've been debating the science with them for years, but recently I realised we shouldn't be talking about the science but about something unpleasant that happened in their childhood". Perhaps an answer to the gender issue will help illuminate this much bigger and politically significant question. One possibility is that climate scepticism is in fact equally distributed between the genders, but somehow it's the men who end up as the public face. That would beg a different "why?" if true; but is it? Opinion poll evidence provides some clues. A recent survey across the EU found roughly equal levels of scepticism between the genders. But a report from the US think-tank American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/6americas.… probed a little deeper and came up with a more nuanced view. It split citizens into six categories depending on how they felt about man-made climate change, from "alarmed" through to "dismissive". The genders were roughly equally represented in the middle groupings, but at the margins the divide was absolutely stark: "Almost two-thirds of the Dismissive are men (63%), the largest gender split among the six segments," the report concluded. What else did the survey reveal about the "dismissive" group? "More likely than average to be high income, well-educated, white men... much more likely to be very conservative Republicans... strongly endorse individualistic values, opposing any form of government intervention, anti-egalitarian, and almost universally prefer economic growth over environmental protection... have a specialized media diet, with a higher than average preference for media sources that reflect their own political point of view." That paints a picture of the "dismissive" - and dominantly male - psychology, without however going to the roots of why men and women diverge so much on their tendency to be "dismissive". Men's greater taste for risk-taking behaviour is well documented. Is this a factor? When writer and broadcaster Clive James is prepared in the same article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8322513.stm) to admit "I know next to nothing about climate science" but still say with confidence "Nobody can meaningfully say that 'the science is in'", is he displaying a willingness to take risks that would be less appealing to women? What about empathy? At the conference here, Lord Monckton repeatedly called young climate activists "Hitler youth" - as seen on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne-X_vFWMlw) - even after one of them told them that he was Jewish and that his grandparents escaped the Nazis. A behaviour pattern that women would find less appropriate? Even if the conclusions from the American Progress report are entirely accurate, and even if they transfer to other countries, it still can't explain why virtually all prominent sceptics are men - based on their findings, you'd expect one third to be women. It's worth mentioning that in more than a decade of reporting on environmental issues, I've never come across a gender divide like it. Conservation scientists, fox-hunters and their opponents, marine biologists, climate policy wonks, journalists, environmental economists, foresters... in all of these fields, gender equality pertains to a far, far greater degree than among climate sceptics. If a rigorous deconstruction of flawed and politically-motivated science is at the bottom of climate scepticism, why aren't women getting it? I'm out of ideas. What do you think it all means? Intriguing; particularly this part: "More likely than average to be high income, well-educated, white men... much more likely to be very conservative Republicans... strongly endorse individualistic values, opposing any form of government intervention, anti-egalitarian, and almost universally prefer economic growth over environmental protection... have a specialized media diet, with a higher than average preference for media sources that reflect their own political point of view."
41. mousewallratSalvaged from archive16 Dec 2009, 16:36
    Intruiging? Hell, it's just because women can't understand anything as complex as global weather patterns. Most of them can't even drive.
42. OfficerFrankSerpicoSalvaged from archive16 Dec 2009, 17:09
    Global warming does not exist. /Thread
43. TaurinoSalvaged from archive16 Dec 2009, 19:11
    hey i'm mexican america. I say fuck all to enviorment. I'm for whatever description that guy said. Yes I want to grow a business. Yes I want lots of money. Yes i want to be renown. fuck global warming.
44. JooXSalvaged from archive16 Dec 2009, 19:18
    Yes I want to grow a business. Yes I want lots of money. Yes i want to be renown. You, sir, are in luck! Never before has the job market been open for one such as yourself. With your skills you should have no trouble giving two hand-jobs at once in dark alleys. I bet you could even suck off a third. You'll have all three covered in a week. Go get em, Tiger.
45. yupSalvaged from archive16 Dec 2009, 20:06
    "More likely than average to be high income, well-educated, white men... much more likely to be very conservative Republicans... strongly endorse individualistic values, opposing any form of government intervention, anti-egalitarian, and almost universally prefer economic growth over environmental protection... have a specialized media diet, with a higher than average preference for media sources that reflect their own political point of view." What ever you do....... DO NOT TRUST THE OPINION OF A WELL EDUCATED MAN WHO ACTUALLY WATCHES THE NEWS, NOT JOHN STEWART.
46. HeyBuddySalvaged from archive20 Dec 2009, 00:49
    Global warming does not exist. /Thread :thumb:
47. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive20 Dec 2009, 03:58
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3351/3588230076_8eab2a5963…
48. DAMm3Salvaged from archive21 Dec 2009, 12:17
    I think I'm on the fence, because I'm not that well informed about either sides. But common sense leads me to believe that claims of predicting global tempatures a year from now, let alone 20, are just as ridiculous as the 7 day forcast.
49. ceehound619Salvaged from archive24 Dec 2009, 22:10
    Global warming..... do you believe its happening and is as alarming as the media is making it? its bullshit........it snowed back east this year at a MUCH earlier date then normal this year.......and........ what melted the ice back in the great ice age when there were no industries/cars/man made pollution etc??..see my point??.... only mother nature has the power to cause global warming.
50. boo_cockySalvaged from archive24 Dec 2009, 22:20
    its bullshit........it snowed back east this year at a MUCH earlier date then normal this year.......and........ what melted the ice back in the great ice age when there were no industries/cars/man made pollution etc??..see my point??.... only mother nature has the power to cause global warming. Don't get the dyke going man...PLEASE...don't get her going. She's best left doing her thing..face down in pussy. :thumb:
51. envious_silverSalvaged from archive24 Dec 2009, 22:57
    its bullshit........it snowed back east this year at a MUCH earlier date then normal this year.......and........ what melted the ice back in the great ice age when there were no industries/cars/man made pollution etc??..see my point??.... only mother nature has the power to cause global warming. I'm not taking a side here because I have evidence that supports and dismisses global warming. I'm just wondering what everyone else thinks. Don't get the dyke going man...PLEASE...don't get her going. She's best left doing her thing..face down in pussy. :thumb: Don't forget to get your daughter that yearly STD screening for Christmas, you god damn Grinch
52. ceehound619Salvaged from archive24 Dec 2009, 23:02
    I'm not taking a side here because I have evidence that supports and dismisses global warming. I'm just wondering what everyone else thinks. no worries....happy holidays...... was just offering my opinion as requested..... by the way... is that you in the album pic??? u r friggin juicy.......I want to know what would cause envious silver to warm.
53. OfficerFrankSerpicoSalvaged from archive24 Dec 2009, 23:16
    I'm not taking a side here because I have evidence that supports and dismisses global warming. I'm just wondering what everyone else thinks. It does not exist, THE END. GKYS (Go kill YourSelf)
54. JACKASS2010Salvaged from archive24 Dec 2009, 23:23
    no worries....happy holidays...... was just offering my opinion as requested..... by the way... is that you in the album pic??? u r friggin juicy.......I want to know what would cause envious silver to warm. oh look whos back. ... Merry Christmas that is all.
55. ceehound619Salvaged from archive24 Dec 2009, 23:25
    oh look whos back. ... Merry Christmas that is all. yeah... happy fuckin holidays.
56. mousewallratSalvaged from archive25 Dec 2009, 00:39
    There have been 4-7 ice ages as far as can be discerned. You only have to ask what caused the ice ages to begin, and to end. All of them were before industrialized civilization. Also, warming has occured on other planets at the same rate as on Earth. Not too many Buicks on Mars...so, if CO2 doesn't cause Mars to warm up, what does? 'Global Warming' is not a natural occurance, it's a political agenda.
57. HeyBuddySalvaged from archive12 Jan 2010, 12:20
    For years people have told the "non-global warming crowd" to ignore a cool summer, snow in Iraq and California, and pay no attention the heaviest icing around Alaska in 60+ years. They say, "that's an isolated incident". Well, last week parts of Florida were down to 21 degrees. We've set literally thousands of winter records this year. My question is, when do isolated incidents become data. We know that the experts have been fudging data to support their claims, but how do they hide things that we can see with our own eyes. They were talking about disappearing ice, while I can turn on Deadliest Catch and see that some of the most experienced crab fishing people on the planet are complaining about more ice than they've seen in ages.
58. mousewallratSalvaged from archive12 Jan 2010, 12:46
    For years people have told the "non-global warming crowd" to ignore a cool summer, snow in Iraq and California, and pay no attention the heaviest icing around Alaska in 60+ years. They say, "that's an isolated incident". Well, last week parts of Florida were down to 21 degrees. We've set literally thousands of winter records this year. My question is, when do isolated incidents become data. We know that the experts have been fudging data to support their claims, but how do they hide things that we can see with our own eyes. They were talking about disappearing ice, while I can turn on Deadliest Catch and see that some of the most experienced crab fishing people on the planet are complaining about more ice than they've seen in ages. Uhhh, that's an abberation caused by the planet warming up. Yeah, that's it! Global Warming causes MORE ICE! Hahahaha.
59. yupSalvaged from archive12 Jan 2010, 13:02
    For years people have told the "non-global warming crowd" to ignore a cool summer, snow in Iraq and California, and pay no attention the heaviest icing around Alaska in 60+ years. They say, "that's an isolated incident". Well, last week parts of Florida were down to 21 degrees. We've set literally thousands of winter records this year. My question is, when do isolated incidents become data. We know that the experts have been fudging data to support their claims, but how do they hide things that we can see with our own eyes. They were talking about disappearing ice, while I can turn on Deadliest Catch and see that some of the most experienced crab fishing people on the planet are complaining about more ice than they've seen in ages. Uhhh, that's an abberation caused by the planet warming up. Yeah, that's it! Global Warming causes MORE ICE! Hahahaha. http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/xbsvib Just Listen to the Presidents press secretary not too long ago....THEY CANT EXPLAIN IT!!! He's fucking stumbling over his words....It all about socialization and power and MONEY!! Oh and no one says global warming anymore they say climate change because global warming does not exist.
