Global Warming is a Hoax*

124

Comments

  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    surferdude wrote:
    The science of global warming is pretty sound. The majority of disagreement is on how much of the warming is natural and how much mankind is responsible for. Addressing mankinds contribution takes money. Kyoto is just a trade agreement ensuring the bulk of the cost of addressing climate change is not borne by Europe. Don't confuse that with the science, the science is sound, the climate is changing.

    form my understanding, man's contribution to global warming is by and large because of coal burning power plants and cars.

    ok so we know the problem. solution is easy, almost impossible to put into action. in the short term anyway.
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    I think everyone can agree it's getting warmer and that it's going to cause some issues to the weather patterns and ocean levels.

    It would be extremely wise to cut back on CO2 at the very least as it acts like insulation.

    Also, I was reading about soot filled dark pollution clouds accelerating the process:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070801-brown-clouds.html
    It's not getting warmer here :) It's actually been one of the coolest years I can remember. Now I'm not going to say that we do not effect the climate, or even that we don't substantially effect the climate, but on the other side of things, it's pretty ignorant for people to dismiss the fact that we are not the only cause of climate changes. There are so many studies out there that contradict each other at this point..............I think it's only natural that people are skeptical. "Hmmmm, should I make a drastic change in the way I live, pay $50000 on solar panels, lose money trading in a non-efficient vehicle that I'm still paying off for one that runs on water and sells for $20000 when there is no conclusive evidence that is available?"
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    I think everyone can agree it's getting warmer and that it's going to cause some issues to the weather patterns and ocean levels.

    It would be extremely wise to cut back on CO2 at the very least as it acts like insulation.

    Also, I was reading about soot filled dark pollution clouds accelerating the process:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070801-brown-clouds.html

    not true. this past winter was one of the coldest I have ever experienced in chicago. and it get COLD here. we had 7 straight days of temps not getting ABOVE ZERO. that hasnt happened in 30 years.
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    I for one welcome the new wooly mamoths, beautiful canyons, and iceberg cavemen that the next Ice Age will bring.

    edit: i meant cave "people"................don't want to upset any of you feminazis.
  • fanch75
    fanch75 Posts: 3,734
    Solat13 wrote:
    I found this interesting that 1934 is now the warmest year in history and not 1998 due to a calculation error by Nasa and that 4 of the warmest years on record in the US were in the 1930's.

    http://dreadnaught.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/warmest-year-in-history-1934-according-tocorrected-nasa-climate-data/

    http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm

    http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html

    I know this isn't peer reviewed science and simply adding data and crunching numbers but somehow this is going to be dismissed on here ... lol.

    They were all paid off by the Bush family alive at that time.
    Do you remember Rock & Roll Radio?
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Solat13 wrote:
    I found this interesting that 1934 is now the warmest year in history and not 1998 due to a calculation error by Nasa and that 4 of the warmest years on record in the US were in the 1930's.

    http://dreadnaught.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/warmest-year-in-history-1934-according-tocorrected-nasa-climate-data/

    http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm

    http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html

    I know this isn't peer reviewed science and simply adding data and crunching numbers but somehow this is going to be dismissed on here ... lol.

    I think the numbers reflect USA temperatures only. It is called "global" warming for a reason.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    gue_barium wrote:
    I think the numbers reflect USA temperatures only. It is called "global" warming for a reason.

    you are missing the point. saying 1998 was THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD is just another propaganda tool to scare you into believing we are all going to melt away.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    jlew24asu wrote:
    you are missing the point.

    Was 1998 the hottest year on record in the world? Yes it was, and I think 2005 might have even tied it.

    What it the hottest year ever for the USA? No, it was the 2nd hottest ever.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    gue_barium wrote:
    Was 1998 the hottest year on record in the world? Yes it was, and I think 2005 might have even tied it.

    What it the hottest year ever for the USA? No, it was the 2nd hottest ever.

    and the 2006 winter in chicago had the most consecutive days below zero on record. at 7. sure was chilly for about 5 months straight.
  • Solat13
    Solat13 Posts: 6,996
    gue_barium wrote:
    Was 1998 the hottest year on record in the world? Yes it was, and I think 2005 might have even tied it.

    What it the hottest year ever for the USA? No, it was the 2nd hottest ever.

    But that doesn't change the fact that 4 of the hottest years in US history were during the 1930's. Surely America has grown and releases much more Greenhouse gas than back then and wastes much more resources. I don't think anyone is going to argue that point.

