Artic sea-ice is approaching a record minimum.

ComeToTX

BinauralJam wrote:

ComeToTX wrote:

I have a challenge for everyone that doesn't believe people contribute to climate change. Go turn your car on and sit in your closed garage.

Fixed :twisted:

Ha. Nice!

Godfather.

DS1119 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I'll bite and offer a quick summary of points:

1) From what I understand, this is "day" data. It's not a moving average of any sort. It should be smoothed. From what I understand from a brief check, if it was smoothed (as it should be), it wouldn't be a record.

2) There's about 30+ years of data here. That's all. Why did they decide on starting the data at 1978? Anyway, regardless of why - one of the 30+ years will be the worst. It's shocking - I know. And I'm not certain this is the worst of the 35, it mentions nothing about that. Moreover, I think it would be most interesting to see if it was the worst "all the way throughout the year" rather than several weeks in the summer.

3) How do they obtain their data? Why did they focus on Sea Ice extend "more or less" rather than area? Does area say the same thing?

4) How about trends? From what I understand, we should be looking at trends here. Smoothing the data, won't help with that. You need to look at the annual changes. You need to know is it getting worse over time. For example, let's say 2009 was the highest of all those drawings. Then 2010, was low. 2011 was also higher than average. Then let's say 2012 was the lowest. What does that tell you? Are you going to argue that it says it's global warming? Because I'd say that doesn't really seem right - it just seems it's volatile. 2009 was the coldest of all years in this example. Long story short - we'd need to know more about the other year's data to get anything at all from this.

5) Were the ice caps always there? If not, what caused them to melt before?

5 of a million questions that can't be answered...but it's global warming that's causing it all man!!!! It's the humans that are changing this ever powerful Earth!

not totaly true..

Godfather.

inlet13

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Its always good to ask questions, obviously.
I wouldnt call you a denier. You just need definite proff is what it sounds like. My stance is that we should expect the worst so that we can make a difference just in case...And even if we arent affecting the environment in any way, isnt it good to move forward with cleaner, more sustainable technologies anyway?

I am by no means pro-pollution. I agree we should limit pollution to the extent possible - I don't pollute... I clean up the beach when people litter and actually call them out on it. That said, I'm not naive. I know there's a distinction between being clean and whatnot to massive regulations for things that are not really 100% evident and proven. More importantly, I know there's a huge economic trade-off between economic growth and green regulations, and regulation in general. Further, in some cases, the push to more green initiatives could arguably cause more pollution - see electric cars. I'm a realist.

I do know climate changes. It always has, and always will. Sometimes it gets warmer, sometimes cooler. That's fact. But, do I think we without a doubt contribute? I'm not sure. I'd say my guess is that if we do - it's super small to negligible. I believe that there are more likely causes of large scale trend changes in climate - and they would involve the sun.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Even if I had zero evidence from reputable sources, I personally can't see how all the shit we produced beginning with the industrial revolution hasnt done even a tiny bit of damage to our planet. Again, i'll resort to my car in the garage theory -- what happens when you sit in your garage with a car running? You die. and you die pretty quickly. That's just ONE car.

**edit, just saw CometoTX's post...didnt mean to steal your thunder dude...guess we just think the same.

I don't know if it has or if it hasn't. I'll say what I said before. We've had ages - on earth - where we've had it much cooler and much hotter than now. Economic activity wasn't robust then. So, the cause and effect doesn't line up.

Moreover, this continues to prove that there could be a bias involved with teh scientific research that backs this ideology. Basically, "capitalism" is to blame. If you're anti-capitalist - it's certainly a plausible game plan to convince everyone that capitalism is going to literally kill us, does it not? I mean let's be real... there's without a doubt an agenda behind an Al Gore type and it's not all "pro-environment". I'm not naive. I know this and the fact that the pro-green crowd, doesn't at least acknowledge it is --- um... bad.

