Man Made Global Warming what a joke!
Frank Griffin

As most of you know I have been saying global warming is just a load of hot air. Has anyone read that article on the drudge report about 2007's global temperatures?
90% of the global heating for the last century has been wiped out by 2007's global cooling. All the global temperature indicators registered drops in overall temeratures. Starting 10 years ago temperatures have remained steady. Starting 3 years ago temps have begun to decline. Last year serious drops in global temperatures have occured.

The wait for Al gore having to return his nobel peace prize is almost over. He is our present day mili vanili. Someone told me CNN covered this story also.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

kazzmir

Allow me to summarize your post:

Frank Griffin basically said:

I read a bunch of crap of on the internet that supports my previously held bias, therefore it must be true!

le_y_mistar

kazzmir wins this thread

Goalie Ca

Global warming is about the worst term on earth but it was one of those terms the media began pushing. We are in the midst of a global climate change. It is measurable and provable. We certainly have the capability to change the world. It is man-made and there is no doubt about that. The doubt is all in the predictions but even the most optimistic predictions are looking rough.

Be warned with statistics. There is a difference yearly averages and trends. The trend is for global average warming due to increase greenhouse gas emissions. One possibility is even an ice age for europe but i'm not that pessimistic. Global ocean currents are changing and it was the warm atlantic current keeping it warm.

Evert

I read a similar statement about average global temperatures in New Scientist (I think). Guess what? It depends on how you calculate the average temperature; there are several ways to do that (depending on how you account for missing data points, for instance). As far as I remember there was one method that said global temperatures were lower (but it had a dodgy way of extrapolating the temperature across regions where no measurements were made) and all the others saying it was higher.

Melting of both the Arctic and the Antarctic icecaps are well established. Increase in sea water temperature and sea water levels rising are also well established. There is a large year-to-year variation, larger than any global trend, which only emerges if one takes five or ten year averages.

And yes, I'm well aware that the Earth was considerably warmer during the Carboniferous period when carbon-dioxide levels were much higher than they are today. I'm also well aware that most species alive today are not adapted for life in such a climate and would die out. Concern for global warming (particularly man-made global warming) has nothing to do with concern for life on Earth, which will outlast us. It only has to do with our own future and that of our children, changes on a human timescale.

That is also the timescale on which I might trust climate models. Long-term (say, ten thousand years) predictions I would not trust. Weather and climate systems are chaotic, meaning a small perturbation has a large effect.

Anyway, you go ahead and live on in your bubble where corporate interests outweigh human well-being, us evil lefties are responsible for depriving you of your precious oil and try to brain-wash you with our ideals of tolerance and where global warming is only a conspiracy to keep you back. I hope your bubble never bursts because when it does it's not just you who will face the consequences (if only!), we all will.

Dustin Dettmer
kazzmir said:

Allow me to summarize your post ...

I wish every post had that.. a quick <3 sentence summary to help me decide if I want to read it.

Evert said:

That is also the timescale on which I might trust climate models. Long-term (say, ten thousand years) predictions I would not trust. Weather and climate systems are chaotic, meaning a small perturbation has a large effect.

*

There has to be realistic solutions to these problems if we put our minds to it. Create a sort of terraformer to refreeze the ice-caps or something.

* Deleted because it wasn't really in response to Evert as much as the general populous

FrankyR
Quote:

I read a bunch of crap of on the internet that supports my previously held bias, therefore it must be true!

I think that actually summarizes most of the internet.

Thomas Fjellstrom

Global Warming should have been called "Global Climate Change".

Evert
Quote:

Create a sort of terraformer to refreeze the ice-caps or something.

You mean, meddle even more with a chaotic system we don't fully understand? You think that's wise?

Either way, that's another part of the problem: too much faith in our own technology. We are capable of some very amazing things, solve lots of problems with technology. But on that scale it's just not going to be enough.
If you like metaphore, then for all our technology we are nothing more than a fly that nature can kill in a single blow. What good is our technology against things like earthquakes, hurricanes or even floods? As a problem this is no different.

X-G
Quote:

What good is our technology against things like earthquakes, hurricanes or even floods? As a problem this is no different.

Pretty good, surely? Without technology, most of the southwestern American coast would be rubble by now considering their frequent earthquakery. But, through architectural technology, we've gotten pretty good at resisting earthquakes. Repeat this argument for hurricanes and floods.

Richard Phipps

That's true. But if these earthquakes, hurricanes and floods increase in magnitude and frequency then parts of the USA are going to start to get uninhabited.

X-G

Unless of course our technology continues advancing fast enough to compensate for that, too.

Evert

I live in a country that is below sea level. I know we're "pretty good" at building structures that don't collapse immediately when there's an earthquake or building dikes that can keep the water out.
Mostly anyway, although higher-than-average tides and heaver-than-average earthquakes cause lots of troubles. No matter how good our dikes are, if nature "wanted" to breach them, it could without much trouble.

That's not the point I wanted to make though, so let me try to word it more carefully: what sort of technology do we have to prevent earthquakes? Does our technology help us prevent hurricanes? Does it really help in controlling floods? We are good at damage control and at keeping the casualties low, but we have no control over these things. To think that our technology is advanced enough to flip a switch and re-freeze the icecaps is sheer hubris and gives a false sense of security.

Slartibartfast

Who knows what kind of technologies we will have n years from now?
(n>10)

Richard Phipps

Not that good!

Thomas Harte
Quote:

kazzmir wins this thread

Do you think there's a way we could get some sort of hotline fitted to his house, so we can just get him to come and deal with it every time Frank Griffin posts one of these idiotic posts of his?

It's a shame he wasn't about in 1999, since back then we believed that Bill Clinton hadn't fathered any babies with prostitutes. Luckily the Drudge Report sorted us out on that one.

X-G

Quote:

That's not the point I wanted to make though, so let me try to word it more carefully: what sort of technology do we have to prevent earthquakes? Does our technology help us prevent hurricanes? Does it really help in controlling floods? We are good at damage control and at keeping the casualties low, but we have no control over these things. To think that our technology is advanced enough to flip a switch and re-freeze the icecaps is sheer hubris and gives a false sense of security.

Yet. Our technology may be inadequate now, but that's just a testament to our immaturity as a species, not a decisive falsification of technology as a whole. This is why we need to put more effort into developing our technology, spend more on science, so that eventually our technology will be good enough to withstand even the most brutal assaults of mother nature. To suggest otherwise would be... nihilistic.