60. HeyBuddySalvaged from archive12 Jan 2010, 13:11
    http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/xbsvib Just Listen to the Presidents press secretary not too long ago....THEY CANT EXPLAIN IT!!! He's fucking stumbling over his words....It all about socialization and power and MONEY!! Oh and no one says global warming anymore they say climate change because global warming does not exist. Haha...If the goal is a consistent climate, we're fucked. That's never happened, and it never will. People need to except the fact that it's going to be warmer sometimes, and cooler at other times. Worst case scenario, we have to endure another ice age. Either way, we're probably going to be fossil fuel for another species some day.
61. mousewallratSalvaged from archive12 Jan 2010, 19:57
    Haha...If the goal is a consistent climate, we're fucked. That's never happened, and it never will. People need to except the fact that it's going to be warmer sometimes, and cooler at other times. Worst case scenario, we have to endure another ice age. Either way, we're probably going to be fossil fuel for another species some day. 3 billion years from now they will uncover the File Cabi.net disks with all our threads, and conclude that I ruled the World. I'll be famous. Don't worry, I'll remember all of you that knew me 'back then'.
62. boo_cockySalvaged from archive12 Jan 2010, 20:35
    This may have been mentioned already...I haven't read...but, it's fucking freezing in Florida right now...like, 30 degrees colder than normal. Global Warming? Time for a new scare tactic, kids.
63. ceehound619Salvaged from archive12 Jan 2010, 20:52
    This may have been mentioned already...I haven't read...but, it's fucking freezing in Florida right now...like, 30 degrees colder than normal. Global Warming? Time for a new scare tactic, kids. zactly..... but they INSIST on pushing their warming agenda....which is really about taking more control of our lives.
64. Josh85Salvaged from archive13 Jan 2010, 05:39
    If anything, we should be trying to pollute MORE so we can make the hole in the ozone layer BIGGER so when there's a new ice age, it's not as unbearable.. and not quite so cold.
65. ceehound619Salvaged from archive12 Feb 2010, 19:02
    so record snowfalls are recorded in the midwest and DC..........how do the Global Warming agenda freaks care to explain that?......answer????.. they cant....... its a fuckin fairy tale designed to mask their "true" intentions which are to gain more power and take more freedoms away from the common sheeple. http://www.northjersey.com/news/84087492_Record_snowfall_… no_work.html
66. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive12 Feb 2010, 19:32
    And anti-global warming claims of an impending totalitarian world fascist government are grave warnings of SRS shit going down? No; there's no way anything legally binding will be agreed to, so where does that leave the great big Red Green theory? Been listening to Lord Monckton have we Cee? :D Popeye the Peer thinks GW is a cunning plot to foist world government on everyone. Monckton has just finished a tour of Australia and he was all over talkback radio like a rash: On 6PR he said "if I had my way I'd ban all dwellings taller than the nearest tree." The callers were even more idiotic if that's possible. He also cited a Queensland group, saying that Great Barrier Reef water temperatures had decreased over the last ten years. Media Watch contacted the group, who said that they don't actually monitor water temps. Media watch also had a CSIRO scientist on air who stated that GBR water temps have increased in the last ten years, naming several peer reviewed papers in support. Yes, the Eastern Seaboard blizzards (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/world/02/10/10/blizzards-shuts… are pretty huge. Meanwhile, it's 50F and raining in Vancouver (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/lopresti/2010-02… and Perth has just had the second hottest January (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/wa/perth.shtml) and the second longest dry spell (http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/hot-nights-and-dry-weathe… on record. There, I just proved global warming is real by three to one. :rolleyes2:
67. ceehound619Salvaged from archive12 Feb 2010, 19:42
    it is AMAZING to me the degree the US government controls the media these days.....even when convincing anti-global warming articles such as the one I posted arise..... they never... EVER mention the apparent conflict with global warming in said article.......... its like the media is under one huge gag order.
68. TillySalvaged from archive12 Feb 2010, 22:43
    it is AMAZING to me the degree the US government controls the media these days..... Yeah...pretty much not at all. Don't you know anything about the media? They're business based. They like baseless fear mongering because it makes them money, or because they want to try to have some sort of influence on the government, not because the government tells them to.
69. ceehound619Salvaged from archive12 Feb 2010, 22:48
    Yeah...pretty much not at all. Don't you know anything about the media? They're business based. They like baseless fear mongering because it makes them money, or because they want to try to have some sort of influence on the government, not because the government tells them to. agree to disagree.....the media is the politicians puppet.
70. TillySalvaged from archive12 Feb 2010, 22:52
    agree to disagree.....the media is the politicians puppet. Yeah, agree to disagree, but I think it's the other way around. The politicians are the media's puppets.
71. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 01:27
    You're both right: Silvio Berlusconi has his fist up his own ass. :thumb: There's no media gag in this instance, Cee. Just as one swallow doesn't make summer; one unusual weather event -even if prolonged over weeks- doesn't mean climate is changing towards that mode.
72. ceehound619Salvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 01:29
    You're both right: Silvio Berlusconi has his fist up his own ass. :thumb: There's no media gag in this instance, Cee. Just as one swallow doesn't make summer; one unusual weather event -even if prolonged over weeks- doesn't mean climate is changing towards that mode. exactly my point...there is no global warming or cooling.... only the ebb and flow of both extremes as evidenced from past recorded history..........and...........there might not be a media gag..... but the government absolutely trys to control/influence media content......no argument will change my mind on that... it is fact in my book.
73. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 01:49
    Of course government tries to control media content: It's called 'spin' and 'press releases.' So does business, so did Jonbennet Ramsay's parents. For their part, media companies can appear to report in a completely unbiased manner giving 'both sides' of events and issues but still deliver a particular viewpoint by quoting nutjobs from the side they don't support. You agree that there's "only the ebb and flow of both extremes as evidenced from past recorded history." This is true- to find deeper, longer term patterns it's necessary to go out and find a hell of a lot more data than "the grape crop this year was particularly good near Londinium." It takes a shitload of observations (ice, sediment, tree ring and coral cores) and sophisticated maths to do it, but boffins have basically demonstrated that there is a long term warming trend closely associated with industrial activity; ie burning stuff.
74. ceehound619Salvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 02:13
    but boffins have basically demonstrated that there is a long term warming trend closely associated with industrial activity; ie burning stuff. that is debateable in my opinion.......anyway....... the fact is these libnazis are using this so called "warming" as a premise for pushing for more governmental control over our lives and to take away more of our freedoms.......and I am against that 100%.....I dont care if the planet is warming.... its just as much my planet as anyone elses...and if I want to make a fire in my fireplace I am going to.... I dont need(and wont tolerate) the government gestapos telling me I cant.
75. envious_silverSalvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 09:06
    In argument, first we should decide what definition of global warming we go with: ”GLOBAL WARMING” Definition #1: Subset of “climate change,” which has occurred naturally last 4.5 billion years (akin to “global cooling”) -- OR -- Definition #2: Human-induced warming of Earth sufficient to alter climates/ecosystems, some adversely Then here are a few things to ponder when looking at the argument for or against global warming http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy334/envious_silver/S… and : http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy334/envious_silver/S… and http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy334/envious_silver/S… and http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy334/envious_silver/S… yet the core of Antarctica has been on a cooling trend. And the even if we are on a warming trend, then the Earth has a natural feedback mechanism that will self correct. Regardless, the Earth will be fine. Its been here for billions of years. People are bitching and saying that we need to save the Earth in their "holier than thou" speeches, but all they're really trying to do is save their own asses. Earth will survive, humans will not. Just some stuff to ponder and possibly add to your arguments.
76. envious_silverSalvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 09:07
    and for that whole CO2 argument.... http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy334/envious_silver/S…
77. YMBOTSSalvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 09:11
    Who fucking cares??? The world is gonna end somehow, it could be us fucking the planet up with our shit, it could be the crazy Middle Eastern countries nuking the rest of us and each other, hell man, even Jesus might make an appearance and tell us we're going to hell. WHO FUCKING CARES??? Pass the dexies Josh....
78. mousewallratSalvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 09:55
    YOur charts are fucking worse than worthless because they're all phony.
79. Echo1Salvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 10:31
    http://benchmarkitconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/… http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/images/2008/10/20/8…
80. mousewallratSalvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 11:59
    You would have to be the most ignorant sheeple, stupid unreasoning moron to ever come down the pike to think that the warming of the planet is all caused my humans. Really, this has been debunked so many times that to beleive in Global Warming now is like being a flat-earther.
