More temperature lies

Kann

jenmarie wrote:

It's freezing in NYC today- and not expected to get warm till March- I think we're all ok

My floor has : 4 handicapped people, 4 crazy persons and 2 normal persons. That must mean the world is made of 40% of handicapped people, 40% of crazy people and 20% of normal people. What you observe is not necessarily what is true.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4757411a1865.html

Interesting article, but all of us are still waiting for conclusive evidence on both side of the fence. Nothing has disproved the unproven manmade global warming yet. Wait and see, and in the meanwhile, we could at least try to take care a care of our own environment as it's not at its best right now.

"Carbon dioxide is, most definitely, not a pollutant. It is as essential to life on earth as is oxygen or water. Pollutants are, by definition, something that we would be better off without.

Actually polluants are something we would be better off with less not without. Almost no particle is of no utility, some just need to stay in very little density - like carbon dioxide.

NOCODE#1

Songburst wrote:

The funny thing is that Gore's position is the Reich propaganda - you would have been the guy shovelling Jews into showers and complaining about the people who didn't believe that they were less than human.

its almost as if your thought process is completely broken, cant reason with the insane.

NOCODE#1

Songburst wrote:

The earth is fine. It has survived far worse conditions than the ones that we are imposing on it.

wow since you were apparently there, can you tell us?

NOCODE#1

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Sea ice growing at fastest pace on record:
http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+Pace+on+Record/article13385.htm

shit! its over, Ill call Al myself, ice is growing in certain spots! WHEW

NOCODE#1

jenmarie wrote:

It's freezing in NYC today- and not expected to get warm till March- I think we're all ok

Winner of the dumbest post of the thread award.


So in your life, its cold in november, where YOU live, OBVIOUSLY the worlds ok then.

nuffingman

angelica wrote:

My guess is that drew is referring to the biosphere...which is definitely showing dramatic signs of not being so fine. It is definitely prudent for us to take notice, and act accordingly, so as to adapt ... adaptively rather than maladaptively.

We won't take notice! We'll continue to create gas guzzling vehicles and continue with polluting industries. The political leaders don't have the balls to do anything and are frightened of losing votes by shutting these places down.

Planet earth will be fine, except we won't be here to enjoy it. It will spin around, repair itself, new species will evolve and they will find out what we did and laugh at the dumb fucks we are.

zacman13245

Studies show Mars, Neptune, Jupiter, Triton and Pluto are warming. Don't they know about ethanol and hydrogen cars?

zacman13245

Studies show Mars, Neptune, Jupiter, Triton and Pluto are warming. Don't they know about ethanol and hydrogen cars?

polaris

i'll say the SAME thing that i always say on this thread that ultimately will result in ZERO people responding ...

Study the greenhouse effect - dispute that piece of science and get back to me ... otherewise - you guys are just googling the same shit ... i can blog that i'm the king of spain - doesn't make it right ...

if you really care to understand this topic/issue - educate yourselves ... but if all you want is to hear shit that goes along with your beliefs - then what you essentially are is a sheep ...

angelica

nuffingman wrote:

We won't take notice! We'll continue to create gas guzzling vehicles and continue with polluting industries. The political leaders don't have the balls to do anything and are frightened of losing votes by shutting these places down.

Planet earth will be fine, except we won't be here to enjoy it. It will spin around, repair itself, new species will evolve and they will find out what we did and laugh at the dumb fucks we are.

Honestly, I don't blame the leaders for reflecting where the people are. When the vast majority of the people one governs continue to rape and pillage the earth, good luck on turning that around! The leaders are meant to represent the people. It's up to individuals, en masse to make these changes within. I don't buy into the "it's up to our leaders to do it for us" routine. People pretend they care, while they drive their cars, and then expect things to not continue on in the direction they are. It's denial and lack of personal responsibility. So when a handful is blamed for the willful ignorance of many, I see otherwise.

ediger

live in Winnipeg for 20 years and you'll see the effects of climate change. I used to bundle up every year on Halloween and there would be snow on the ground 9 times out of 10. Now, it's warm out with no threat of snow for a couple of weeks at the end of October. Fall has been essentially eliminated. We went from 20 degrees Celsius and sunny to -5 with snow in 2 days. That's fucked.

This isn't just something that happens now and then, either. This is every year. It's been gradual, but the climate is most definitely changing and to say that we had nothing to do with it is pure ignorance. This is far beyond simply some strange weather.

ediger

angelica wrote:

Honestly, I don't blame the leaders for reflecting where the people are. When the vast majority of the people one governs continue to rape and pillage the earth, good luck on turning that around! The leaders are meant to represent the people. It's up to individuals, en masse to make these changes within. I don't buy into the "it's up to our leaders to do it for us" routine. People pretend they care, while they drive their cars, and then expect things to not continue on in the direction they are. It's denial and lack of personal responsibility. So when a handful is blamed for the willful ignorance of many, I see otherwise.

The Feds could help fund more research/production of hydrogen cells for vehicles. I personally think that is our best option. I mean, the emissions are water vapour! It's not going to happen for a looooong time though. Funding research for new, renewable energy costs them money. Taxing the already available non-renewable, pollution causing energy source makes them money. Basically, it all comes down to cash.

That being said, there's no reason for a private company not to do the same.

angelica

polaris wrote:

i'll say the SAME thing that i always say on this thread that ultimately will result in ZERO people responding ...