Edgar Reynaldo

It should be pointed out that energy can be added to a system without actually changing the temperature of the system. Take a block of ice at 0 C and add a bunch of heat and it melts into a pool of water at 0 C. The temperature didn't change , but the state of the system did. So where did all the energy that melted all the polar ice come from? Don't think that our actions couldn't have contributed to it.

Richard Phipps

So if the oceans rise, what technology and at what cost could we protect all the coastline of the USA?

kikabo
Quote:

Man Made Global Warming what a joke!

, sorry, just an aside, I always thought it was a bit of a waste of effort discussing how much of it was our fault. It's like saying "let's just argue while our climate gets more and more out of control and see if it was our fault or not and if we should have done anything earlier", instead isn't it just obvious that we should try to be less wasteful in things that harm the environment regardless of how much of a proportion of the effect it has ?

FMC
Quote:

So if the oceans rise, what technology and at what cost could we protect all the coastline of the USA?

Sheesh, you have no imagination.
Of course we will desalinate the water in excess and then use to irrigate the internal deserts. ;)

Thomas Fjellstrom

Current desalination technology is rather bad. It leads to water that probably shouldn't be drank regularly, and that most fish wouldn't live healthily in.

FMC

... joke detector malfunctioning... time for upgrade... ;)

Thomas Fjellstrom

I just thought I'd add some useless information to an already useless thread! ;)

Richard Phipps

Useless information? Righty'ho!

I claim that Frank is a false prophet and his opinions should be banned from all households with at least one cat.

Thomas Fjellstrom

Richard, don't forget this truism:
{"name":"cat_proximity.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/6\/6679feac9d2ccf202a658f0de775342d.png","w":450,"h":439,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/6\/6679feac9d2ccf202a658f0de775342d"}cat_proximity.png

Richard Phipps

Then Frank must have a multitude of cats.

Thomas Harte
Quote:

Then Frank must have a multitude of cats.

Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll start doing his opinionated and logic bereft rants to them instead of us?

Richard Phipps
Quote:

Zaphod and Trillian discover that the Universe is in the safe hands of a simple man living on a remote planet in a wooden shack with his cat.

Oh no!!

Karel Kohout

Come on, the name is not important - anything that reduces exhaust fumes or any other pollution is good, not matter how you call it. Global warming is a nice term, so why not use it? Anyway, we will see whether it's true or not when everybody in India/China buys a car like in Europe (or two like in US).

X-G

Quote:

Global warming is a nice term, so why not use it?

Because names can be misleading. What if we collectively decide to call it "Weather terrorism" and popularize that term? Hey, the name is not important, right..?

Thomas Fjellstrom
Quote:

Global warming is a nice term, so why not use it?

Because stupid people take it literally. "Global warming" does not actually mean the entire globe will warm. Indeed, some of the globe will get cooler.

Lucid Nightmare

If it keeps on rising, probably wont have to need a light.
wil just wave my cig in air n smoke.

Andrei Ellman
Edgar Reynaldo said:

It should be pointed out that energy can be added to a system without actually changing the temperature of the system. Take a block of ice at 0 C and add a bunch of heat and it melts into a pool of water at 0 C. The temperature didn't change , but the state of the system did. So where did all the energy that melted all the polar ice come from? Don't think that our actions couldn't have contributed to it.

Energy is required to transition the phase of matter - even if the temparature of the matter in one state is the same as the temperature in another state. This is known as Latent Heat. Hence if large volumes of ice are melting, that must require a lot of heat.

AE.

CGamesPlay

Andrei is supporting Edgar's quote, not disputing it.

I agree with X-G on this one. Global Warming may accelerate our decent into an Ice Age, but humankind is going to have to deal with an Ice Age one way or another, as history has shown us. Similarly, humankind is going to have to find a way to deal with the huge amounts of pollution in the atmosphere eventually, if we keep adding to it, and to deal with the limited supply of fossil fuels.

Frank Griffin

Some of you guys make me feel like that astronomer that said the earth actually rotates around the sun. I have read articles on all sides of this issue and the data does not support global warming. To recast global warming as global climate change is just a febble attempt to say oh we were wrong about the warming thing so we will make it even more vague and harder to disprove. You know you guys that are upset about climate change, I bet every change of the seasons must give you guys a heart attack. The climate changes 4 times each year in most places. Climate change is a natural thing that happens every year. What did people call weird weather before lefties plastered a label on it called climate change? The seasons the daylight and nighttime temps they are all caused by access to sunlight. It is just too difficult to admit that its more probably that the sun responsible for this climate change. The term Climate change is so vague it can mean anything.

I definitely agree about the hubris of people concerning this issue. Its like a cold, all we can do is treat the symptoms at the moment.

Thomas Harte and kazzmir should should be ashamed of their behavior. Did either of you even read the link I provided. It is all fair to disagree with me but senseless attacks on the messenger do not make you right or me wrong. I think you guys probably dont know enough to even debate on the subject and should just bow out of the discussion.

BAF
Quote:

instead isn't it just obvious that we should try to be less wasteful in things that harm the environment regardless of how much of a proportion of the effect it has ?

How do we know burning of fossil fuels harms the environment?

amber
Quote:

How do we know burning of fossil fuels harms the environment?

Stand near some burning fossil fuels and take a deep breath. :)

BAF

Stand near a pool of acid and take a deep breath. :)

What does that prove?

Thomas Fjellstrom
Quote:

To recast global warming as global climate change is just a febble attempt to say oh we were wrong about the warming thing so we will make it even more vague and harder to disprove.

No, its the same thing. But as I said, stupid people take it literally. What "Global Warming" actually states is that the climate is changing more than it would otherwise change, due to our involvement. That's it. That's the whole enchilada.

amber

It proves that particular acid is harmful.
... which is probably why when similar acids are dumped into the biosphere as industrial waste, they cause all sorts of havoc.

You just proved my point. ;)

BAF

Go stand in an open field during a lightning storm and jump up and down.

What does that prove?

Richard Phipps

You're a kangaroo?

GullRaDriel
Quote:

Go stand in an open field during a lightning storm and jump up and down.

What does that prove?

That the topic is totalled ?

amber

Well, that one actually doesn't prove anything. :P

My point, though, all of our silly examples aside, was just that if organisms are exposed to a chemical substance (fossil fuel smoke, acid runoff, or whatever) and react adversely, I believe a pretty good case can be made that putting large quantities of that substance into the biosphere is harmful in general. :)

Evert
Quote:

The climate changes 4 times each year in most places.

