Global Warming: Man made or Nature's Cycle
- Thread starter bizousoft
- Start date
I go visit there pretty often. Probably the easiest to remember is temperature during the Holidays.
Check out the New-Years weather in Ottawa, def not -10
Taken from this page: A Global Temperature Chart Not in Gore
Notice where 2009 is on that map. We are actually coming down from a Global Warming period.
Rex: My charts totally prove your chart is full of horsehockey...
It even tries to show the FUTURE! -How scientific is that? LOL!
It even tries to show the FUTURE! -How scientific is that? LOL!
I'd say kill a bunch of people... But that's just me. :xmas-smiley-016:
Green tech is our best way to stave off the impending doom, but without curbing the surplus population, we're completely fucked eventually, no matter what else we do.
As for your book full of citations above; tl;dr.
One thing I do know about Scientists is that they like the truth so much they have and will gladly die in front of the inquisition to bring it out, no matter the oppressive regime or religion trying to stop it.
Arguing that they are "human" is stupid because the Peer Review process is anything but. Other scientists, including those in opposition of the originator, must RE-DO THE EXPERIMENTS of the first scientist or they can't get science published.
All of the papers in figure A above are peer-reviewed. Got any evidence that can trump that?
The surface temp on Mars has been getting hotter too...fucking martians need to reduce their carbon footprint.
Hey everyone, here it is broken down in simple form even a 5 year old could understand.
Darryl Cunningham Investigates: Climate Change
Global Warming != Everything Gets Hotter. Anyone who suggests that is a complete retard and probably some sort of evangelistic Christian who thinks basic science is used by Satan to convince you to sin.
Darryl Cunningham Investigates: Climate Change
Global Warming != Everything Gets Hotter. Anyone who suggests that is a complete retard and probably some sort of evangelistic Christian who thinks basic science is used by Satan to convince you to sin.
I've got no shame in admitting that I'm just not educated enough on this topic to have an opinion on it. I really don't trust any source of information on global warming that is affiliated with a political party and I don't have the time to find and read proper empirical research.
Mine's sexier and has better curves.
Anyway, the number of researchers mean squat. The phrase, "Global Warming", is a scientist's wet dream.
Scientists need jobs. What better to give them a job than to use funding from the government to investigate it and prove the point the government or special interest group is wanting proved, then use the remaining money to fund the actual research they want to focus on (like bugs or something)?
There's a reason that "Global Warming" is like a religious movement and there are so many scientists and politicians backing it. It's free money.
Naivety at its best. So they are not human, they are angelic beings that does not need shelter, food, wants and desires. They do not need funding to carry out their research, and there are no special interests influencing the direction of the research.
There you have it folks; Proof that our planet isn't being heated up. :updown:
That is an AWESOME link. A+++ Let's see them try to refute that Penguin!kidChaos said:
I even learned a thing or two from it. Great share.
What a tired-assed 2004 argument you've brought up here. Seriously, you should be ashamed of yourself for reaching back so far with that one.Rexabit said:
Google "IPCC," you might learn a thing or two about science in modern times.
And read that link above from kidChaos!
You really are totally throwing out the whole benefit of peer-review here anyway. Very disrespectful to logic and truth. Anyway, the IPCC isn't funded like American scientists are, and they are pretty much the 'source' of the AGW argument.SeoReborn said:
I hope you feel great about yourself helping Exxon and BP stay in the black longer with this argument. :angryfire:
:angryfire:
Actually, this is a widely accepted myth. Scholars understood the earth was spherical as early as 6th century B.C.
Just a another staple example of the shambles of our education system. So many myths are instilled in our teachings, it's absurd. The blind leading the blind!
This is modern times alright
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUoPiTkG
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ts-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz19MYR86uT
SeoReborn: Why don't you quit applying snippits of content out of context and take a look at the bigger picture? To ignore the basic premise of greenhouse gasses impact is either A) ridiculous or B) trollfest.
To say any single political party is right either way is foolish, because they all push their own agendas any way they can. To make your own opinion of the situation you really need to analyze as much information as possible and not trust and single party to provide the truth to you.
But that's my stance on any issue worthy of debate.
To say any single political party is right either way is foolish, because they all push their own agendas any way they can. To make your own opinion of the situation you really need to analyze as much information as possible and not trust and single party to provide the truth to you.
But that's my stance on any issue worthy of debate.
As sad as your sources are, they still support the IPCC as using & promoting the peer-review process. -They basically say one bad seed did not and we don't support him on that point. I applaud them for that honesty.
If that's the best argument you can come up with then I believe you should go apply with BP right now, you'll be treated well over there.
What I don't understand is why anyone would be against what proponents of global warming's legitimacy are calling for:
- Alternative, reusuable energy sources.
- Less dependence on oil.
- More oversight regarding pollution-heavy industries.
- Using more fuel-efficient transportation.
- Utilizing more public transportation, or car-pooling.
- Forgoing driving when you can telecommute.
- Living a healthier lifestyle in general.
I don't see any of these things as bad. So even if, for the sake of argument, global warming is a scam, why wouldn't you want to do any of the above ?
- Alternative, reusuable energy sources.
- Less dependence on oil.
- More oversight regarding pollution-heavy industries.
- Using more fuel-efficient transportation.
- Utilizing more public transportation, or car-pooling.
- Forgoing driving when you can telecommute.
- Living a healthier lifestyle in general.
I don't see any of these things as bad. So even if, for the sake of argument, global warming is a scam, why wouldn't you want to do any of the above ?