81. envious_silverSalvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 12:13
    and for that whole CO2 argument.... http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy334/envious_silver/S… You would have to be the most ignorant sheeple, stupid unreasoning moron to ever come down the pike to think that the warming of the planet is all caused my humans. Really, this has been debunked so many times that to beleive in Global Warming now is like being a flat-earther. listen shit brick: that chart proves that humans are not the cause of global warming. Its called being educated and getting both sides of the argument. I think that you just like to argue to be different. If so, grow your hair out, dye it black and start slicing your wrists. :40:
82. NanabungaSalvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 13:19
    You would have to be the most ignorant sheeple, stupid unreasoning moron to ever come down the pike to think that the warming of the planet is all caused my humans. Really, this has been debunked so many times that to beleive in Global Warming now is like being a flat-earther. With all due respect MWR, you really shouldn't throw stones in your glass house of conspiracy theory glass, you might dent that tin foil hat of yours. ;) listen shit brick: that chart proves that humans are not the cause of global warming. Its called being educated and getting both sides of the argument. I think that you just like to argue to be different. If so, grow your hair out, dye it black and start slicing your wrists. :40: I'd really like to warm your globes. *psst, don't tell Tilly I said that. :D
83. mousewallratSalvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 16:01
    With all due respect MWR, you really shouldn't throw stones in your glass house of conspiracy theory glass, you might dent that tin foil hat of yours. ;) I'd really like to warm your globes. *psst, don't tell Tilly I said that. :D Go fuck yourself, Nana. Those charts mirror what most of the Global Warmers say: that with the beginning of major Western industrialization (CO2 creation), the planet began to warm up. How do they show that Anthropogenic warming is not true? They show CO2 rising dramatically since 1900 +/-, and temps rising at the same time. Even the Global Temp chart only shows a .1 degree C drop, which could be a statistical anomoly, or who knows what. The problem is that people that believe in it, spin it to say what they want. I don't believe it's real, and the charts mean less than common sense. I could draw up a chart that says the planet has dropped twenty degrees, and it would be worth nothing. I question the validity of the charts as well as the theory behind the whole movement.
84. yupSalvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 16:51
    I challenge anyone to tell me the name of the person or persons measuring CO2 in 1840?
85. loadrunnerSalvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 16:58
    It is freezing here, never been so many snow since 30 years. Global warming? ? ?
86. mousewallratSalvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 17:04
    I challenge anyone to tell me the name of the person or persons measuring CO2 in 1840? NOw don't go confusing these folks with common sense, Yup. It'll make their heads hurt.
87. loadrunnerSalvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 17:21
    btw, there are less wetherstations at north and south pole since 10years ago, the warmer counnrys have more. so if they calculate all numbers the result will always be higher.
88. NanabungaSalvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 20:13
    Go fuck yourself, Nana. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Obama's a Nazi Blah Blah Blah Blah I can't take a little joke Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah The Chinese are gonna rule the world Blah Blah Blah Obamageddon's coming Blah Blah Blah Blah you'll see!! Blah Blah Blah I take this shit too seriously Blah Blah Blah girl on girl action is icky Blah Blah Blah NOw don't go confusing these folks with common sense, Yup. It'll make their heads hurt. :rofl::rofl::rofl: I suppose you think you're the spokesman for common sense right? http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb4/nanabunga/Untitled…
89. ceehound619Salvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 20:20
    http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt76/tiedomi619/shaniq…
90. silenthill22Salvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 20:45
    It is freezing here, never been so many snow since 30 years. Global warming? ? ? http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/modernmaterialist/2008/11/s…
91. Echo1Salvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 20:52
    BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!! GLOBAL WARMING WILL GET YOU!!! :mad: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100213/ap_on_re_us/us_united…
92. RaidenatorSalvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 20:54
    Go fuck yourself, Nana. Those charts mirror what most of the Global Warmers say: that with the beginning of major Western industrialization (CO2 creation), the planet began to warm up. How do they show that Anthropogenic warming is not true? They show CO2 rising dramatically since 1900 +/-, and temps rising at the same time. Even the Global Temp chart only shows a .1 degree C drop, which could be a statistical anomoly, or who knows what. The problem is that people that believe in it, spin it to say what they want. I don't believe it's real, and the charts mean less than common sense. I could draw up a chart that says the planet has dropped twenty degrees, and it would be worth nothing. I question the validity of the charts as well as the theory behind the whole movement. If the earth is cooling it's likely caused by global warming believe it or not. When the earth warms up, it warms the polar ice caps. When giant chunks of the polar ice cap drop into the ocean, it drops the temperature of the ocean itself which lends itself to cooling the earth. Just like ice cubes. I challenge anyone to tell me the name of the person or persons measuring CO2 in 1840? Not sure if serious... Scientists measure the rate of C02 by taking ice core samples from Antarctica or wherever the hell they get 'em. From those ice cores they can measure CO2 content like they measure droughts and wet years by trees.
93. mousewallratSalvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 21:11
    If the earth is cooling it's likely caused by global warming believe it or not. When the earth warms up, it warms the polar ice caps. When giant chunks of the polar ice cap drop into the ocean, it drops the temperature of the ocean itself which lends itself to cooling the earth. Just like ice cubes. Only problem with that theory, there's more ice at the poles and bigger glaciers now than in the recent past. Shock! Also, no-fucking-one has explained the rising temps deal on other planets, if it's man-caused. Nana, I heard the Hitler Show is on channel 4. Come back after it's over.
94. ceehound619Salvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 21:41
    http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb4/nanabunga/Wayneswo… u mufukas gonna start abusing your mod powers agin.....now u fukin with my posts???aight den...... FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUK YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUU.
95. NanabungaSalvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 22:31
    u mufukas gonna start abusing your mod powers agin.....now u fukin with my posts???aight den...... FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUK YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUU. Settle down big balla, shot calla e-thug filecabi pimp... if it really bugs you I can change it back to your stupid fucking, over used 'shaniqua' picture, ok? I don't want you to go all postal on us and hack the site or anything.
96. ceehound619Salvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 22:41
    naw.... lols were had.
97. JooXSalvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 22:47
    I have a rock here that keeps aliens away. The proof is in the fact that I have never seen a single alien. Nana... don't be tempt'n da balla ta hack us wid hiz mad skilz... we all be gett'n haxxord!
98. yupSalvaged from archive13 Feb 2010, 23:04
    Not sure if serious... Scientists measure the rate of C02 by taking ice core samples from Antarctica or wherever the hell they get 'em. From those ice cores they can measure CO2 content like they measure droughts and wet years by trees. The have also found iron ore the flowed from lava that pointed to magnetic north at the time it was extruded from the Earths core, which is now the south pole. I bring this up because ....aww never mind. THE END IS NEAR! not far NEAR. Please, if every person who believed that the doomsday is upon us from GW, and believe me they are passionate, would donate half of all the money they make/have to their closest 3ed world country they could save us all. Post Scriptum, This is the FC, nothing serious here. Please move along.
99. RaidenatorSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 00:01
    The have also found iron ore the flowed from lava that pointed to magnetic north at the time it was extruded from the Earths core, which is now the south pole. I bring this up because ....aww never mind. THE END IS NEAR! not far NEAR. Please, if every person who believed that the doomsday is upon us from GW, and believe me they are passionate, would donate half of all the money they make/have to their closest 3ed world country they could save us all. Post Scriptum, This is the FC, nothing serious here. Please move along. I completely agree with you. The end is nowhere near near. But denying that global warming exists, and that man isn't speeding it up (however significant) is asinine. I hear far too often people saying "OMG IT'S COLD LOL GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT REAL!" It drives me crazy.
100. ceehound619Salvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 00:02
     I completely agree with you. The end is nowhere near near. But denying that global warming exists, and that man isn't speeding it up (however significant) is asinine. I hear far too often people saying "OMG IT'S COLD LOL GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT REAL!" It drives me crazy. nigga then how do u explain the record snowfalls here in the United States???? huh??... ...record snow=cold=its geting colder not warmer.
101. RaidenatorSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 00:17
     nigga then how do u explain the record snowfalls here in the United States???? huh??... ...record snow=cold=its geting colder not warmer. If the earth is cooling it's likely caused by global warming believe it or not. When the earth warms up, it warms the polar ice caps. When giant chunks of the polar ice cap drop into the ocean, it drops the temperature of the ocean itself which lends itself to cooling the earth. Just like ice cubes. This ^^
102. ceehound619Salvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 00:18
     This ^^ so if global warming is actually causing cooling....shouldnt it be called global cooling???..... anyway have a good night.... good luck with that internet connection. lols
103. RaidenatorSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 01:39
     so if global warming is actually causing cooling....shouldnt it be called global cooling???..... anyway have a good night.... good luck with that internet connection. lols Don't make me make you 10-54 nukka
104. ceehound619Salvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 01:41
     Don't make me make you 10-54 nukka oh hell naw.... nigga u must be 10-50 and also 390. i know i am lols
105. mousewallratSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 09:03
     I completely agree with you. The end is nowhere near near. But denying that global warming exists, and that man isn't speeding it up (however significant) is asinine. I hear far too often people saying "OMG IT'S COLD LOL GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT REAL!" It drives me crazy. I catagorically deny that global warming exists, however I agree that man isn't speeding it up. :banana_sml:
106. mousewallratSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 10:07
     Here's an interesting article for those Warmists of you who can read...not that it will convince you, this 'saving the planet' thing is your religion: World may not be warming, say scientists Jonathan Leake – Times Online February 14, 2010 The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution. In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”. It warned that greenho More..use gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all. “The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years. These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama. “The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.” The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report. The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods. “We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said. Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic. His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment. Some are next to air- conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous shows a weather station next to a waste incinerator. Watts has also found examples overseas, such as the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets. In Britain, a weather station at Manchester airport was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings. Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal. “The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years,” he said. Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report. “It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.” The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data. Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.” www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new
107. NanabungaSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 10:51
     Here's an interesting article for those Warmists of you who can read...not that it will convince you, this 'saving the planet' thing is your religion: But... Exactly who is that addressed to? Have you actually read and comprehended all the posts? You are using the filecabi sliding scale of humor and sarcasm on some of the posts as well correct? I don't think there is one 'warmist' here. :think:
108. mousewallratSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 13:06
     But... Exactly who is that addressed to? Have you actually read and comprehended all the posts? You are using the filecabi sliding scale of humor and sarcasm on some of the posts as well correct? I don't think there is one 'warmist' here. :think: Nana, I constantly use the sliding scale of humor and sarcasm. I thought you knew that. :rolleyes2: Otherwise I'd have killed myself of over some of the posts to be found here long ago. Really, if I see another of Taurino's hot-virgin-slut posts, I'm gonna jump a fucking bridge to end it. Yes, I've read the graphs, charts, correlated the timelines, read about the glacier coring, glaciers retreating and advancing, the politics of the issue, the damning e-mails, blah, blah, blah, till I'm about sick of it. Frankly, as I see it there might be some overall warming of the planet. Man might have slightly influenced it. But when you look at the longer timelines, the planet has been hotter than now, and then returned to being much colder than it is now. This all BCE. That tells us that the planet swings temps wildly, to extremes beyond Gore's worst estimates. The fact that it then swung back tells us it's not necessary to destroy our economy to survive. We're within the Earth's normal range of operating temps.
109. NanabungaSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 14:15
     Dude... how does that novella of yours answer my question, or even touch upon my statement? Here's an interesting article for those Warmists of you who can read...not that it will convince you, this 'saving the planet' thing is your religion: But... Exactly who is that addressed to? Have you actually read and comprehended all the posts? You are using the filecabi sliding scale of humor and sarcasm on some of the posts as well correct? I don't think there is one 'warmist' here. :think: In fact, reading your reply about all of that other stuff gives me the feeling that you didn't even read/comprehend my post at all. I didn't ask if you read the charts and graphs, but the general consensus of the individuals opinions represented by their posts... Are you doing drugs MWR?
110. JACKASS2010Salvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 14:31
     IM AWAKE! what drugs?!
111. mousewallratSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 14:55
     Dude... how does that novella of yours answer my question, or even touch upon my statement? In fact, reading your reply about all of that other stuff gives me the feeling that you didn't even read/comprehend my post at all. I didn't ask if you read the charts and graphs, but the general consensus of the individuals opinions represented by their posts... Are you doing drugs MWR?Aww, Gee, I'm busted. I didn't sit down and reread eight pages of three month old thread. Soooorry. If you're not a believer, my comments don't apply to you. Simple. If you are, then they do. How simple is that? Are you going to tell me noone here believes in this crap? If not, all I can say is 'Damn'. I misunderestimated this group. As to not comprehending your post.............................was I supposed to read it? Oops, BRB.
112. NanabungaSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 15:07
     lol@grumpyoldmanw/bipolardisorder *and it's more like 10 pages and spans from Oct 31st to Feb 14th as of this post but I guess that only reinforces my point. :thumb:
113. ceehound619Salvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 15:09
     Have you actually read and comprehended all the posts? I don't think there is one 'warmist' here. :think: have u actually read post #99 by "raidenator"???... sounds like a "warmist" to me. Raidenator That's what she said! Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: UT, USA Age: 25 Posts: 6,493 Rep Power: 21077 Re: Global Warming? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I completely agree with you. The end is nowhere near near. But denying that global warming exists, and that man isn't speeding it up (however significant) is asinine. I hear far too often people saying "OMG IT'S COLD LOL GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT REAL!" It drives me crazy. __________________
114. NanabungaSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 15:14
     have u actually read post #99 by "raidenator"???... sounds like a "warmist" to me. Yes I have and to quote the big balla, shot calla... "agree to disagree" I wouldn't go so far as calling Raid a 'warmist'. Nice quote skillz BTW :thumb:
115. ceehound619Salvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 15:16
     Nice quote skillz BTW :thumb: fair nuff.... sorry i ain a professional forum poster.... wait..... no i'm not...... :thumb:
116. NanabungaSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 15:18
     fair nuff.... sorry i ain a professional forum poster.... wait..... no i'm not...... :thumb: yeah but you da big dawg in heeya memba' ? dis yo houze! So Ima' speed on fo I getz peed on *throws gang signs
117. ceehound619Salvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 15:19
     itz speed on foe u git peed on. :thumb:
118. NanabungaSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 15:21
     itz speed on foe u git peed on. :thumb: K I fixt it yo word
119. RaidenatorSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 15:53
     I wouldn't go so far as calling Raid a 'warmist'. have u actually read post #99 by "raidenator"???... sounds like a "warmist" to me. Hey now, I'm not a so called warmist. I just recognize that the world is warming up. Do I think it's our fault? No. Do I think it means the world is gonna end? No. Do I think we should be going green? Fuck no. I couldn't give a shit if everyone in the world owned a hummer. Well...except that they're sucking up all the oil but that's a different story.
120. NanabungaSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 15:58
     I wouldn't go so far as calling Raid a 'warmist'. Hey now, I'm not a so called warmist. I rest my case. Next.
121. JACKASS2010Salvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 16:04
     ahem! the fucks the drugs?
122. ceehound619Salvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 17:39
     I rest my case. u aint restin shit.... so if a convicted child molester tells you he isnt one then that makes it so???.... his statements clearly support the fact he is a "warmer".......wait...... wtf is a "warmer" anyway???... who defines it.... me.... you......some obscure dictionary?? lol
123. ceehound619Salvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 17:40
     Hey now, I'm not a so called warmist. I just recognize that the world is warming up. contradiction much????...and NO IT AINT WARMING UP....... tell that to the people in Washington DC who cant get to work or get an airplane flight due to the fucking whiteouts.
124. ceehound619Salvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 17:42
     ahem! the fucks the drugs? hmmmm.. I'll tayke a couple lines ov 99% pure cocaine and mebbe a chronic bong hid ore 2.....kthx
125. NanabungaSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 17:50
     u aint restin shit.... Suck it douche nozzle, I'll fucking rest whatever the fuck I want to rest. so if a convicted child molester tells you he isnt one then that makes it so???.... LOL@COMPARISON his statements clearly support the fact he is a No they don't IMO, yours differs good for you. "warmer".......wait...... wtf is a "warmer" anyway???... who defines it.... me.... you......some obscure dictionary?? lol It was 'Warmist' actually, and it was made up on the spot by your fellow conspiracy theorist friend Mousewallrat. How the fuck do I know who defines it, ask him. Having said that, doesn't that in fact support the statement that he may not be one since you don't even know the definition? :omg::think::omg: Choose one or the other for your position, then argue it ok? :thumb:
126. ceehound619Salvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 17:54
     if thinking for myself without needing the government to help me and refusing to blindly believe EVERYTHING they say like a good sheeple makes me a "consipracist theorist"...then I will gladly be that.
127. JooXSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 17:56
     Your only hope for thinking is the government doing it for you.
128. NanabungaSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 17:58
     if thinking for myself without needing the government to help me and refusing to blindly believe EVERYTHING they say like a good sheeple makes me a "consipracist theorist"...then I will gladly be that. Cool. You also get to make up your own words to describe your fellow man, (like 'Warmist' for instance)... it's true, I saw it in the official handbook, page 37, section b.
129. JACKASS2010Salvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 18:04
     SOCIALISM!!
130. ceehound619Salvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 18:07
     I would venture to say that our founding forefathers would be classified by most of todays power hungry corrupt politicians as "conspiracy theorists"...... if that is so.... I stand with them proudly.
131. NanabungaSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 19:01
     I would venture to say that our founding forefathers would be classified by most of todays power hungry corrupt politicians as "conspiracy theorists" Yeah, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams are known to have objected to George Washington's wooden teeth being worn during any important meetings of any type. They both claimed that the teeth were constructed by the Brits and smuggled here in order to record information and send it back to England in order to combat any attempt of separation from the Queen. John Adams was dreadfully afraid of sleeping anywhere but his fortress bedroom because he swore the Brits were trying to stick a tracking device under his skin while he slept. He claimed it was disguised as a peanut and often smashed bowl after bowl of bar nuts in random outbursts. Thomas Jefferson never drank alcoholic beverages at a public drinking establishment because he was afraid of being drugged and probed by the redcoats. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton both refused to attend official meetings any time before 1776 where anyone wore clothing, they demanded that all meetings take place entirely in the nude so no monitoring devices could be hidden in various articles of clothing. On two separate occasions they even searched everyone's anal orifices... although they may have had ulterior motives for that.
132. ceehound619Salvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 19:17
     fine.... act like a 10 yr old..... or a 35 yr old sheeple...c if i care.
133. NanabungaSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 19:28
     Awwwwww http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb4/nanabunga/tantrum-…
134. ceehound619Salvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 19:29
     lols
135. ceehound619Salvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 19:38
     http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt76/tiedomi619/seriou…
136. NanabungaSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 19:39
     dude is that a LEGO guys head? lol
137. mousewallratSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 20:41
     Yeah, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams are known to have objected to George Washington's wooden teeth being worn during any important meetings of any type. They both claimed that the teeth were constructed by the Brits and smuggled here in order to record information and send it back to England in order to combat any attempt of separation from the Queen. John Adams was dreadfully afraid of sleeping anywhere but his fortress bedroom because he swore the Brits were trying to stick a tracking device under his skin while he slept. He claimed it was disguised as a peanut and often smashed bowl after bowl of bar nuts in random outbursts. Thomas Jefferson never drank alcoholic beverages at a public drinking establishment because he was afraid of being drugged and probed by the redcoats. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton both refused to attend official meetings any time before 1776 where anyone wore clothing, they demanded that all meetings take place entirely in the nude so no monitoring devices could be hidden in various articles of clothing. On two separate occasions they even searched everyone's anal orifices... although they may have had ulterior motives for that. All true, and don't even get him started on the Kennedy conspiracy. BTW, it's W-A-R-M-E-R....not warmist. Jesus fucking Christ. Teabagger, not teabaggist. YOu could say Global Warming Conspiracy Theorist, but if I make up a word, leave it. Warmer has a nice cozy feel to it, not at all like the derogatory teabagger. that's a word only Afro could love.