Us evil lefties call that "seasons", which is something different entirely from "climate".

But that's ok, it's your bubble afterall.

Arthur Kalliokoski

I lived in N.D. (US) from 1957 to 1976, and I wound up with the idea that most winters where I lived had a 3 week period in February that had a maximum temperature of -30F. I realize that most temperature sensors for the weather bueru took their readings in "cities" (in N.D that's 30K people max) that would raise the temperatures maybe 10 deg Fahrenheit due to lack of insulation (heat leaking out of buildings) and all those bricks exposed to sunlight without reflective snow covering them up. Nowadays when I watch the weather channel they make it sound like a big deal when the temp in N.D. gets to -10F. Now I'm willing to concede that this warming may not be due to man's burning of fossil fuels etc., but I would state that it is actually occurring. The comparison of environmental acid to world climate is totally invalid. You might as well compare alien abductions of trailer trash to U.S. foreign policy.

Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get. If what you expect changes then it's a climate change...

StevenVI

I have never understood the obsession with making sure the planet is left in the same condition as when we were born. Is it a religious thing? "God wants the planet to be THIS was. I know because He told me so."

Most people will agree that the climate of our planet has changed drastically over the history of time. This is what I was taught as a child, and this is the naive belief I hold. I do not believe that any changes are "bad" or "wrong" or "immoral." This is the nature of existence. Change.

Many people think that it will once again be changing, perhaps drastically. Why is is a bad thing this time? Why is it immoral to perform actions which some people believe hastens change? Who cares if in five hundred years (give or a take a few million) humanity is wiped out? I don't.

What is wrong with the evolution of the planet? Why are you all trying to not let nature take it's course? In the end it is all completely arbitrary. It doesn't matter one way or the other. People and animals will adapt or die out. What is wrong with that? Isn't that how life works? Why must we painfully strive to "fix" this "problem?"

Edit: An argument I thought up against this is that "combating global warming" is a form of adaptation. True. But what makes it a better adaptation than the alternatives?

Arthur Kalliokoski

So the Neanderthals that moved south to avoid the ice sheets were out of line?

Thomas Fjellstrom
Quote:

I do not believe that any changes are "bad" or "wrong" or "immoral." This is the nature of existence. Change.

I don't mind as long as we don't affect things in a bad way. Say if we cause a premature or elongated iceage. I personally would not like that. OR causing many species to go prematurely extinct. That would also suck. Theres a balance in the ecosystem and climate that is easily upset, and it seems we've upset them both.

FMC
Quote:

I have never understood the obsession with making sure the planet is left in the same condition as when we were born. Is it a religious thing? "God wants the planet to be THIS was. I know because He told me so."

There is a (actually more, this is just one) good reason for NOT wanting change, the effects that the increase in the water level would have on our coast cities (delete them from the maps).

X-G
Quote:

What is wrong with the evolution of the planet? Why are you all trying to not let nature take it's course?

Because I rather like being alive, thank you.

Frank Griffin

The planet actually heals itself with no help from us humans. The only problem is that we dont like to wait and demand quick action.

Us humans emit CO2 and I dont like to think that we are polluting this planet everytime we exhale. I wonder if a murderer at some point will say he was trying to help stop global warming. Some stupid woman in England said this was the reason she had a abortion.

Climate is simply a result of 30 years worth of observations of what temperatures and such are. It does not actually make predictions it just a result. If weather starts to change in an area the climate is still the climate not matter if it goes up or down. So basically we dont like the results of the tests so we must do something like social promotion of the environment. Dont hold our climate back in the first grade promote him.

Not all greenies are void of reality. There are some that are smart and recognize that GW is the least of our worries and state that we could save many more lives by using our resoucres to fight malaria and other diseases. We would get a bigger bang for the buck, have visible results and be 100% certain that we did some good, instead of fighting the latest boogie man spewed forth by the main stream media.

Evert must love bubble baths with all this talk of bubbles comming from him. The main point about the seasons is that all this is caused by sunlight and the seasons are a quick and easy way to see how temperatures change very quickly with loss of sunlight. Evert just needs to open a few books but not in the tuby wuby of course cuz they will get all wetty.

The only boogie man I actually think that is worth our time is bird flu.

It looks like BAF did put his face next to a vat of acid BTW.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Quote:

The planet actually heals itself with no help from us humans

"No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should"

The buddist viewpoint

Vanneto
Quote:

Us humans emit CO2 and I dont like to think that we are polluting this planet everytime we exhale. I wonder if a murderer at some point will say he was trying to help stop global warming. Some stupid woman in England said this was the reason she had a abortion.

Oh boy... OK, I don't know if CO2 is harmful to the environment or not, but your example is downright stupid. Lets say it is harmful in large amounts. With the amount we breathe out plants can process it to O2 so thats no worry. But you know how much CO2 jet airplanes (!), cars, etc. emit? HUGE unnatural amounts. So the plants can't keep up and there is a problem...

Quote:

The only boogie man I actually think that is worth our time is bird flu.

No its not! :o

X-G
Quote:

The planet actually heals itself with no help from us humans. The only problem is that we dont like to wait and demand quick action.

Right; I don't know about you, but I don't plan to stick around for the literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of years it's going to take for the planet to "restore itself" (not that that's a very useful phrase anyway--restore to what exactly?). Me, I prefer having an environment worth living in for at least the rest of my life, preferably longer than that. In other words, it's not about "saving the planet" and no one in this thread has suggested it is other than you. It's about making sure that we maintain a hospitable environment for ourselves for as long as we're around.

Evert
Quote:

The planet actually heals itself with no help from us humans.

Right, no one needs to be worried about life on Earth, which will be around when we are all long gone. I do care about the world I (and my children) have to live in though.

Quote:

OK, I don't know if CO2 is harmful to the environment or not, but your example is downright stupid. Lets say it is harmful in large amounts. With the amount we breathe out plants can process it to O2 so thats no worry. But you know how much CO2 jet airplanes (!), cars, etc. emit? HUGE unnatural amounts. So the plants can't keep up and there is a problem...

The amount is not what matters either, actually. What matters is that those sources are burning fossil fuel, adding carbon to the cycle that was not part of it before (ok, it was during the Carboniferous period, as I said above).

Thomas Harte
Quote:

Some of you guys make me feel like that astronomer that said the earth actually rotates around the sun.

