hwt 0 #76 February 16, 2010 http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.11 http://blogs.lubbockonline.com/conservative/2010/02/15/professor-phil-jones-admits-there-has-been-no-global-warming-since-1995/ http://www.economicvoice.com/utah-condemns-the-climate-alarmistschina-ignores-them/5006760 http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i68737 http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/global_warming/index.htm It looks like this scam has finally been revealed . They need to take the peace prize away from Al Gore for stirring up the masses with his B.S. The egg on has face and Obama's will take a long time to wipe off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #77 February 16, 2010 Quote http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.11 http://blogs.lubbockonline.com/conservative/2010/02/15/professor-phil-jones-admits-there-has-been-no-global-warming-since-1995/ http://www.economicvoice.com/utah-condemns-the-climate-alarmistschina-ignores-them/5006760 http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i68737 http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/global_warming/index.htm It looks like this scam has finally been revealed . They need to take the peace prize away from Al Gore for stirring up the masses with his B.S. The egg on has face and Obama's will take a long time to wipe off. Funny web sites. Maybe you'd like to cite some credible ones instead.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #78 February 16, 2010 I'm convinced of exactly one thing in the global warming debate...that 99% of the people who argue for or against a theory of man-made climate change haven't the slightest clue what the fuck they're talking about. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #79 February 16, 2010 Quote I'm convinced of exactly one thing in the global warming debate...that 99% of the people who argue for or against a theory of man-made climate change haven't the slightest clue what the fuck they're talking about. Blues, Dave cite please . . . . ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #80 February 16, 2010 Quote I'm convinced of exactly one thing in the global warming debate...that 99% of the people who argue for or against a theory of man-made climate change haven't the slightest clue what the fuck they're talking about. Blues, Dave 19 times out of 20... Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #81 February 17, 2010 Could there be such a thing as a credible site that questions AGW? (in your mind) Can you send me a link. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #82 February 17, 2010 >Could there be such a thing as a credible site that questions AGW? If you mean "examines the science of radiative physics, atmospheric chemistry and heat balance" then sure, there are any number of sites. Here are a few: http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html http://www.sciencemag.org/ http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer If you mean "supports my political position" then you're generally not going to find an unbiased site (no matter what side of the issue you're on.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #83 February 17, 2010 A quick glance shows reports from M Mann (self proclaimed "Mr Global Warming") Quotes from the IPCC with regards to Himalayan glacier melt, and admited exagerations over sea level rises. That is some good non biased stuff there. I feel sorry for you guys, I really do. You depended on the UN to provide a non political scientific report (IPCC) to help inform your position on AGW. You were lead down a primrose path by a bunch of profiteers. It is now time to look for a pivit point and an exit strategy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #84 February 17, 2010 >A quick glance shows reports from M Mann (self proclaimed "Mr Global Warming") . . . See, right there you've gone straight into politics and personalities. If your desire is to reinforce your political beliefs, just pick a denier website and knock yourself out. If you want to learn the science behind climate change, try one of the science sites. >It is now time to look for a pivit point and an exit strategy. Exit strategies and pivot points are politics, and I'm just not all that interested in that. But again, if you've got beliefs you need supported, there are plenty of places that will do that for you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #85 February 17, 2010 No dogma here, I started out believing in AGW (who wouldnt it intuitively makes sence) but my curisity was piqued when I heard the science was settled and no one could questions the IPCC. My beef is with the the science or lack there of of the IPCC report and the proposed solution of cap and trade. Even Dr Mann agreed that cap and trade would have no measurable effect on global climate. I am sure that man made co2 may have some effect on climate but is is in the order of .5-1 degree per hundred years and well within the normal variability of past climate swings. I have a problem with the stoplight mentality of many AGW belivers (say they are green because they are to yellow to admit they are red) (sorry for the hyperbole but I cant pass up a good joke). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #86 February 17, 2010 > I started out believing in AGW (who wouldnt it intuitively makes sence) Hmm. I think many aspects do not make sense, and "belief" isn't needed or even useful. Indeed, it gets in the way of the science. >when I heard the science was settled and no one could questions the IPCC. ?? The basic science IS settled, but there's a lot more to the issue than basic science (like second order feedback effects.) People CAN question the IPCC and have been doing so for years. That's why their reports change with time; we get more data, and older mistakes are corrected. (And they do make mistakes.) > I am sure that man made co2 may have some effect on climate but is is > in the order of .5-1 degree per hundred years That's about right; it's changed about 1C over the past 100 years. Future changes over the next century are predicted to be between 1C and 5C, depending on how much we change the atmosphere and how the feedback effects play out. > and well within the normal variability of past climate swings. That's also true, if you include meteor impacts and volcanic eruptions as part of normal variability. There may be some value to not having the climate change that quickly, though. >(sorry for the hyperbole but I cant pass up a good joke) That's what passes for debate here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Laszloimage 0 #87 February 17, 2010 …just an interesting “reminder”. I know it’s only a Hollywood movie called “The Day After Tomorrow” which was released in 2004. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow But isn’t that interesting how that movie described what could happen if the average temperature of the globe raises? It predicted a major freeze over. As I said it’s only a Hollywood movie, but it was based on some realistic scientific data. The consequences are maybe not a catastrophic as they are in the stupid movie but we definitely had a “taste” of the global climate change. NO, G.W. Bush did not cause it! Neither Al Gore invented it! We’re all part of it. Remember, in the last 100 years we burned millions of years worth of fossil fuel deposits and sent it back to the air as C02. It doesn’t require too much brain power to do the math how that last 100 years made some change in the CO2 level in the Earth’s atmosphere. G.W. just tried to ignore it as much as it was possible, which was totally understandable if you were in the oil business. We have seen extreme weather every year in every corner of the planet. The problem is it will become more and more extreme more and more frequently. Please remind me whether I was right or wrong about two years from now. Thank you! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #88 February 17, 2010 No need to wait Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #89 February 17, 2010 QuoteNo dogma here,. Irony score 10/10... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