138. ceehound619Salvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 21:00
     anyone eva bang a black gurl???......I may have dat opportunity here soon....... Ive gotten blowies b4 but neva took da plunge....... any1 got n e pointers/suggestions??....
139. NanabungaSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 21:54
     BTW, it's W-A-R-M-E-R....not warmist. Jesus fucking Christ. Teabagger, not teabaggist. YOu could say Global Warming Conspiracy Theorist, but if I make up a word, leave it. Warmer has a nice cozy feel to it, not at all like the derogatory teabagger. that's a word only Afro could love. :omg: Dude, loosen up the foil hat bro, you yourself don't even know what you write anymore... Here's an interesting article for those Warmists of you who can read...not that it will convince you, this 'saving the planet' thing is your religion:
140. mousewallratSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 22:31
     Foiled...again.
141. NanabungaSalvaged from archive14 Feb 2010, 22:46
     Foiled... :laugh::rofl1::laugh: Now that was fucking funny.
142. yupSalvaged from archive15 Feb 2010, 00:41
     anyone eva bang a black gurl???......I may have dat opportunity here soon....... Ive gotten blowies b4 but neva took da plunge....... any1 got n e pointers/suggestions??.... Dude, its like that pound of hamburger you have in your fridge for a couple of days you know its a little more brown on the outside then the day you bought it and it has a little tinge to the nose but as soon as you break it open, Voila! it's all pink in the middle. ///
143. RaidenatorSalvaged from archive15 Feb 2010, 00:55
     All true, and don't even get him started on the Kennedy conspiracy. BTW, it's W-A-R-M-E-R....not warmist. Jesus fucking Christ. Teabagger, not teabaggist. YOu could say Global Warming Conspiracy Theorist, but if I make up a word, leave it. Warmer has a nice cozy feel to it, not at all like the derogatory teabagger. that's a word only Afro could love. Define what you mean by a "Warmer/ist" then. I would like to see how you define it.
144. SeamusSalvaged from archive15 Feb 2010, 13:27
     anyone eva bang a black gurl???......I may have dat opportunity here soon....... Ive gotten blowies b4 but neva took da plunge....... any1 got n e pointers/suggestions??.... WHAT? You've never banged a black woman! I could understand not wanting to ride an Irish black woman, but over there their sexy. Cee I'm really beginning to think you are not a gangsta at all at all.
145. ceehound619Salvaged from archive15 Feb 2010, 13:36
     Dude, its like that pound of hamburger you have in your fridge for a couple of days so basically I shud pound dat patty?
146. ceehound619Salvaged from archive15 Feb 2010, 13:37
     Cee I'm really beginning to think you are not a gangsta at all at all. not possible... I gotz references.
147. mousewallratSalvaged from archive15 Feb 2010, 20:14
     Define what you mean by a "Warmer/ist" then. I would like to see how you define it. A person who believes that anthropogenic warming is going to raise the oceans, kill the polar bears, and that the only way to stop it is to destroy modern civilization and live in a fucking cave like the Taliban.
148. ceehound619Salvaged from archive15 Feb 2010, 20:23
     ^^^^^ I think al gore is in said cave at this very moment.
149. NanabungaSalvaged from archive15 Feb 2010, 21:25
     A person who believes that anthropogenic warming is going to raise the oceans... etc Anthropogenic: Caused or influenced by humans Hey now, I'm not a so called warmist. I just recognize that the world is warming up. Do I think it's our fault? No. I rest my case. a-fuckin'-gain. Do you fucking simpletons actually read peoples posts, or do you just hit the 'argue for the sake of arguing' button?
150. yupSalvaged from archive15 Feb 2010, 21:48
     Anthropogenic: Caused or influenced by humans I rest my case. a-fuckin'-gain. Do you fucking simpletons actually read peoples posts, or do you just hit the 'argue for the sake of arguing' button? Hey nana, meet at the tether ball court later.:thumb:
151. TillySalvaged from archive15 Feb 2010, 21:50
     and for that whole CO2 argument.... http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy334/envious_silver/S… Go fuck yourself, Nana. Those charts mirror what most of the Global Warmers say: that with the beginning of major Western industrialization (CO2 creation), the planet began to warm up. How do they show that Anthropogenic warming is not true? They show CO2 rising dramatically since 1900 +/-, and temps rising at the same time. Even the Global Temp chart only shows a .1 degree C drop, which could be a statistical anomoly, or who knows what. The problem is that people that believe in it, spin it to say what they want. I don't believe it's real, and the charts mean less than common sense. I could draw up a chart that says the planet has dropped twenty degrees, and it would be worth nothing. I question the validity of the charts as well as the theory behind the whole movement. Holy shit, MWR. You see a chart and it makes you start shitting blood. Have you never considered that it might have been helping your own point to begin with? Instead, you draw conclusions by taking a chart, then spinning it to say what you want instead of what it's actually saying. Let me decipher it for you. While at first glance, it seems that rising CO2 levels are responsible for the temp increase from 1910 to 1940, IT'S IMMEDIATELY SHOWN TO BE IRRELEVANT. From 1940 to 1975, temperatures dropped even though CO2 levels were rising even more sharply than the first raise in CO2. It shows a clear example of temperature change that had nothing to do with CO2, suggesting that all CO2 is in charts is a coincidence and irrelevant. It was a simple myth/fact argument where you took the myth portion as being the subject of the argument. If that's not enough, once you were called out on it, you tried to change your tone to make a general sweep of "warmists" in the thread, even when there were no "warmists" to begin with. It's all in your head, man. No one's trying to persecute you. You can back off and actually read what people have to say without assuming that everyone's trying to make you look like an asshole.
152. mousewallratSalvaged from archive15 Feb 2010, 22:04
     The important part of both those charts isn't the first two thirds, it's the spike at the end. You know, and I know that it's not exactly accurate, but to someone who believes in this theory, it's all up-up-up, and the downturn is only an anomoly. All of the shown charts show increases of the 'bad' things, and decreases of the 'good' things. Or did I miss the part where is says it's colder now than fifty years ago? Our fucking government wants to tax all industry for this, and you've making noises like it's not even an issue. Obviously, a fucking lot of people believe in this like a Catholic believes in sin.
153. TillySalvaged from archive15 Feb 2010, 22:08
     The important part of both those charts isn't the first two thirds, it's the spike at the end. No it isn't, you just decided it was important so you'd have something to argue against. No one had anything to say about the spike at the end except for you. You know, and I know that it's not exactly accurate, but to someone who believes in this theory, it's all up-up-up, and the downturn is only an anomoly. All of the shown charts show increases of the 'bad' things, and decreases of the 'good' things. Or did I miss the part where is says it's colder now than fifty years ago? Obviously you're reading the charts wrong. Over a period of 35 years, CO2 levels rose sharply, while temperatures decreased. Why can't you see that it's an argument against those saying CO2 is the cause of climate change?
154. NanabungaSalvaged from archive15 Feb 2010, 22:12
     http://homepage.mac.com/notneilcasey/irc/mika-with-gun-in…
155. TillySalvaged from archive15 Feb 2010, 22:13
     Our fucking government wants to tax all industry for this, and you've making noises like it's not even an issue. Obviously, a fucking lot of people believe in this like a Catholic believes in sin. As for your edit just now...that makes no fucking sense as to what anyone was talking about. Who said anything about anyone being indifferent to taxes? While a lot of people believe in "it" (I'm assuming you mean anthropogenic warming and not taxing industry), no one in this thread is one of those people, yet you're arguing against everyone like they are. Cool, a misguided Catholic parallel! That's never been done before. It's obvious to me now that you have very progressive thinking, and I should be in awe of your enlightened viewpoints.
156. JooXSalvaged from archive15 Feb 2010, 23:04
     HITLER! NAZIS!
157. rubicksSalvaged from archive15 Feb 2010, 23:54
     the big bang theory??? http://www.evilmilk.com/pictures/Know_Your_Limits.jpg
158. mousewallratSalvaged from archive16 Feb 2010, 09:12
     HITLER! NAZIS! Thanks, Joox. You saved me bringing out the big guns.
159. JACKASS2010Salvaged from archive16 Feb 2010, 11:40
     IM ARGUING FOR THE SAKE OF IT YOU FUCKING CUNTS I DONT CARE HOW MUCH IRREFUTABLE PROOF YOU SHOW, IM GOING TO KEEP ARGUING THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF YOUR POINT COS IM RIGHT ALL THE FUCKING TIME! EVEN WHEN IM WRONG, IM STILL FUCKING RIGHT MOTHERFUCKYEA!!!1111!!!!11
160. tgd_02Salvaged from archive16 Feb 2010, 11:40
     WHAT? You've never banged a black woman! I could understand not wanting to ride an Irish black woman, but over there their sexy. Cee I'm really beginning to think you are not a gangsta at all at all. TRUFF
161. NanabungaSalvaged from archive16 Feb 2010, 11:56
     ZOMGWTF MWR WAS RIGHT IT'S TRUUUUEEEE!!1!!ONE! I just spent the last 12 hours at the national archives and I found these in a small, wrinkled up envelope under the bottom drawer... http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb4/nanabunga/hitler52… http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb4/nanabunga/hitler_w… http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb4/nanabunga/adolf_hi… HISTORY GONNA CHANGE Y'AAAALLLLL!!1!!
