Another blow to human caused GW.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 7 2007, 04:55 AM) [snapback]401531[/snapback]</div>

If MMGW is a Hoax, how would they repay the Billions & billions of dollars wasted.. The nay sayers should be along today to tell you the information is dated or it has been disproved or your leaning to the religious way of thinking...

Good find~ B)

 

You guys keep wasting a lot of effort trying to deny it. And PG04 keeps trying to say that a lot of money has been wasted. I'd like him to show me how money for scientific research has taken anything away from the lifestyle he enjoys.

Those articles are interesting, but I still say, don't s**t where you eat. We all know that pollution smells bad and looks bad, and you can see the effects on a local level, so why assume that the planet as a whole is immune to it? It's common sense, in my opinion, that we should evolve our energy industry beyond coal and oil burning and into cleaner, more efficient, more sustainable technologies.

And if you're concerned about money getting wasted, go talk to some companies that are saving a mint by using energy in more efficient ways, and companies that are making a mint researching and producing new technologies.

Personally, I'm not convinced that we can do anything about it either way, but I say, if there's a chance that our energy use is a problem, and there's a chance that we can do something about it, then we should.

I think energy independence would be a cornerstone in that unattainable goal of "world peace."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Mar 7 2007, 08:34 AM) [snapback]401565[/snapback]</div>

Yes, absolutely. The middle east wouldn't know what to do with itself if the U.S. didn't need its oil any longer. Well, they'd go back to fighting each other, probably, but it would take a lot of wind out of their sail.

 

Might I suggest that as Wildkow and priusguy04 are such authorities on the causes of climate change, they get their research published, and get involved with the IPCC?

 

Add the doc to the list. He can make sure they are including precipitation in the models. He seems a tad obsessed with precipitation. I wonder what's precipitated that?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Mar 7 2007, 09:10 AM) [snapback]401590[/snapback]</div>

that was terrible :lol:

 

Lets see... reading the articles, here's what i read them as saying:

1. Mars is warming up too, but there are dozens of possible reasons why - out of curiosity, how much historical data do we have on the Martian climate? 100 years? 200?

2. exploding stars light years away cause cloud cover? Something smells fishy about that...

3. The sun could have an effect, as the number of sunspots seems to correlate with known warm and cold periods... But we've seen increasing temperatures over the past 20 years with a constant number of sun spots. So the sun stays the same temperature and the earth still gets warmer? Seems to support MMGW.

4. A little old, but the article predicts a warming/cooling cycle of 11 years. looking only at world temperature averages, we do see a small dip every 10-11 years or so, but the overall, 5 year moving average shows a steady increase from 1910-1940 (perhaps WWII destroyed a lot of industrial infrastructure?) and 1970-present. The article does nothing to suggest these longer trends we've seen.

5. "The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in global temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions." - This goes directly against temperature charts, which show a 0.5 degree rise since about 1978, and a 0.6 degree rise from 1910 to 1940.

In summary, these articles say that the sun may have an effect on our climate, which i can definitely believe. However, they all point to changes on either a much broader or a much narrower scale than what we've been seeing and attributing to MMGW. a cycle of 11 years is too short, and doesn't predict the overall trend. We don't have sufficient data about Mars to even begin to predict how the climate on there relates to climate on earth... Show me a single, reputable scientific paper that details climate changes on mars over the past 10,000 years, and you might have something. But without geologic samples to study (and we haven't brought any back from Mars yet, have we?) you simply can't say there's a correlation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 7 2007, 04:55 AM) [snapback]401531[/snapback]</div>

Do you read these articles beyond the headlines? Quote from this article: "Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

 

This has been addressed before.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...arming-on-mars/

 

People of our nation:

10% Leaders
80% Followers
10% Critics

We know which category these people who constantly agrue for the sake of argueing regardless of how much data we provide. IMO stop wasting your energy on them and let them do what they do best.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Mar 7 2007, 09:07 AM) [snapback]401588[/snapback]</div>

Nice. As more and more solid evidence floods in (pun intended) in to refute the myth of AGW, the Chicken Littles' who spew AGW propaganda when cornered either bring up religion (I still haven't figured out how belittling certain religions relates to AGW) or demand the "denier" (which is a truly obscene reference/comparison to the actual horrors of the Holocaust which millions of people perished) submit proof they have a PhD in some sort of climatic research.