On the contrary. We're saying the earth rotates around the sun, you're saying that it's flat and illuminated at God's discretion.

Quote:

I have read articles on all sides of this issue and the data does not support global warming.

And your bias stopped you from giving due attention to any articles that disagreed with your point of view. You are also apparently completely incapable of understanding the issues, beyond pulling some key words out of newspaper headlines and forming your own pseudo-scientific beliefs. I dare expect you'll be back next week with a post titled "When will people accept that you can square a circle?"

The IPCC, an international body that is supported by all significant governments recently published this graph:

{"name":"figspm-1.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/5\/a50694b1c2b12e8bd836880556aa410a.gif","w":600,"h":876,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/5\/a50694b1c2b12e8bd836880556aa410a"}figspm-1.gif

The real debate is the following:

  • has the climate changed more in the last 100 or so years than history would suggest it should?

  • if so, can human activity be shown to be extremely likely to have been a factor in that change?

  • is environmental change possibly a problem for humanity?

  • if so, should we do anything to try to prevent contributing to further change?

  • if so, then what?

I appreciate that's quite a few questions in a row, so I anticipate you will ignore most of them or try to brush the group of them away without further comment.

For the record though, most of the right-wing gang prefer to say that the climate is changing but either that humans aren't culpable or else that the change isn't a problem. You're in an extreme minority by trying to claim that no change is occurring at all.

Quote:

To recast global warming as global climate change is just a febble attempt to say oh we were wrong about the warming thing so we will make it even more vague and harder to disprove.

Obviously you say this without any evidence. Here are some clues concerning whether "global warming" has recently been recast as climate change:

The International Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988. The relevant UN body is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The international treaty concerning climate change is the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Quote:

You know you guys that are upset about climate change, I bet every change of the seasons must give you guys a heart attack. The climate changes 4 times each year in most places. Climate change is a natural thing that happens every year.

This is probably why the newspapers often call it global warming instead of climate change. Otherwise small minded idiots think of something else.

Quote:

What did people call weird weather before lefties plastered a label on it called climate change? The seasons the daylight and nighttime temps they are all caused by access to sunlight. It is just too difficult to admit that its more probably that the sun responsible for this climate change. The term Climate change is so vague it can mean anything.

Yeah. And "Expressionism" actually includes all art, because it's all meant to express something, right?

Quote:

Thomas Harte and kazzmir should should be ashamed of their behavior. Did either of you even read the link I provided. It is all fair to disagree with me but senseless attacks on the messenger do not make you right or me wrong.

I read the link. Based on your responses in your recent thread on drilling, I saw no reason to believe that you were interested in any sort of rational debate.

For the record: a trend is an "inclination in a particular direction". Trends are not negated even if one data value doesn't follow the pattern. That's the difference between a pattern that is following a trend and one that is monotonically increasing.

Quote:

I think you guys probably dont know enough to even debate on the subject and should just bow out of the discussion.

It is easier to preach if you can remove dissenting voices. I recommend you set yourself up on an American cable channel.

EDIT:
Frank posted inbetween me starting to write the above and posting it. Some new comments on his newest post, and things in general:

Quote:

Us humans emit CO2 and I dont like to think that we are polluting this planet everytime we exhale. I wonder if a murderer at some point will say he was trying to help stop global warming. Some stupid woman in England said this was the reason she had a abortion.

The real world doesn't use a strict causation test to ascribe liability. Nobody here has argued that it does. You're setting up straw men.

Quote:

Climate is simply a result of 30 years worth of observations of what temperatures and such are.

Accurate records go back to the 19th century.

Quote:

Not all greenies are void of reality. There are some that are smart and recognize that GW is the least of our worries and state that we could save many more lives by using our resoucres to fight malaria and other diseases. We would get a bigger bang for the buck, have visible results and be 100% certain that we did some good, instead of fighting the latest boogie man spewed forth by the main stream media.

The problem with malaria as a specific problem (and, I know, that wasn't your point) is that it isn't currently a problem that can be solved, in that there is no existing vaccine. And, even if there was, humans aren't the only thing that can carry it, making applying one universally very difficult.

That aside, this looks like a diversionary argument. You've posted on the basis that man did not make what you seem unable to stop calling global warming. The rest of us are discussing that. If you want to change your argument to one that climate change is not the most optimal use of human resources because other things are more demanding then you impliedly admit that climate change is a real problem. I suggest you either stick to your original argument that it doesn't warrant resources because it doesn't exist or else explicitly reject your original argument.

Quote:

The only boogie man I actually think that is worth our time is bird flu.

If I had to guess, I would have thought you were probably also strongly in favour of the War on Terror as currently implemented. It's not relevant to this thread, so feel free to ignore this comment, but I would be interested to know.

P.s. it doesn't affect the meaning of your words or the quality of your argument whatsoever, and is completely unrelated to the discussion at hand, but why don't you use apostrophes? Of course, I rely on the principle that omitting expected punctuation slows most readers down as a reason why I haven't just answered my own question.

Richard Phipps

eats popcorn

kikabo
Quote:

How do we know burning of fossil fuels harms the environment?

That's my point, I don't know, the same way that I don't know that I'm not going to get killed if I cross the road with my eyes closed, I just think it's a little foolish to rely on the possibility that we 'might' not be harming the environment.

Quote:

Why are you all trying to not let nature take it's course?

It's not nature that is, for example, cutting down rain forests, it's man. Nature would regrow a rain forest in about a 1000 years, as Frank rightly says the planet would heal itself from us if we were gone and would heal to some degree if our activities were lessened.

It's not a duty to God or the planet to leave it the way it was, the planet and the species left will go on fine regardless of what happens to us.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Quote:

eats popcorn

Damn it, I was just at the store, I should have picked some up :(

Richard Phipps

Gives popcorn to TF

Frank Griffin

Grab your pop corn.

Thomas Harte is misguided on so many levels BUT I do like that you took the time to get some data. Now lets see if your data can stand up to questioning. If you havent noticed I tend to answer most questions that are posed to me. I think most would agree.

Question 1
"has the climate changed more in the last 100 or so years than history would suggest it should?"
Here is a longer history of temperatures
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

So the answer is NO.

Question 2
"if so, can human activity be shown to be extremely likely to have been a factor in that change?"

Since there were no SUVs during these past time periods it is certain man had nothing to do with global climate change.

So the answer is NO.

Question 3
"is environmental change possibly a problem for humanity?"

Changes in the environment are a concern for humans and always will be. The only problem is that we need to spend our resources problems we can do something about. Also we need to fight problems that we know exist.