162. JACKASS2010Salvaged from archive16 Feb 2010, 12:03
     BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
163. ceehound619Salvaged from archive16 Feb 2010, 19:05
     IM ARGUING FOR THE SAKE OF IT YOU FUCKING CUNTS I DONT CARE HOW MUCH IRREFUTABLE PROOF YOU SHOW, IM GOING TO KEEP ARGUING THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF YOUR POINT COS IM RIGHT ALL THE FUCKING TIME! EVEN WHEN IM WRONG, IM STILL FUCKING RIGHT MOTHERFUCKYEA!!!1111!!!!11 bookake??..iz dat you??
164. mousewallratSalvaged from archive16 Feb 2010, 19:51
     ZOMGWTF MWR WAS RIGHT IT'S TRUUUUEEEE!!1!!ONE! I just spent the last 12 hours at the national archives and I found these in a small, wrinkled up envelope under the bottom drawer... http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb4/nanabunga/hitler_w… http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb4/nanabunga/adolf_hi… HISTORY GONNA CHANGE Y'AAAALLLLL!!1!! I knew that prick was a homo an' a Nazi.
165. RaidenatorSalvaged from archive17 Feb 2010, 11:02
     ZOMGWTF MWR WAS RIGHT IT'S TRUUUUEEEE!!1!!ONE! I just spent the last 12 hours at the national archives and I found these in a small, wrinkled up envelope under the bottom drawer... http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb4/nanabunga/hitler52… http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb4/nanabunga/hitler_w… http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb4/nanabunga/adolf_hi… HISTORY GONNA CHANGE Y'AAAALLLLL!!1!! FORSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTH!
166. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive21 Feb 2010, 01:35
     http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/21/2825875.htm Climate science alive and well, say experts Top scientists say climate science is alive and well despite the scandal of leaked emails in Britain and "glitches" in a report by the UN climate change panel. "There's consensus that action is justified, indeed imperative, to reduce the problem of a really serious long-term global effect on the climate," said Lord Martin Rees, president of the British academy of science, the Royal Society. "My personal take is the key bit of evidence is the rise in CO2 concentration plus simple physics. If we had no data other than that, that would be enough," Lord Rees said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Climate change sceptics seized on a leak of thousands of emails and other documents from researchers at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain, which appeared to show scientists saying global warming was not as serious as previously thought. That scandal, dubbed Climategate, came just weeks before UN talks on climate change in Copenhagen in December. Several weeks after the talks, another scandal rocked the world of climate science, when the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was accused of basing a report about ice disappearing from the world's mountain peaks on a student essay and an article in a mountaineering magazine. But scientists were not out for the count - they just cannot ethically "go into the gutter" the way the media have in attacking the science world over the leaks, said Jerry North of Texas A&M University. "It's easy to vilify scientists, but scientists cannot go into the gutter and turn the attacks the other way," he said. "But the climate science paradigm is in fact quite healthy. We just have a lot of challenges about how we communicate." Scientists may be good at crunching numbers and data, but they are bad at doing their own public relations, said Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences. "There are a lot of smart people working on climate change right now, but we're not doing a good job of translating what we're learning to the public," said Cicerone. "Instead when we have a major snowstorm on the east coast of the US, jokes are proliferating about how wrong all this global warming stuff was. And yet you turn on your television and look at the winter Olympics in Canada and you find no snow." - AFP
167. ceehound619Salvaged from archive21 Feb 2010, 01:36
     once again.......record snowfalls = no global warming.....the end.
168. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive21 Feb 2010, 01:44
     :banghead: What about the rest of the world Cee? Are you being deliberately simplistic, is my sarchasm detector broken or do you really not have a clue?
169. RaidenatorSalvaged from archive21 Feb 2010, 02:26
     :banghead: What about the rest of the world Cee? Are you being deliberately simplistic, is my sarchasm detector broken or do you really not have a clue? Welcome to my world.
170. JACKASS2010Salvaged from archive21 Feb 2010, 02:28
     What about the rest of the world Cee? this is an alien term to cee. if he travel outside of america his head would explode.
171. ceehound619Salvaged from archive21 Feb 2010, 02:38
     this is an alien term to cee. if he travel outside of america his head would explode. nugga i own a timeshare in cancun....place called da moon palace...... all inclusive.....ocean balcony.....topless bitches laying on da beach.... marble bathrooms......an 24 hour room service.... kind lyke i git frum yo moms.
172. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive21 Feb 2010, 02:54
     ^^^ Way to expand your horizons adventure man. :rolleyes2:
173. ceehound619Salvaged from archive21 Feb 2010, 02:59
     cancun is paradise..... not quite az nice az ridin a 10-speeder tho rite monty?
174. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive21 Feb 2010, 03:39
     I thought it was a town organised around luxury resorts? Not my idea of paradise, or foreign: Probably about as 'foreign' to the USA as downtown Kuta is to Australia. :shrug: To each his own; enjoy. I wouldn't know about ten speeders: Twelve speeders were the thing when I first jumped on a bike, but back then it was a BMX for me.
175. mousewallratSalvaged from archive21 Feb 2010, 10:01
     COme to San Diego...you'll get all the foreign flavor you want. Plenty of Mexicans. You can save the airfare to Cancun Cee...just stay home and drive by Home Depot. Instant Tijuana.
176. RaidenatorSalvaged from archive21 Feb 2010, 23:10
     COme to San Diego...you'll get all the foreign flavor you want. Plenty of Mexicans. You can save the airfare to Cancun Cee...just stay home and drive by Home Depot. Instant Tijuana. I think Cee lives in San Diego actually. I bet you he goes to the donkey shows in Tijuana quite often.
177. ceehound619Salvaged from archive21 Feb 2010, 23:14
     You can save the airfare to Cancun Cee...just stay home and drive by Home Depot. Instant Tijuana. u an I both know dat true.......but come on.....slight difference........ I cant relax in the hot tub inside home depot while they bring me chocolate cake at 2am.
178. ceehound619Salvaged from archive21 Feb 2010, 23:15
     I think Cee lives in San Diego actually. I bet you he goes to the donkey shows in Tijuana quite often. no donkey shows.... but i been to da chicago club down there... its a whorehouse..... got a good handjob from a real sexy slutty trollop all foe da price uv an 8 dollar beer. LOLS
179. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive22 Feb 2010, 05:37
     I think Cee lives in San Diego actually. I bet you he goes to the donkey shows in Tijuana quite often.Please tell me that donkey shows are an urban legend. Please. :omg:
180. mousewallratSalvaged from archive22 Feb 2010, 09:24
     Please tell me that donkey shows are an urban legend. Please. :omg: Not. That's fucking Mexico, man. You need to do some research. Shit goes back to the Roman Games.
181. HeyBuddySalvaged from archive22 Feb 2010, 09:31
     They should make a horror movie about a woman who gives birth to a half-donkey, half-man because she was impregnated by a donkey in Mexico. The donkey-man is stubborn, and has the ability to kick harder than Mirco Cro-cop. He goes on a killing spree, and witnesses describe him as a long-faced fellow with a mohawk, big ears and bad posture. They can't find fingerprints because he has hooves. They find one victim after another. The men have been kicked to death, and the women have been donkey-punched. Donkey-boy will be played by Johnny Depp. Yes, this movie will be a hit.
182. ceehound619Salvaged from archive22 Feb 2010, 18:35
     Please tell me that donkey shows are an urban legend. Please. :omg: no... and not only that ...when u visit the red light district.... you will find hookers literally LINING the streets and ranging in age anywhere from about 13 to about 60.
183. mousewallratSalvaged from archive22 Feb 2010, 20:40
     no... and not only that ...when u visit the red light district.... you will find hookers literally LINING the streets and ranging in age anywhere from about 13 to about 60. No surprise, the grannies are cheap. We're talking a real fucking bargain. An' no teeth. Am I lyin', Cee?
184. ceehound619Salvaged from archive22 Feb 2010, 20:54
     No surprise, the grannies are cheap. We're talking a real fucking bargain. An' no teeth. Am I lyin', Cee? yep.. and believe it or not.... SO FUKIN TITE..... I member thinking before i banged my furst one dat it would be lyke fukin a mayonise jar..... let me tell u... nothing could be further then the truth.... I tink its got 2 do wit da fact dat da vagina after about age 50 stops producing as much natural lubricant....fact.
185. HeyBuddySalvaged from archive24 Feb 2010, 10:26
     yep.. and believe it or not.... SO FUKIN TITE..... I member thinking before i banged my furst one dat it would be lyke fukin a mayonise jar..... let me tell u... nothing could be further then the truth.... I tink its got 2 do wit da fact dat da vagina after about age 50 stops producing as much natural lubricant....fact. That, and the sores and warts take up a lot of space.
186. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive24 Feb 2010, 11:54
     :omg: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/Zippozeppo/superman…
187. ceehound619Salvaged from archive24 Feb 2010, 19:38
     That, and the sores and warts take up a lot of space. u been fukin the wrong biches apparently.:omg: dat how dey be n indiana?
188. HeyBuddySalvaged from archive25 Feb 2010, 09:29
     u been fukin the wrong biches apparently.:omg: dat how dey be n indiana? You were discussing old, tijuana hookers. You can't tell me with a straight face that you think she was clean.