As for the car in garage, I'd argue is it the gas or the size of the car/garage? That little size factoid gets in the way sometimes. Further, dumb arguments like that one can be countered with other dumb arguments like...

Don't breathe or fart or your contributing to global warming. We should therefore - just kill everyone. That way we'd avoid being killed by global warming. Dumb arguments, get dumb responses.

inlet13

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

What I don't understand is why people look at data presented on bias sites, and think it's fact without at least asking a few questions first.

On what basis do you claim this is a "bias site"? I'm actually surprised you have a problem with this site. It is non-partisan, a-political, non-religious and science based. If you spend a little time checking it out I think you will find this to be self-evident. Knowing what I know about you through your posts, I would think you would find this site at least useful. Putting it down without anything to back that up doesn't sound like your style, inlet. I wonder if it is just the information that bothers you- something you don't want to hear or deal with. Either that or you just enjoy the debating process. But like I said- it's just information. Do with it what you will.

I'm not an idiot, Brian. That's how I know the site is bias.

I am aware that there are two sides to this issue. I am aware that both sides are bias.

Here's the "other side's" view on this issue - where they present a lot of little factoids to say they are bias:

http://heartland.org/policy-documents/truth-about-realclimateorg

They seem to disagree a lot with your take. I'm sure you'd present more factoids back saying they're wrong and they are bias. Now, who's right? I'd say both of you are wrong - Both sides are bias.

For more on my take, see here:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=194643

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

Don't breathe or fart or your contributing to global warming. We should therefore - just kill everyone. That way we'd avoid being killed by global warming. Dumb arguments, get dumb responses.

You're better than this, inlet.

And why politicize the issue? You say you don't believe in polluting so why not just do your part because it makes sense. Some of us would like to see legislation regarding emissions because we don't see that the general populace or private sector are acting quickly or strongly enough. But you don't care for that kind of legislation. Fine. So why not just do your part because it's the right thing to do?

Edit- fixed, Jonny!

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

What I don't understand is why people look at data presented on bias sites, and think it's fact without at least asking a few questions first.

Seems reasonable - ask questions. If you do, are you a "denier"? :fp:

That's funny coming from you, with all the links you post from that fight club guy.

First, I don't call people "deniers" who disagree with my "science". Second, I also would whole-heartedly agree with anyone who claimed zerohedge, the fight club site as you call it, is a bias site. It is bias. I think they would even say that.

inlet13

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Don't breathe or fart or your contributing to global warming. We should therefore - just kill everyone. That way we'd avoid being killed by global warming. Dumb arguments, get dumb responses.

You're better than this, inlet.

And why politicize the issue? You say you don't believe in polluting so why not just do your part because it makes sense. Some of us would like to see legislation regarding emissions because we don't see that the general populace or private sector are acting quickly or strongly enough. But you don't care for that kind of legislation. Fine. So why not just do your part because it's the right thing to do?

Don't patronize me.

I do my part fine. I also acknowledge that I don't like people starving. I am not an idiot. I know there's a an economic trade-off with large-scale regulations. I question - are we positive we need them? Further, I know that "some" may be seeking that trade-off as their goal due to political persuasions, and be using this issue (formerly global warming, now global climate change) as a guise.

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

Here's the "other side's" view on this issue - where they present a lot of little factoids to say they are bias:

http://heartland.org/policy-documents/truth-about-realclimateorg

We've been through this before. Heartland Institute is a right wing political organization with strong ties to the oil and gas industry as well as Phillip Morris. You're using this to refute the findings of a non-partisan, a-political, non-religious, scientific organization that disseminates information about climate? Really.

inlet13

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Here's the "other side's" view on this issue - where they present a lot of little factoids to say they are bias:

http://heartland.org/policy-documents/truth-about-realclimateorg

We've been through this before. Heartland Institute is a right wing political organization with strong ties to the oil and gas industry as well as Phillip Morris. You're using this to refute the findings of a non-partisan, a-political, non-religious, scientific organization that disseminates information about climate? Really.