Question 4
"if so, should we do anything to try to prevent contributing to further change?"

Since the answer was no to the previous question.

The answer is NO.

Question 5
"if so, then what?"

The answer is NO. There is no apparent problem so no solution is needed. All we need to do is observe and if something does come up then we can take action. Jumping the gun to do something just for the sack of doing something is insane. Trust me this global warming BS is just going to silently fade away into the night just like global cooling did 30 years ago. This is just like what they say about clothing fads. Hold onto your cloths until they come back in style. Guess what YOU are back in style my friend.

The only one that has acted unintelligent is you at times Thomas. The main problem with the data you presented is that just like the IPCC they do not go back far enough in time. In past meetings of the IPCC they did go back farther in time but once all the gov co money got into the act and money was to be made the inconvenient tail port of the graphs were no longer shown since they did not help make the point. You are young I assume so you do not have as much lived history to draw from so your mistakes are understandable.

Now defend yourself. Find a temperature graph that does not make my point, the search will do you some good. All your questions kinda hinged on your interpretation of incomplete graphs like you and the IPCC presented.

Pissing away billions of dollars trying to solve a non existant problem will definitely reduce the living style for you and your children.

ReyBrujo

As a side note, it has been raining for over a week by now (with minor stops every some hours) down here, tomorrow they are forecasting more storms, and for the first time in years there was a waterspout in the river some kilometers from here (there has never been one since I was born almost 30 years ago, for example).

Weather is changing, like it or not. As a thumb rule, I don't believe corporations, so when they tell me cigars don't produce cancer or that oil burning does not damage our planet, I tend not to believe them.

Erikster
Ron White said:

"... so he says to me, 'Cows are polluting the atmosphere with their flatulence, but what are you doing to help the Earth?' I said, 'Well, I'm eating the cows!'"

That's the first thing that leaped to mind when I read the title of this post. Man has made Global Warming a joke. ("An Irritating Truth," for example)

Then I started to read a little deeper into the posts.

Here's the thing. Humans are the only creatures on Earth who can alter the environment to the extent that it has today. Yes, I just said that we altered the environment. And it's not in a positive way.

We cannot forecast the future of Earth's environment. There are simply too many variables. However, you cannot disregard the heavy evidence of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

However, it's also been noted that we as humans have killed off several species of animals, but that's not true. Certain species of animals have been dying of for as long as the Earth has survived. It's Darwin's theory. (Survival of the fittest)

My main question is: Are we jumping at shadows? Or is this a real issue we need to deal with?

Grabs Root Beer

Cheers.

Thomas Harte
Quote:

Thomas Harte is misguided on so many levels BUT I do like that you took the time to get some data. Now lets see if your data can stand up to questioning. If you havent noticed I tend to answer most questions that are posed to me. I think most would agree.

One of the many reasons that I think nobody is engaging you in conversation is that you spend half your posts playing to an audience that you imagine is the primary reason for the existence of bulletin boards like this.

As you seem to be with your evidence, I notice that you are ignoring any parts of any posts that don't fit with what you want to say. I'll take it as given that you have conceded that:

  • the massive majority of scientists are, and have been right through the modern era of international research into the climate, concerned about climate change, not global warming

  • as it is your believe that "global warming is just a load of hot air" you are withdrawing any implication of an argument that money shouldn't be invested in it just because there are other more needy causes

Quote:

Question 1
"has the climate changed more in the last 100 or so years than history would suggest it should?"
Here is a longer history of temperatures
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

So the answer is NO.

So, the International Panel on Climate Change, comprised of thousands of scientists across the globe says yes, but "Christopher R Scotese" and "Plant Fossils of West Virginia" say no. And you believe the second two.

Quote:

Question 2
"if so, can human activity be shown to be extremely likely to have been a factor in that change?"

Since there were no SUVs during these past time periods it is certain man had nothing to do with global climate change.

So the answer is NO.

Your answer 'no' to this question hinges on your answer 'no' to your previous question. Since I dispute your previous answer, I necessarily dispute this answer with no further reasoning required.

Quote:

Question 3
"is environmental change possibly a problem for humanity?"

Changes in the environment are a concern for humans and always will be. The only problem is that we need to spend our resources problems we can do something about. Also we need to fight problems that we know exist.

The strict answer to the question is something we agree on, even if we seem to slightly disagree on the consequential details.

For my money, it's a question of measure and degree. Society needs to weigh the probability of benefit from acting against climate change versus the cost. But cost doesn't make sense in isolation — it's just a number unless you compare it to something else, which is where we need to consider what else money could be spent on.

Nobody has yet provided any figures to promote debate on the question of measure and degree, you've given us your conclusion but not enough information for us to reach our own through anything but trust in yours. As such, I don't think I have an opinion to forward without further research.

Quote:

Question 4
"if so, should we do anything to try to prevent contributing to further change?"

Since the answer was no to the previous question.

The answer is NO.

Question 5
"if so, then what?"

The answer is NO. There is no apparent problem so no solution is needed.

As before, I have nothing interesting to say to these two replies as my reasoning above precludes engaging directly with your logic.

Quote:

All we need to do is observe and if something does come up then we can take action. Jumping the gun to do something just for the sack of doing something is insane. Trust me this global warming BS is just going to silently fade away into the night just like global cooling did 30 years ago.

"Global cooling" is a term retrofitted onto concerns about changes in the climate that were first raised in the 1970s. Those concerns led to the foundation of the modern climate change panels, which have been studying the climate for the past 30 years.

There was never any level of international consensus about what was going on, and what was claimed then is not contradicted now.

Quote:

The only one that has acted unintelligent is you at times Thomas.

I'm not sure why this personal insult suddenly falls in the middle of this long section of freeform prose.

Quote:

The main problem with the data you presented is that just like the IPCC they do not go back far enough in time. In past meetings of the IPCC they did go back farther in time but once all the gov co money got into the act and money was to be made the inconvenient tail port of the graphs were no longer shown since they did not help make the point. You are young I assume so you do not have as much lived history to draw from so your mistakes are understandable.

You have no idea how old I am. I have no idea how old you area.

Furthermore, those graphs go back to the year 1000. If you want to charge the IPCC with deleting part of their graph then provide evidence. Otherwise there is no reason why anybody here should believe you.

Quote:

Now defend yourself. Find a temperature graph that does not make my point, the search will do you some good.