    Why didn't Gore have this information for his infomercial or was his science team too busy trying to build the case for global warming that they didn't bother to add up the data. That's the best thing about this error now admitted by NASA. It's strictly a computational error and numbers as far as I know are pretty much party and politically neutral - unless of course you believe in fuzzy math. ;)
    - Busted down the pretext
    - 8/28/98
    - 9/2/00
    - 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
    - 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
    - 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
    - 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
    - 8/2/07, 8/5/07
    - 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
    - 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
    - 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
    - 9/11/11, 9/12/11
    - 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Solat13 wrote:
    But that doesn't change the fact that 4 of the hottest years in US history were during the 1930's. Surely America has grown and releases much more Greenhouse gas than back then and wastes much more resources. I don't think anyone is going to argue that point.

    Why didn't Gore have this information for his infomercial or was his science team too busy trying to build the case for global warming that they didn't bother to add up the data. That's the best thing about this error now admitted by NASA. It's strictly a computational error and numbers as far as I know are pretty much party and politically neutral - unless of course you believe in fuzzy math. ;)


    but what about temps 12,230 years ago. no no, I mean 124,203 years ago. what caused climate change then? I heard it was a scorcher :D
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    jlew24asu wrote:
    not true. this past winter was one of the coldest I have ever experienced in chicago. and it get COLD here. we had 7 straight days of temps not getting ABOVE ZERO. that hasnt happened in 30 years.

    I was under the impression temperature graphs over the past x number of years clearly indicate an overall trend of increasing temps.

    some go high some go low, however the overall average is going up.

    Are these graphs a hoax now?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

    in particular

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    I was under the impression temperature graphs over the past x number of years clearly indicate an overall trend of increasing temps.

    some go high some go low, however the overall average is going up.

    Are these graphs a hoax now?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

    in particular

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
    No offense but I can't believe anyone uses Wikipedia as a source of factual information. I'm sure for this information it is correct but I still can't believe it's used as a reference. I understand the convenience and no cost of Wikipedia but it's not anything that should be used as a refernce. Sorry just a pet peeve of mine.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    surferdude wrote:
    No offense but I can't believe anyone uses Wikipedia as a source of factual information. I'm sure for this information it is correct but I still can't believe it's used as a reference. I understand the convenience and no cost of Wikipedia but it's not anything that should be used as a refernce. Sorry just a pet peeve of mine.


    Show me a better one... I'll gladly look at it.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    I was under the impression temperature graphs over the past x number of years clearly indicate an overall trend of increasing temps.

    some go high some go low, however the overall average is going up.

    Are these graphs a hoax now?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

    in particular

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

    I find it odd that temps seem to drop during the industrial revolution at the turn of last century. CO2 levels had to be at the highest point. and another drop diring the 40s when another industrial revolution took place from WWII.

    those pretty charts do show temps going up slightly. but that is such a blip in history its hard to fully understand its meaning.
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Show me a better one... I'll gladly look at it.
    Go to the real source. When I want to make a point about poverty I find the original source of the data. Wikipedia is far from a factual source of information. It works by consensus which is far different than working by fact.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    surferdude wrote:
    Go to the real source. When I want to make a point about poverty I find the original source of the data. Wikipedia is far from a factual source of information. It works by consensus which is far different than working by fact.

    You do realize how Wikipedia operates right? It's basically the entire planet adding and scrutinizing and revising the content regularly with sources listed at the bottom of every article. Everyone get's their say to contest or agree with what is written.

    Personally I think you're over reacting.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    You do realize how Wikipedia operates right? It's basically the entire planet adding and scrutinizing and revising the content regularly with sources listed at the bottom of every article. Everyone get's their say to contest or agree with what is written.

    Personally I think you're over reacting.

    yea surferdude, wifi isn't unbreakable proof but its a decent source. after all this is just a message board. we arent saving the world.
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Personally I think you're over reacting.
    For what you referenced Wikipedia for it's probably not a bad source. As I said it's a pet peeve of mine in general.

    I see people handing in research using Wikipedia as the reference. I figure why didn't they just put a stamp on their forehead that says "I'm a lazy fuck who doesn't care about accuracy".

    Wikipedia is the Cole's note of information. It gives nice background but you have to do the real reading yourself.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    surferdude wrote:
    For what you referenced Wikipedia for it's probably not a bad source. As I said it's a pet peeve of mine in general.

    I see people handing in research using Wikipedia as the reference. I figure why didn't they just put a stamp on their forehead that says "I'm a lazy fuck who doesn't care about accuracy".

    Wikipedia is the Cole's note of information. It gives nice background but you have to do the real reading yourself.


    yeah...only 24 hrs in a day unfortunately.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")

Categories