189. ceehound619Salvaged from archive25 Feb 2010, 19:43
     You were discussing old, tijuana hookers. You can't tell me with a straight face that you think she was clean. LOLS....oh nah nugga... I never banged no hookers in TJ..... got a few hand jobs i ain gon lye....... but i ain down foe da gift dat keeps on givin. :thumb:
190. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive29 Mar 2010, 08:31
     Baaaacccck on topic: Anyone up for some Kool-aid and poultry bestiality? http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2858332.htm The peer reviewed literature has spoken Stephan Lewandowsky (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2842096.htm) Much confusion and spin infects current public discussion of "peer reviewed" research: first we had Maurice Newman, the Chairman of the ABC, who suggested that "distinguished scientists" challenge the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change by "peer reviewed research", although he oddly failed to name such research. Now we have John McLean, an author of a lone article that was celebrated by some media scribes as overturning the scientific consensus on climate change, cry "censorship" because his response to a devastating deconstruction of his work in the peer reviewed literature was not accepted for publication. So what exactly is peer reviewed research? How does it work? To understand the current controversy, one must understand that peer review is egalitarian but not indiscriminate; that it is fallible but self-correcting; and that it exercises quality control but not censorship. Those three attributes of peer review are brought into sharp focus if we examine the recent article (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml) by Mr McLean, and colleagues Chris de Freitas and Bob Carter, in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Mr McLean is a perfect example of the egalitarianism of peer reviewed science. Authors of peer reviewed articles normally live in the daylight of scholarship and seek maximum visibility—who wouldn't want to say "Look here, I published this great article and I am at MIT!" Curiously, Mr McLean has proved rather more elusive. Mr McLean's published affiliation is given as "Applied Science Consultants" in Croydon, Victoria. This entity does not have a web page. This entity does not have a recorded phone number. This entity does not have an ABN and it is not registered as a business in Victoria. The author's home page can eventually be traced to Switzerland, where it identifies J D McLean as a "computer consultant and occasional travel photographer". Does it matter that the author of a scientific article is an occasional travel photographer? Yes. But only because it nullifies any claims that the peer reviewed literature is "elitist" and that it favours the academic establishment and "in-group" thinking over the views of outsiders. The fact that an occasional travel photographer can publish in the Journal of Geophysical Research underscores that in science, what matters most is the strength of one's evidence and arguments and not one's professional standing. According to the Australian National Library, no J D McLean has ever submitted a thesis for a research degree at any institution in Australia, for any program in any discipline. Does it matter that Mr McLean has no verifiable research credentials from an Australian tertiary institution? No. I have frequently published peer reviewed papers with students as co-authors before they obtained a higher degree. One must therefore applaud Mr McLean's entry into the egalitarian world of peer-reviewed science with this first publication. However, peer reviewed science is not indiscriminate: not all opinions are equal and one cannot choose what to believe on the basis of whim or ideology. What counts are evidence, logic, and competence. Peer reviewed science is egalitarian but not indiscriminate. Science carries with it responsibilities such as accountability and subsequent scrutiny—peer review is a spam filter, which works well but not perfectly. The true value of a peer reviewed article lies in whether or not it survives scrutiny upon publication. If it does not, then peer reviewed science is self-correcting and eventually cleanses the occasional junk that penetrated the spam filter. The article by McLean and colleagues is a perfect example of the fallible but self-correcting nature of peer reviewed science. Although the authors loudly proclaimed to the media that their work shows that "no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation" and that it "leaves little room for any warming driven by human emissions", these claims have now been shown to be wishful thinking at best, and mendacious propaganda at worst. The Journal of Geophysical Research is publishing a devastating rebuttal of Mr McLean's work, authored by a team of nine of the world's leading climate scientists from Japan, the UK, the US, and New Zealand. This rebuttal uncovered numerous errors and, most crucially, it unambiguously showed that the paper by McLean and colleagues permitted no conclusions about global warming, let alone the lack thereof. None. Peer reviewed science is fallible but self-correcting. In a recent ABC interview, Mr McLean claimed that he was "censored" because his reply to this rebuttal was rejected and thus will not appear in the peer-reviewed literature. The rejection of this reply is a perfect example that peer review exercises quality control and not censorship. To understand the difference between quality control and censorship it helps to consider my own experience as editor. I just ended a three-year term as an Associate Editor of a leading journal in my field. During that term, I made 300 editorial decisions based on around 700 peer reviews. I accepted only 50 manuscripts. Does this mean I censored the remaining 250? No. Because in science, a decision against publication is (almost) always quality control and (almost) never censorship. How can we be certain that the decision to reject a reply by McLean and colleagues was quality control and not censorship? By analysing their original, now devastatingly critiqued, article. Fact is that their article was not about long-term global warming. It was about the association between ocean currents and air temperature—in particular the time lag between the warm El Niño current and the ensuing increase in temperature. Fact is that the article does not contain the words "climate change" except in a citation of the IPCC. Fact is that the article's only connection with climate change arises from the phrase "… and perhaps recent trends in global temperature…" in the final sentence. Those facts are jarringly at odds with the authors' grandiose claims in press releases that humans do not cause climate change. Might there nonetheless be a grain of truth about climate change, or lack thereof, in the authors' public pronouncements? No. This is best explained by an analogy involving daily temperature readings between, say, July and December anywhere in Australia. Suppose temperature is recorded twice daily, at midday and at midnight, for those 6 months. It is obvious what we would find: Most days would be hotter than nights and temperature would rise from winter to summer. Now suppose we change all monthly readings by subtracting them from those of the following month—we subtract July from August, August from September, and so on. This process is called "linear detrending" and it eliminates all equal increments. Days will still be hotter than nights, but the effects of season have been removed. No matter how hot it gets in summer, this detrended analysis would not and could not detect any linear change in monthly temperature. Astonishingly, McLean and colleagues applied precisely this detrending to their temperature data. Their public statements are thus equivalent to denying the existence of summer and winter because days are hotter than nights. It is precisely this detrending that was identified by the devastating rebuttal that has now put to rest the paper by McLean and colleagues. (More on the relevant science can be found here (http://www.skepticalscience.com/peer-reviewed-response-to… a superb site run by an Australian.) Thus, in an exemplary demonstration of the self-correcting nature of science, the peer reviewed literature has spoken loudly and clearly: The paper by McLean and colleagues permits no conclusions about global warming, let alone the lack thereof. None. The decision to reject a reply by McLean and colleagues, which was made on the basis of three detailed reviews of their work, was thus quality control and not censorship. It is not censorship to put an end to illegitimate attempts to interpret detrended data as evidence against global warming. It is quality control. It is not censorship to put an end to pronouncements based on a botched figure that splices together two discordant temperature series without correction. It is quality control. The peer reviewed literature has spoken loudly and clearly: The paper by McLean and colleagues permits no conclusions about global warming, let alone the lack thereof. This outcome puts to rest the only peer reviewed article that was purportedly about climate change and claimed to challenge the scientific consensus, to have come out of Australia since the IPCC's 2007 report. This single article is no more. What is left standing instead are, for example, the 110 peer reviewed articles on climate change that were published by scientists at the University of New South Wales' Climate Change Research Center alone since 2007. Yes, 110 peer reviewed articles since 2007 from just one Australian research center that add to the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change and its human causes. 110 peer reviewed articles which in the service of humanity seek ways to manage the problem. 110 to 0. ...
191. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive29 Mar 2010, 08:35
     Continued: That is the score of the peer reviewed science between just one Australian university and the Australian "skeptics". Care to make it 200 to 0? 300 to 0? Just add in a few more Australian universities. Care to make it umpteen thousands to virtually none? Just read the peer reviewed literature surveyed by the IPCC. Stephan Lewandowsky (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2842096.htm) is a Winthrop Professor and an Australian Professorial Fellow at the University of Western Australia.
192. JooXSalvaged from archive29 Mar 2010, 09:34
     Bitch got PWND! Nerd style. LewlY LulZorz.
193. mousewallratSalvaged from archive29 Mar 2010, 18:13
     Irony: Famed Global Warming Activist Freezes to Death in Antarctica And if freezing to death wasn't enough irony, he was attempting to film the "devastation brought on by global warming" Famed global warming activist James Schneider and a journalist friend were both found frozen to death on Saturday, about 90 miles from South Pole Station, by the pilot of a ski plane practicing emergency evacuation procedures. "I couldn't believe what I was seeing", recounted the pilot, Jimmy Dolittle. "There were two snowmobiles with cargo sleds, a tent, and a bright orange rope that had been laid out on the ice, forming the words, 'HELP-COLD'." One friend of Prof. Schneider told ecoEnquirer that he had been planning a trip to an ice sheet to film the devastation brought on by global warming. His wife, Linda, said that she had heard him discussing the trip with his environmental activist friends, but she assumed that he was talking about the Greenland ice sheet, a much smaller ice sheet than Antarctica. [/URL] [URL="http://cdn-hw.liveleak.com/s/16/media16/2010/Mar/29/LiveL… TL=1270768566&Token=679b79538b17a4e8297cb7d3620a7dce&ri=1200&rs=1000"]http://cdn-hw.liveleak.com/s/16/media16/2010/Mar/29/LiveL… jpg?epochTTL=1270768566&Token=875384b7a74b3b31488e7a444ad5a3dd&ri=1200&rs=1000 (javascript://)
194. NanabungaSalvaged from archive29 Mar 2010, 19:16
     I'd edit out the picture of Jack Torrance (played by Nicholson) if you want this fake story to appear more believable. oh wait... :omg:
195. yupSalvaged from archive29 Mar 2010, 20:27
     lol DISCLAIMER All content on this site, being a mixture of parody, satire, and lame humor, is for entertainment purposes only. If any content is found to be offensive or objectionable in any way, please accept our apologies... but we also suggest that you get a life.
196. mousewallratSalvaged from archive30 Mar 2010, 09:19
     I'd edit out the picture of Jack Torrance (played by Nicholson) if you want this fake story to appear more believable. oh wait... :omg: Well, no point in making it too easy. Didn't the Dolittle reference help?
197. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive1 Apr 2010, 12:15
     http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2862717.htm Climategate: The lion that squeaked Clive Hamilton (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2487265.htm) It was the "final nail in the coffin" of global warming science, declared James Delingpole of London's Daily Telegraph (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/1000173… the moment you should start dumping shares in renewable energy companies. Lord Monckton announced (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/h… that it proved beyond doubt "the abject corruption of climate science". "The reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished", thundered Lord Lawson and in the United States Senator James Inhofe went so far as to recommend that all those involved should be chased down for criminal prosecution. Our own Lord of Blog Andrew Bolt declared (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/h… it "a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science", an outrage in which leading scientists were guilty of "conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more". Across the globe, denialists were cock-a-hoop. At last, the leaking of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia had vindicated everything they believed, even the conspiracy theories about which they were a little embarrassed. Except that the leaked emails that sent the denial industry into a heart-stopping frenzy have turned out to be the mouse that squeaked. That roar we heard was generated in the denialist echo chamber. Today the Science and Technology Committee of the British House of Commons brought down its report (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselec… into "Climategate". What did it find? 1. There was nothing untoward behind the "trick" used to "hide the decline" in the temperature record. The phrases were colloquial terms without any sinister implications. The Committee found that the "evidence patently fails to support" the claim that these words reveal a conspiracy to hide evidence that does not fit with global warming, and that CRU Director Professor Phil Jones has "no case to answer". 2. The results and conclusions of CRU research have been independent verified by other methodologies and other sources of data. The Unit's analyses "have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified". 3. There is no evidence to suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. 4. While 95 per cent of the CRU data have been publicly available for years and some of the remainder is subject to confidentiality agreements with overseas organisations, the report did find that CRU scientists had refused to hand over their data to climate "sceptics" and the University may have breached the Freedom of Information Act. Despite this finding, the Committee wrote that it "can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work." The University of East Anglia had submitted that in "July 2009 UEA received an unprecedented, and frankly administratively overwhelming, deluge of FOIA requests related to CRU", which helps to explain why the Committee noted a "culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics". The Committee blamed the failure to release data on the relevant officers at the University who should have stepped in to over-rule the scientists. "We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced", concluded the Committee, and recommended Jones be reinstated. So, no conspiracy, no collusion, no manipulation of data, no corruption of the peer-review process, no scandal; just an understandable reluctance to hand over data to dishonest people with a history of misrepresenting it. Squibs don't get much damper than "Climategate". The most worrying aspect of the drama was the way in which most of the media ditched any attempt at assessing the claims and became caught up in the frenzy, when a couple of hours spent reading the emails and talking to one of two of those involved would have made the conclusions of the House of Commons inquiry entirely predictable. Clive Hamilton (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2487265.htm) is an Australian author and public intellectual.
198. __BLAK__Salvaged from archive6 Apr 2010, 18:54
     i've always been iffy on the whole global warming farce and saw it just as another way the left can expand the gov't and make more money for itself as well as those in it (cough cough al gore), but we shouldn't ignore the issue of climate change.... the world may not be warming as much as the forged documents suggest but its definitely changing... i'm by no means and environmentalist--the only reason i support the go green movement is because i don't want to pay $2.72 @ the pump, or pay my light company x amount a month, but i do realize that if we don't change the way we operate the future is going to be disastrous for us... we have some people, well a lot of people, who for some reason don't think that the nearly 7 billion people living and operating in this world have no effect on it.... which is sorta kinda wrong.. originally it wouldn't have been a problem since a majority of those 7 billion live in poverty and barely participate in any economic activities that have a negative effect on the environment...... you know like driving cars, eating meat and fish, using wood for construction, tearing down forests for growth, etc etc etc.... but now we live in an age where countries with high populations are coming out of poverty and making more demands on the earth (like china and india)... what happens next? more smog, pollution, deforestation, animal extinction, carbon emissions (yes carbon emissions, although used to impose tax, it still has a negative effect) etc etc etc.... this isn't an issue for politicians, nor can it be solved by market forces (which the right proclaims), but this definitely needs to be addressed... especially the scarcity issue with oil, cause i swear i'm busting a nut if i have to pay over $3.00 a gallon this summer......
199. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive14 May 2010, 20:34
     http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/14/2899102.htm… Climate action argument the nude ball of politics By Chris Uhlmann (http://www.abc.net.au/profiles/content/s1860770.htm?site=… Updated Fri May 14, 2010 8:09am AEST The nude ball is well known in cricket circles. It's a derogatory term applied to deliveries that don't spin, swing or seam. With the bowler doing nothing to defeat the batsman nude balls usually disappear over the boundary and the fielding captain is forced to change the attack. The Government's defence for its new position on climate change is the nude ball of politics. After campaigning for three years on the urgent need for an emissions trading scheme as the central weapon for reducing Australia's carbon footprint it abruptly shelved the idea because it all got too hard. The argument for delay is that it couldn't get agreement in the Senate, and that international progress is too slow. The Prime Minister summed up the case for delay in his recent exchange with The 7:30 Report's Kerry O'Brien (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2897846.htm). "We believe that an emissions trading scheme is the most effective and cheapest way of getting there, [Tony Abbott] has rejected that position despite the Liberal Party having formally embraced it," Kevin Rudd said. "I now have to confront the reality of that is what he's done... the progress on global action has been slower than any of us would like. That is why we've announced a decision that we would not seek to reintroduce this legislation until the end of the Kyoto commitment period and on the basis that global action has been adequate." Abandoning the idea because of Senate obstructionism ignores the fact that the Prime Minister could seek to have both houses of Parliament dissolved and then put the matter to the people at an election. If he won that election he could then put his Carbon Pollution Reduction bill to the vote at a joint sitting. It's not something anyone would do lightly but it is something you would do if you believed that climate change was the great moral and economic challenge of our age. (http://www.pm.gov.au/node/6043) Former opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull believed that Australia should hold off on the final shape of an ETS until after a post-Kyoto agreement was struck. That was supposed to happen at Copenhagen in December last year. But he pushed his party towards an agreement because he also believed that Mr Rudd would take the issue to a double dissolution, if he was thwarted in the Senate. And all the way he was taunted by the Labor drum beat that "delay equals denial". "When it comes to the future of climate change in Australia, further delay on climate change equals denial on climate change," (http://www.pm.gov.au/node/6360) Kevin Rudd said. There is no doubt that most people in the Government do believe urgent action is needed on climate change and that putting a price on carbon is the best way to do that. There is also no doubt that, up until December last year, emissions trading was the political club Labor used to beat two opposition leaders to death. Brendan Nelson was undone by urging his party to hasten slowly: "There are risks for Australia if we implement an emissions trading scheme before the rest of the world signs up to a new post-2012 global agreement in Copenhagen late next year." (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/pyrrhic-vict… This led to his demise because it wasn't a view then endorsed by shadow cabinet (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/brendans-vision-lost… The disunity in the Coalition opened endless opportunities for the Government, like this one on July 30, 2008 (http://www.pm.gov.au/node/5674). JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd would you be willing to ease up on the cap for the ETS if there's no agreement at Copenhagen? PM: We believe that we have a responsibility to get on with it. There has been too much time wasting, there's too much time wasting. So, in part, the Government is now bowling nude balls on its new climate change policy because it penned the most lethal arguments against delay. But there's more. Because when the Government delivered its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme White Paper in December 2008 it set a number of possible targets. And the lowest did not rely on an international agreement. In the words of the Prime Minister, "Five per cent below 2000 levels is our minimum, unconditional commitment to reduce emissions by 2020, irrespective of the actions of other nations." (http://www.pm.gov.au/node/5394) So, in the wake of the failure of the Copenhagen talks in December the default position of the Government should have been to proceed with emissions trading and aim for the low target. Its policy anticipated the possibility of international failure, as did the Garnaut Report before it. Until last month the failure of the world to agree was not considered an excuse for Australia to avoid a putting price on carbon. And the target cannot be separated from emissions trading because the Government cannot hit even 5 per cent without putting a price on carbon. The longer it delays the less likely it is that it can meet the 2020 deadline. One last point, when the Prime Minister and Climate Minister Penny Wong returned from Copenhagen both claimed that the talks had yielded some fruit (http://www.pm.gov.au/node/6425). "... we have achieved some considerable progress as a consequence of the Copenhagen Conference and the Copenhagen Accord," Mr Rudd said. But now that "considerable progress" is "slow" and the "unconditional commitment" to a 5 per cent target remains but the only way it can be achieved has been shelved. In the wake of the Copenhagen debacle a senior Labor figure confided that he didn't think much of the party line that the talks had yielded "considerable progress". He thought that argument amounted to a nude ball in cricket and it went against one of his political maxims: never tell the punters things they know aren't true. The Government argument is a lot worse now. Chris Uhlmann (http://www.abc.net.au/profiles/content/s1860770.htm?site=… is The 7.30 Report's Political Editor. I've a gnawing apprehension that if a carbon trading scheme were to be introduced by our government, it would lead to that government's defeat at the next election or sooner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitution… I suspect that a large minority of Australians are far too enamoured by cheap and frequent air travel; over-using inappropriately large vehicles; quarter-acre block filling, air conditioned houses and recreational watercraft to face the reality that all these things will become unattainably expensive in future- and a PM that does anything to hasten this process will be run out of town, Mad Max style, on the back of a Ford F-150 surrounded by a pack of trailbikes. :(

Reply

Sign in or create an account to reply to this old topic.

Want your old post taken down? Get in touch.