Hmm, I'm not sure I can find sources as authoritative as "Plant Fossils of West Virginia". I would have thought it was sufficient to provide the graph agreed with by the most people (i.e. literally thousands of them). In any case, I can't see that I'm going to persuade you with more graphs.

That's what conversations are really about, by the way — trying to persuade people. Not trying to win points, no matter how many people you are able to drag into your mire.

Quote:

All your questions kinda hinged on your interpretation of incomplete graphs like you and the IPCC presented.

Perhaps it's demonstrative of your mindset that you plan questions based on their answers? I'd be curious to hear how my questions would be invalid were that graph not accurate.

Quote:

Pissing away billions of dollars trying to solve a non existant problem will definitely reduce the living style for you and your children.

I am not selfish enough to prioritise my standard of living above the need to fight climate change if it is happening. But that isn't what you're suggesting — this is just a tangential aside with no bearing to the main discussion. It's probably calculated so that people get to the end of your post, see something they can agree with, and forget about the rest regardless of their opinions.

CGamesPlay
Quote:

You are young I assume so you do not have as much lived history to draw from so your mistakes are understandable.

Ad hominem, penalty Frank Griffin, minus 5 points.

Erikster

How many points do I get for my post?

(Not this one, the above one)

Dustin Dettmer
Evert said:

You mean, meddle even more with a chaotic system we don't fully understand? You think that's wise?

Uhh.. Yeah! If it's either demise or an attempt who wouldn't try?

Vanneto

One of IWO's1 most famous members, Dr, Van Vanerhouer the II has created a graph that shows in detail:

- The average temperatures in the past.
- Present
- And the future.

{"name":"594652","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/4\/1481cda0fd10ae776575b7ff2624f4c2.png","w":900,"h":500,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/4\/1481cda0fd10ae776575b7ff2624f4c2"}594652

He has done this by combining advanced hyper-nuclear fusion detecting flux generators that can detect tiny Weatherons - these are subatomic particles that make up the weather, I quote:

Dr. Van said:

Weatherons are microscopically sized particles that affect - or better said - make the weather. They are much like electrons and gravitons with one difference - I can prove their existence by scanning them with a Perplextron generator with a charge of approx. 34.2 MG of Heat Energy.

So that has helped him find what the weather will be like in the future and in the past. He is a world class Weather Man and you should read what he wrote in The Daily Weather:

Dr. Van said:

By releasing vast amounts of poisons in to the air the Weatherons are bing disrupted and overheated. This will continue happening until a core overheating happens and their state capacity will become smaller then the Appakars constant (1.77482662862) which will lead to certain death. This is because Weatherons are directly linked with Dark-Grey Matter and Solar nucleus that is most important to Water ( HO2 ) based beings on planet Earth.

Beware! :-/

1 - International Weather Organization.

FMC

;D

James Stanley

I skipped through most of the thread, so this may have been said.

Anybody who is worried about Global Warming (or indeed Global Climate Change), should:

- Turn off their computer now
- Never turn their car on
- Never turn their lights on
- Never turn their TV on
- Never do anything which might use electricity
- Never do anything which might use fuel

If somebody does that then there's a small chance I might listen to them.

Vanneto

Anyone who is worried about dying should:

- Wrap their whole house/furniture/anything they can think of in bubble wrap.
- Wear a Safe suit - made from special foam for extra protection.
- Buy bullet proof glass.
- Create a nuclear-bunker - just in case.
- Make their house disaster safe.
- Have their food tasted for them by their friends - in case of poison.
- ...
- ...
- Never leave the house.

If somebody does that then there's a small chance I might listen to them and believe them that their fear of death is reasonable.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Quote:

If somebody does that then there's a small chance I might listen to them.

::)

Unfortuneatly society is made so you can't live without many of those. Either you have them, or you live in a shack in the mountains alone.

Erikster

No offense Vanneto, but Dr. Van sounds a bit like a crackpot scientist. I'm assuming it's a typo, but the molecule for water is H2O, not HO2.

Also, Weatherons cannot make the weather. (Weather means the state of the atmosphere) It's possible that it can affect the weather, but weather cannot be made.

I also searched the internet far and wide, and couldn't find a device called a Perplextron Generator. Also, MG's aren't units of heat energy.

Sounds like a doomsday doctor spewing techno-jargon in hopes of scaring us to reduce our carbon footprint.

Bullseye!

Vanneto

THIS THREAD IS BOOKMARKED! ;D;D;D

Thomas Fjellstrom
Quote:

Sounds like a doomsday doctor spewing techno-jargon in hopes of scaring us to reduce our carbon footprint.

Actually, it sounds like sarcastic humor.

amber

Actually, I think Weatherons were featured in a Star Trek episode once. ;D :P

james_lohr

Frank, I suggest for your own benefit that you stick to prevailing theories in the future rather than those which you would like to believe. Your ability to judge credibility leaves a lot to be desired.

State of Fear was a reasonably entertaining read and it clearly captured your imagination, but sorry to break it to you: it was fiction (As was Jurassic Park, in case you were worried about dinosaurs breaking out of your local zoo).

Arthur Kalliokoski

As far as humans CO2 output contributing to global warming, consider how much you'd huff & puff to push even a tiny (Cooper Mini) car for 1 measly kilometer. Also consider that a man on a bicycle is the most efficient self-propelled mechanism ever discovered. Not taking into account that the man & bicycle is a very small fraction of the mass of the Cooper. And "energy efficient" automobiles get %20 efficiency as far as converting the energy of gasoline into motion. I don't know the efficiency of a man converting calories to mechanical energy.

Andrei Ellman
Frank Griffin said:

Us humans emit CO2 and I dont like to think that we are polluting this planet everytime we exhale. I wonder if a murderer at some point will say he was trying to help stop global warming. Some stupid woman in England said this was the reason she had a abortion.

The CO2 emitted by respiration comes from the food that we ate which was grown fairly recently. This means the CO2 we exhale was taken out the atmosphere about one year ago (by Photosynthesis), and that same ammount of CO2 ends up being captured by growing crops etc. Whereas fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago, so burning them adds carbon from millions of years ago into the atmosphere, and it will take millions of years for that CO2 to return to it's fossil fuel state. Even smoking only adds CO2 that wouldn't have been taken out the atmosphere had the tobacco not been grown (although if you use a lighter instead of matches, you're using fossil-fuel (whereas with matches, the CO2 was taken out the atmosphere by the tree which was grown fairly recently (in the timescale of the fossil-fuel carbon-cycle))).