So it goes to say if you are not a PhD in any of these sciences you are not qualified to even present your own informed opinion.

Tell me, are you able to speak and form your own opinion or when you open your mouth all that enunciates is "Baaahhhh..."???

Rick
#4 2006

 

Oooooooh it's sheepie again. You've taken your unjustified and never backed up beliefs on global warming to an all-new high. I don't think you ever answered my questions of what your qualifications were.

www.realclimate.org

Look at their degrees. Then look at your "scientific" background.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Mar 7 2007, 09:10 AM) [snapback]401590[/snapback]</div>

precipitation is a factor for cooling not warming. all current models are extremely flawed when it comes to predicting precipitation - hence the inherent reason current models are so inaccurate.

again, even in the semiconductor industry where they are using a closed system with know variables, modeling is prone to making errors. how is it possible to model planet earth when you cannot even model a closed test-tube accurately?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Mar 7 2007, 10:58 AM) [snapback]401660[/snapback]</div>

Again, another post from a member of the flock. Perhaps we should "eliminate" all the critics. Third World countries and many dictatorships can provide you with guidance for effective "executions" of such a plan.

It's nice to know we can automatically assume anyone who buys into AGW is guaranteed to be a good person, one who can always be trusted. Pity the ones who are unbelievers for they will burn in hell forever (oops, did I mention religion???)...

Tell me, which direction should I bow for my daily prayers to our great "leaders"??

Rick
#4 2006

 

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

Also, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the following (the science taken down to its most BASIC level):

Note the animation on the page.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/ear...i_greengas.html

Keep spouting your 'hot air,' but you should be aware that any intelligent person will read your post and just shake their head in disbelief or just flat out laugh.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Mar 7 2007, 11:53 AM) [snapback]401709[/snapback]</div>

I am constantly amazed by liberals/democrats. they proport to support diversity, civil disagreements of view (ie war on terror, iraq war), etc ,etc - unless of course the topic is one of their own "Idols" like AGW :lol: if you dont believe in it you wont be allowed to publish articles (forgot the editor and the periodical - but some stupid lib), you are dumb, you are ignorant, etc. they are such true believers it is sickening. they think they cannot be wrong - ever - and to make that somewhat possible is to cut short dissent ------ great playbook i think. i still dont understand how libs live with themselves with all the different constructs they have to live with.

i mean - they think its ok to have partial birth abortion (delivering the child and then sucking the brains out of the cranium and then sticking the kid back into the womb) but are against capital punishment - what if you kill an innocent person --- heck how many innocent children do they watch being murdered each and every year that would be viable outside the womb? and for the record i am pro-abortion but anti partial birth abortion.

i support the troops but dont fund them :lol:
i support the troops but not the mission - jeez if i am alqaeda i would just love that
i support choice - but not when it comes to nationalized health care :lol:

 

31 - I am curious to know - what are you qualifications and/or degrees? I believe you desired a chicken fight (for some strange reason) in a previous thread and don't recall you ever responding...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 7 2007, 11:05 AM) [snapback]401719[/snapback]</div>

Like the conservatives/republicans are any different? If it's not on their agenda, they don't give a rats a$$.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Mar 7 2007, 09:12 AM) [snapback]401727[/snapback]</div>

Of course you're correct, mostly, in your statement. The difference is that when conservatives/Republicans make hypocritical statements surrounding their positions, libs/democrats use those hypocrisies to discredit the whole statement. But when libs/democrats are faced with the same type of hypocrisies it is somehow a conservative/Republican "conspiracy" to discredit them, and we should not pay attention to the hypocrisy behind the curtain! What's good for the goose baby!

As a further note:
1) I do not believe in "man made" GW
2) I will give credit that man "may" have an "affect" on the environment, but am highly skeptical of mans ability for wide spread alteration;
3) I am in favor of pollution controls, not because of any particular environmental effect, so much but as one person wrote; "you don't S**t where you eat." But these controls should apply equally and not be used as a penalty.
4) Man made GW is the liberals WMDs!