We have been through this before... I am not saying Heartland Institute is not bias as you could see in the entire post that you decided to cut up. I'm sure they are bias. I'm also sure realclimate, a left-leaning institution, is bias too. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to say both are bias,... that's why they dislike one another so much.

Anyway - did you read their comments, Brian? They had interesting tid-bits on realclimate. I can post them for you if you'd like.

JonnyPistachio

inlet13 wrote:

I don't know if it has or if it hasn't. I'll say what I said before. We've had ages - on earth - where we've had it much cooler and much hotter than now. Economic activity wasn't robust then. So, the cause and effect doesn't line up.

I dont know how anyone can say it doesnt line up. I think there's more than enough proof that many man-made byproducts of the industrial revolution have made some scars. To say that there's been global increases/decreases naturally before economic activity and use that as an excuse for today's problems, is risky.

inlet13 wrote:

As for the car in garage, I'd argue is it the gas or the size of the car/garage? That little size factoid gets in the way sometimes. Further, dumb arguments like that one can be countered with other dumb arguments like...

Don't breathe or fart or your contributing to global warming. We should therefore - just kill everyone. That way we'd avoid being killed by global warming. Dumb arguments, get dumb responses.

Very funny.
Is it the gas or the size of the garage? You're asking the wrong questions. What is the cause of death in this case? TOXIC Carbon monoxide filling the lungs, caused by burning of gasoline. Holding this toxic soup in a small area is lethal in most garages, no matter the size. Size is only a factor in how long it will take you to die. So fart all you like. Point is, these gases at large amounts DO get trapped and DO affect our environment.

Why in God's name have governments all over the world banned and reduced certain products and processes? Not because they dislike acid rain or smoggy cites by chance?

inlet13

JonnyPistachio wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I don't know if it has or if it hasn't. I'll say what I said before. We've had ages - on earth - where we've had it much cooler and much hotter than now. Economic activity wasn't robust then. So, the cause and effect doesn't line up.

I dont know how anyone can say it doesnt line up. I think there's more than enough proof that many man-made byproducts of the industrial revolution have made some scars. To say that there's been global increases/decreases naturally before economic activity and use that as an excuse for today's problems, is risky.

inlet13 wrote:

As for the car in garage, I'd argue is it the gas or the size of the car/garage? That little size factoid gets in the way sometimes. Further, dumb arguments like that one can be countered with other dumb arguments like...

Don't breathe or fart or your contributing to global warming. We should therefore - just kill everyone. That way we'd avoid being killed by global warming. Dumb arguments, get dumb responses.

Very funny.
Is it the gas or the size of the garage? You're asking the wrong questions. What is the cause of death in this case? TOXIC Carbon monoxide filling the lungs, caused by burning of gasoline. Holding this toxic soup in a small area is lethal in most garages, no matter the size. Size is only a factor in how long it will take you to die. So fart all you like. Point is, these gases at large amounts DO get trapped and DO affect our environment.

Why in God's name have governments all over the world banned and reduced certain products and processes? Not because they dislike acid rain or smoggy cites by chance?

Carbon monoxide is formed because there's of a lack of Oxygen to completely combust part of the carbon. CO2 is formed with complete combustion of a carbon source. The point being the car example:

1) Your car example, deals with carbon monoxide, not CO2 (the primary area of focus with global warming)
2) It becomes carbon monoxide due to the fact that there's "little" oxygen
3) The air above our head's has lots of oxygen, unlike car/garage example... which kinda makes this example - stupid and irrelevant
4) Plants need CO2 - which is also the area of concern, we exhale it and fart it... which makes my example at least slightly relevant.

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

Don't patronize me.