Harry Carey said:

I have never understood the obsession with making sure the planet is left in the same condition as when we were born. Is it a religious thing? "God wants the planet to be THIS was. I know because He told me so."

Leaving things in the same state ecologically means we reduce the risk of upsetting the climatic equilibrium that sustains us. When it comes to adding CO2 to the atmosphere, we risk harming an equilibrium that could raise the temperatures to a hotter equillibrium (even then, not everything will be able to cope). Or in a worse case scenario, a runaway greenhouse effect. The truth is that we don't know whether or not our CO2 production is likely to upset the equilibrium but it's best not to take the risk.

<disclaimer: what follows is pure speculation at best (although some parts of it do have a basis in science, the whole is just speculation)>
The increase in CO2 (a greengouse gas) causes the ice-caps to retreat, thus exposing more of the surface. Because of the surface's darker colour, more heat is absorbed, thus causing even more ice to melt. This is what's known as a positive feedback mechanism. But then, it gets worse. The permafrost which currently locks up Methane (another greenhouse gas) melts releasing the methane. Further warming could cause the release of frozen methane-hydrates from the ocean floor. All this warming could then cause more forest-fires - releasing yet more CO2 into the atmosphere. Also, the resulting heat will cause more evaporation - adding more water-vapour (another greenhouse gas). Sooner or later, with all these positive feedback mechanisms in place, the temperature may eventually rise to 100c. This will cause the oceans to boil, adding yet more water-vapour into the atmosphere - not to mention the ocean's ability to absorb CO2 will be gone because there is no more ocean. Because air is not as good as conducting heat as water, the geological faults are not cooled down so easily. This will result in increased tectonic preasure culminating in increased volcanism that not only releases more CO2 into the atmosphere, but also releases sulphur. This sulphur forms sulphuric acid which comes down in the form of acid-rain. This acid-rain causes erosion of the carbon-containing rocks which leads to out-gassing of more CO2. Any organic matter that has not burned will do so leading to more CO2
</end of warning>

For all we know, our present rate of CO2 production may not be sufficient to produce a runaway greenhouse effect, or for that matter, create an equilibrium that's slightly warmer than the current equilibrium. But IMO, considering the stakes are so high, this is not a risk worth taking. What we do know is that adding greenhouse gasses to a mixture of gasses does increase heat-absorbing properties of the mixture. But what we don't know is by how much the temperature would have to increase to cause a runaway greenhouse effect to occur. 50c? 5c? 0.5c? We don't know. However, it is speculated that something similar did happen to the planet next door (Venus). Venus is closer to the sun and thus recieves more solar energy. This solar energy pushed the greenhouse-process beyond the point of no return. Although this scenario does assume that Venus started off similar to Earth. Even if we don't know if we're getting close to the point of equilibrium, one thing we can do to reduce the risk is living a more sustainable lifestyle.

For further reading, see an old post of mine and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

amber said:

Quote:

How do we know burning of fossil fuels harms the environment?

Stand near some burning fossil fuels and take a deep breath. :)

Actually, standing over burning fossil fuels causes a different kind of harm than large-scale burning of fossil fuels. In the former case, you will find the smell of the burning fossil-fuel unpleasant, risk getting injured by smoke-inhallation, and you risk setting your face on fire if you breathe too close to the source. Whereas in the latter case, increasing the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to global warming (the actual smoke is by then too diluted to cause any significant harm).

AE.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Quote:

Whereas fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago, so burning them adds carbon from millions of years ago into the atmosphere,

The rampant life that grew when the oceans covered much more land than now? So there was "global warming" then (although the then-current life forms adapted, or maybe the darwin selection thing)

alethiophile
Quote:

Allow me to summarize your post:

Frank Griffin basically said:

I read a bunch of crap of on the internet that supports my previously held bias, therefore it must be true!

This is going back to something earlier, but I love it when someone says something flame-worthy and I find out that someone else has already done it. 8-)

Frank Griffin

The IPCC has 1,600 scientists that signed the document and some of them deny that their research actually supports the IPCC conclusions. I will have to hunt down the link but there is another document of about 17,000 scientists that say man made global warming does not exist or is way over hyped. So basically more scientist do not believe in it. The climatologist who created the weather channel said that global warming is probably the greatest hoax ever to be played upon the world. So I am in good company.

So Thomas what do you think about the higher temps in the past with the assumption you dont think the chart makers are lying. Everyone can agree on the graph you provided, I just assert that it does not go back far enough in time. I only asked you one question and you failed to answer it so it looks like you are not living up to your own standards.

The claims of global cooling are not contradicted? It shur looks like they have been. All of this is just part of a bigger cycle that your time line does not show. You need to go back just a little farther in time.

The polar ice caps on Mars happened to retreat at the same time they did on earth. How many SUVs are on mars? Is it the Co2 or the Sun?

With your definition of bias anyone with an opinion on anything is now biased.

As for spending money we could go off into a million different directions but intelligent choices need to be made on which should be mitigated with limited resources. While people like you would spend billions on fighting GW I would use our resources on proven dangers with reasonable chances of success. Another one of these would be the ability to nudge an asteroid from hitting the earth. This would be far more worthy of our tax dollars. Every dollar spent on a goose chase is a dollar less to use on the real dangers that face us.

Neil Black
A link from Frank Griffon said:

Was man really responsible for pulling the Earth out of the Little Ice Age with his industrial pollution? If so, this may be one of the greatest unheralded achievements of the Industrial Age!

If man ended the "little ice age" unnaturally, then what happens when the natural end comes along?

Quote:

will have to hunt down the link

[sarcasm]ok, until then I'll just blindly follow whatever you say[/sarcasm]

Quote:

what do you think about the higher temps in the past with the assumption you dont think the chart makers are lying. Everyone can agree on the graph you provided, I just assert that it does not go back far enough in time.

If you look at the second graph he put in that post, it goes back as far as one of the ones on one of the sites you linked to. And it shows a different trend. So someone's graph is wrong.

Quote:

The polar ice caps on Mars happened to retreat at the same time they did on earth.

The ice caps on Mars aren't retreating as quickly as ours. No one is denying that Earth goes through warming and cooling trends, we're just asserting that man is increasing the current warming trend to dangerous levels.

Quote:

With your definition of bias anyone with an opinion on anything is now biased.

That's pretty much what bias is, a pre-formed opinion. Everyone is biased, we must learn to look past our own biases when confronted with truth.