Study the greenhouse effect - dispute that piece of science and get back to me ... otherewise - you guys are just googling the same shit ... i can blog that i'm the king of spain - doesn't make it right ...

if you really care to understand this topic/issue - educate yourselves ... but if all you want is to hear shit that goes along with your beliefs - then what you essentially are is a sheep ...

polaris, this is my deal: I've been seeing for quite awhile now that scientists are limited by the levels of their own awareness. One's personal inner level of consciousness influences how they tie the facts together into theories. The only thing that is 100% in science is practical applications of what is uncovered. Once we start moving into theory and how we interpret the facts, then it becomes debatable. At this level, what one sees from one mindset may dramatically change as one opens to a new paradigm of perception. Einstein was adamant about this and in opening scientists to how their own awareness affects their personal bias and how they slant what they discern. Physicist David Bohm also was driven to make a big issue out of this, because as he saw it, the general scientists did not have an aptitude to understanding their own psyche and how what they see is determined by their own inner filters. He spoke out when he could on the certain practical parameters of a science-lifestyle and how peer pressures, career concerns, etc. created pressures on the average scientist that prevented them from truly discerning what was before them.

Then, when we add to that the media, and that the information that comes to us is filtered through the purposes of select few....I am not quick to judge at all. Well, I'm not going to judge, period.

angelica

ediger wrote:

The Feds could help fund more research/production of hydrogen cells for vehicles. I personally think that is our best option. I mean, the emissions are water vapour! It's not going to happen for a looooong time though. Funding research for new, renewable energy costs them money. Taxing the already available non-renewable, pollution causing energy source makes them money. Basically, it all comes down to cash.

That being said, there's no reason for a private company not to do the same.

When we're ready to attune to our environments, rather than view ourselves as outside of them, then we'll live very much differently.

I see humans in general on the cusp of moving beyond their illusory isolated ego-view. There will be much environmental chaos play out as we make a huge and dramatic leap as a species. Many are going to learn through cause and effect what not to do. During this leap, I keep my eye on the underlying energies of life and evolution, themselves, rather than on the ideologies we create and that continue to keep us feeling detached or separated from our environments.

Once we transition past our ego-view, we move into KNOWing of our position at-one with the environment.

polaris

angelica wrote:

polaris, this is my deal: I've been seeing for quite awhile now that scientists are limited by the levels of their own awareness. One's personal inner level of consciousness influences how they tie the facts together into theories. The only thing that is 100% in science is practical applications of what is uncovered. Once we start moving into theory and how we interpret the facts, then it becomes debatable. At this level, what one sees from one mindset may dramatically change as one opens to a new paradigm of perception. Einstein was adamant about this and in opening scientists to how their own awareness affects their personal bias and how they slant what they discern. Physicist David Bohm also was driven to make a big issue out of this, because as he saw it, the general scientists did not have an aptitude to understanding their own psyche and how what they see is determined by their own inner filters. He spoke out when he could on the certain practical parameters of a science-lifestyle and how peer pressures, career concerns, etc. created pressures on the average scientist that prevented them from truly discerning what was before them.

Then, when we add to that the media, and that the information that comes to us is filtered through the purposes of select few....I am not quick to judge at all. Well, I'm not going to judge, period.

so ... you are saying that potentially the plethora of scientists that make up the IPCC and have had their work peer-reviewed are biased and that the scientists that get paid by oil companies and refuse to have their work peer-reviewed are also bias - therefore, it's hard to form an opinion?

i'm not exactly sure what you are getting at really ... again - if anyone is interested in finding out whether climate change is man-made ... simply study the greenhouse effect ... it's basic science ...

saveuplife

Why has it gone from "global warming" to "climate change"?]

Climate is defined as: Climate is the average weather usually taken over a 30-year time period for a particular region and time period.

By definition, it's always changing.

angelica

To me, science, like religion, has been removed from its position as the authority.

The essence of scientism has come to an end, where we once accepted unquestioningly what we are told by fallible scientists.

Now both science and spirituality are being reclaimed by the people, and these tools for discerning the truth are being taken back by the individual to use realistically.

Yes, again, this process where we integrate the value of what science uncovers into our daily lives (like spirituality) is just that...a process. As we transition there will be much trial and error. Things will appear chaotic.

And yet, to remove any authoritarian stance that is handed down to individuals in an imbalanced way, keeping individuals unempowered, and convinced of their inability to decide for themselves is a healthy adaptive step, imo.

Try as we might, we can't fit life, experience and humanity into the ideologies we once wanted to. We can't legislate people into waking up or taking responsibility. As a matter of fact, the ongoing idea of legislating all the "positive" change, is a continuance of the illusion of our human authority over life, reality and existence.

It's time to rather ride the wave people! We can't legislate it to do our bidding!

angelica

polaris wrote:

so ... you are saying that potentially the plethora of scientists that make up the IPCC and have had their work peer-reviewed are biased and that the scientists that get paid by oil companies and refuse to have their work peer-reviewed are also bias - therefore, it's hard to form an opinion?

i'm not exactly sure what you are getting at really ... again - if anyone is interested in finding out whether climate change is man-made ... simply study the greenhouse effect ... it's basic science ...

That's not at all what I said. If you are raising such biases as a valid point, I accept that. It's entirely different than what I see, which is not to say wrong.

edit: this may be what I mean afterall, if I am understanding you....I misread what you said initially.....

angelica

polaris wrote:

so ... you are saying that potentially the plethora of scientists that make up the IPCC and have had their work peer-reviewed are biased and that the scientists that get paid by oil companies and refuse to have their work peer-reviewed are also bias - therefore, it's hard to form an opinion?

i'm not exactly sure what you are getting at really ... again - if anyone is interested in finding out whether climate change is man-made ... simply study the greenhouse effect ... it's basic science ...

One thing I can say is that those that make up the IPCC and who are peer reviewed each individually have their own personal agendas in each moment that influence what they see and what they interpret. That is a fact.

I can't paint them into categories of those with good intent and those with nefarious intent. As I know ALL people operate with unconscious drives all the time that influence what they see.

eyedclaar

polaris wrote:

it's basic science ...

That's where you are losing them, Polaris.