I do my part fine. I also acknowledge that I don't like people starving. I am not an idiot. I know there's a an economic trade-off with large-scale regulations. I question - are we positive we need them? Further, I know that "some" may be seeking that trade-off as their goal due to political persuasions, and be using this issue (formerly global warming, now global climate change) as a guise.

pa·tron·ize/ˈpātrəˌnīz/
Verb:
1.Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.

I'm not patronizing you. I'm saying it like it is. You said: "Don't breathe or fart or your contributing to global warming. We should therefore - just kill everyone. That way we'd avoid being killed by global warming. Dumb arguments, get dumb responses."

I'm calling you on reverting to tactics that are below that of which you are capable. I've done the same. Feel free to call me on it any time I do that.

As far as the climate change issue goes, you and I are at a stalemate. I see no point in going farther with this. Besides, I was just trying to pass on some information I though was relevant. I'm not telling anyone how to live their lives.

JonnyPistachio

inlet13 wrote:

Carbon monoxide is formed because there's of a lack of Oxygen to completely combust part of the carbon. CO2 is formed with complete combustion of a carbon source. The point being the car example:

1) Your car example, deals with carbon monoxide, not CO2 (the primary area of focus with global warming)
2) It becomes carbon monoxide due to the fact that there's "little" oxygen
3) The air above our head's has lots of oxygen, unlike car/garage example... which kinda makes this example - stupid and irrelevant
4) Plants need CO2 - which is also the area of concern, we exhale it and fart it... which makes my example at least slightly relevant.

Ok, geez you're right, there's absolutely no problem with emissions and industrial waste. Fuck it, pump as much shit into the atmosphere as you like. No problem. It will all just evaporate into nothing with no recourse. :? It was an analogy...sorry you cooulnd decipher that...the same thing goes for the amount of CO2 we create. Yes, WE CREATE, combined with the natural amounts of CO2 (farting :fp: , plants), could be a factor in global warming.

Again, why exactly have governments all over the world banned and reduced certain products and processes? Not because they dislike acid rain or smoggy cites by chance? I notice you didnt address that at all. I guess ozone loss is natural too?

and back to the point of the thread -- Ice sheets are going away. So, are you confident enough that it could be natural and you dont think its a cause for concern?

Godfather.

this is interesting, what do you guys think about this ?

Godfather.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2012080816 ... liars.html

inlet13

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Ok, geez you're right, there's absolutely no problem with emissions and industrial waste. Fuck it, pump as much shit into the atmosphere as you like. No problem. It will all just evaporate into nothing with no recourse. :?

It might cause something, it may not. I certainly think it's not pleasant to breathe in. Again, I don't understand how weather's been cooling and heating before economic activity took off if it's not a normal chain of events.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

It was an analogy...sorry you cooulnd decipher that...the same thing goes for the amount of CO2 we create. Yes, WE CREATE, combined with the natural amounts of CO2 (farting :fp: , plants), could be a factor in global warming.

I did decipher that, and I presented another analogy - farting and breathing and how to avoid a disaster we should just take everyone out. Obviously, that was a tongue and cheek way of saying, our very presence (non-economic activity at all) causes CO2, so how do we deal with that? Cease to exist all in the name of a guess at the reaction? I say - nah, I don't buy the guess anyway. There's tons of problems with it.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Again, why exactly have governments all over the world banned and reduced certain products and processes? Not because they dislike acid rain or smoggy cites by chance? I notice you didnt address that at all.

I didn't address this because I have no idea what you're talking about. Why haven't certain ones banned stuff? Why hasn't everyone? I'd say everyone hasn't banned stuff because they know it could cripple economic activity and it would destroy their already bleeding economy. That's why.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

and back to the point of the thread -- Ice sheets are going away. So, are you confident enough that it could be natural and you dont think its a cause for concern?

From the articles data, as I mentioned at the outset - I'm not sure that it's happening. If it is, yeh, as of now, from looking at data and hearing out arguments, yes - I'm not too worried about it. Do I think that means I should pollute? Nope. I pick up trash and whatnot. But, do I think getting a prius and solar panels will really solve anything? Nope. Do I think ethanol in our gas did much? No, in fact it fucked things up worse for us by raising our gas prices. And now pro-environmental groups realize that was also a mistake environmentally, so now they want to switch that. ha ha... these are the same people who got it instituted - it's a fucking joke.

brianlux

Godfather. wrote:

this is interesting, what do you guys think about this ?

Godfather.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2012080816 ... liars.html

Another totally right-wing political "news" source trying in invalidate rational scientific data.

inlet13

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Don't patronize me.

I do my part fine. I also acknowledge that I don't like people starving. I am not an idiot. I know there's a an economic trade-off with large-scale regulations. I question - are we positive we need them? Further, I know that "some" may be seeking that trade-off as their goal due to political persuasions, and be using this issue (formerly global warming, now global climate change) as a guise.

pa·tron·ize/ˈpātrəˌnīz/
Verb:
1.Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.

I'm not patronizing you. I'm saying it like it is. You said: "Don't breathe or fart or your contributing to global warming. We should therefore - just kill everyone. That way we'd avoid being killed by global warming. Dumb arguments, get dumb responses."

I'm calling you on reverting to tactics that are below that of which you are capable. I've done the same. Feel free to call me on it any time I do that.

As far as the climate change issue goes, you and I are at a stalemate. I see no point in going farther with this. Besides, I was just trying to pass on some information I though was relevant. I'm not telling anyone how to live their lives.

Wake up, did you read the context of that exchange, Brian? Seems to me you have trouble reading all of these posts before commenting on them. I was responding to someone who made a comment equating global warming to carbon monoxide poisoning. I then said dumb arguments get dumb responses and gave that example.

Anyway, yes, your comment was patronizing. You picked out my comment - but, ignored the other retarded comment on the other side because it backed your ideology. Then you came in and said "you're better than this, inlet" ha ha...

...not patronizing at all, man.

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Don't patronize me.

I do my part fine. I also acknowledge that I don't like people starving. I am not an idiot. I know there's a an economic trade-off with large-scale regulations. I question - are we positive we need them? Further, I know that "some" may be seeking that trade-off as their goal due to political persuasions, and be using this issue (formerly global warming, now global climate change) as a guise.

pa·tron·ize/ˈpātrəˌnīz/
Verb:
1.Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.

I'm not patronizing you. I'm saying it like it is. You said: "Don't breathe or fart or your contributing to global warming. We should therefore - just kill everyone. That way we'd avoid being killed by global warming. Dumb arguments, get dumb responses."

I'm calling you on reverting to tactics that are below that of which you are capable. I've done the same. Feel free to call me on it any time I do that.

As far as the climate change issue goes, you and I are at a stalemate. I see no point in going farther with this. Besides, I was just trying to pass on some information I though was relevant. I'm not telling anyone how to live their lives.

Wake up, did you read the context of that exchange, Brian? Seems to me you have trouble reading all of these posts before commenting on them. I was responding to someone who made a comment equating global warming to carbon monoxide poisoning. I then said dumb arguments get dumb responses and gave that example.

Anyway, yes, your comment was patronizing. You picked out my comment - but, ignored the other retarded comment on the other side because it backed your ideology. Then you came in and said "you're better than this, inlet" ha ha...

...not patronizing at all, man.

Verb:
1.Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.

No. I did not do that.

Godfather.

brianlux wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

this is interesting, what do you guys think about this ?

Godfather.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2012080816 ... liars.html

Another totally right-wing political "news" source trying in invalidate rational scientific data.

I was surfing around and found this it's just the other side and what they say.

Godfather.

http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm

DS1119

Godfather. wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

5 of a million questions that can't be answered...but it's global warming that's causing it all man!!!! It's the humans that are changing this ever powerful Earth!

not totaly true..

Godfather.

But true enough. You don't like the weather...blame global warming!