Quote:

While people like you would spend billions on fighting GW I would use our resources on proven dangers with reasonable chances of success.

Even if global warming isn't "proven" there's enough evidence that we should do something. Even with the chance that we're wrong, the consequences of inaction if we're right are too great to ignore. Unless you want to live through (or not live through, as is more likely) a catastrophic shift in global climate.

Quote:

Another one of these would be the ability to nudge an asteroid from hitting the earth.

Wow, you're claiming you want to combat real, undeniable problems, then you bring up asteroids hitting Earth. Do you know how unlikely that is? Sure, it's a possibility, and I do worry about it from time to time. But there's a better chance of dying from global warming than from an asteroid. I'm hate to break it to you, but movies like Armageddon and Deep Impact are fiction.

Dustin Dettmer

I just heard on the Discovery channel that after the first hour of swimming your body breaths 30,000 gallons of air a minute which is a hell of a lot more than normal.

I think in complete seriousness we should outlaw this CO2 producing activity. To think of how selfish those people are being... just makes me sick you know?

Evert
Quote:

I think in complete seriousness we should outlaw this CO2 producing activity.

For (!@*^&(! sake learn to read!
Recycling CO2 that's already part of the carbon cycle is not and never was a problem. Any problem comes from adding carbon to the cycle (ie, burning fossil fuels).

Dustin Dettmer

Right, we have to stop all these monstrosities. Swimmers and automobile drivers should be banned from performing these acts in public.

Edgar Reynaldo

30,000 gpm * (1 minute / 60 seconds) = 500 gallons of air per second?? ???

When I had cable , I used to watch the Discovery channel a lot but I don't think I ever learned anything. Pretty pictures though. :D
If the sci-fi channel didn't exist I don't think there's any reason I would really want cable except for maybe the independent movie channel.

Back on topic :
Teachers' Domain: Global Warming: Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect

linked web page said:

When we extract coal and oil from Earth's crust and then burn these fossil fuels to provide energy for transportation, heating, cooking, electricity, and manufacturing, we are adding carbon to the atmosphere more rapidly than it is naturally removed through sedimentation and photosynthesis. Because of this, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are higher today than they have ever been over the last half-million years or more.

Can everyone agree on that at least?

Thomas Harte

To be honest, most of what I would otherwise have said has been well-covered by others already, so I'll just focus on this bit:

Quote:

So Thomas what do you think about the higher temps in the past with the assumption you dont think the chart makers are lying. Everyone can agree on the graph you provided, I just assert that it does not go back far enough in time. I only asked you one question and you failed to answer it so it looks like you are not living up to your own standards.

Neil Black has dealt with whether or not your previous posts actually agree with the graphs I provided, I take issue with "I only asked you one question and you failed to answer it".

The post which I believe you are suggesting contains a question begins with "Grab your pop corn." and ends with "... will definitely reduce the living style for you and your children. "

That post does not contain a single question mark outside of the areas quoted from my earlier post. I've noticed that you don't always use "correct" punctuation, so it's probably worth looking further at the contents.

The first part of the post (from the begining down to "...Guess what YOU are back in style my friend") contains your answers to five questions I'd posed. None of your answers pose any questions. There's then a personal attack, an allegation that the IPCC have orchestrated a cover-up of evidence and another personal attack (taking us to "You are young I assume so you do not have as much lived history to draw from so your mistakes are understandable").

There is then a request to defend myself. I did this with my original follow-up post. You instruct me to "find a temperature graph that does not make my point" and in my original follow-up I explained that I'd already done that. Then you gave us insight into how you think people formulate questions when taking part in discussions.

Finally you closed on an assertion that money should only be spent if it makes sense to spend it.

At no point did you ask me "one question". I would be interested to hear which part of the post you think constitutes asking me "one question" and exactly what you think the question was.

I also feel reassured that the worst thing you can think of to say about "my standards" is that I may not be living up to them. If that is true then I'm proud — I consider it admirable to attempt to better oneself.

Evert
Quote:

Right, we have to stop all these monstrosities. Swimmers and automobile drivers should be banned from performing these acts in public.

Ok. So, assuming you understood what I wrote in my previous post, I take it you are of the opinion that swimmers consume fossile fuel?
Neat, I didn't know that one.

Fladimir da Gorf
Quote:

The IPCC has 1,600 scientists that signed the document and some of them deny that their research actually supports the IPCC conclusions. I will have to hunt down the link but there is another document of about 17,000 scientists that say man made global warming does not exist or is way over hyped.

:D My aunt's sister's dogs's friend just told me there's another 18,000 scientists who say the earth is flat! OH NO!

jhuuskon

There's nothing quite like waking up at noon on a monday, still a bit buzzed from last night and discovering a thread like this that has derailed into an epic lulzfest.

GullRaDriel

I can say nothing that is better than what you said, jhuuskon.

Slartibartfast

I disagree, cheesecake is better than what jhuuskon said.

Frank Griffin

Like I said before you are not living up to your own standards Thomas. If you feel my comments rise to the level of personal attacks I think you have a very low threshold for declaring that. You seem to have made several nice little so called personal attacks of your own. Let me share some of your ignorance or forgetfulless on the subject.

"You are also apparently completely incapable of understanding the issues, beyond pulling some key words out of newspaper headlines and forming your own pseudo-scientific beliefs."

"I appreciate that's quite a few questions in a row, so I anticipate you will ignore most of them or try to brush the group of them away without further comment.
"

"Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll start doing his opinionated and logic bereft rants to them instead of us?"

"Do you think there's a way we could get some sort of hotline fitted to his house, so we can just get him to come and deal with it every time Frank Griffin posts one of these idiotic posts of his?"

"One of the many reasons that I think nobody is engaging you in conversation is that you spend half your posts playing to an audience that you imagine is the primary reason for the existence of bulletin boards like this.

As you seem to be with your evidence, I notice that you are ignoring any parts of any posts that don't fit with what you want to say."

"That's what conversations are really about, by the way — trying to persuade people. Not trying to win points, no matter how many people you are able to drag into your mire."

"We're saying the earth rotates around the sun, you're saying that it's flat and illuminated at God's discretion."

"And your bias stopped you from giving due attention to any articles that disagreed with your point of view."

"I dare expect you'll be back next week with a post titled "When will people accept that you can square a circle?"

Let me also remind you that use started off posting on this thread with insults without even contributing to the discussion in any way. I hope I gave enough examples of your behavior to sufficiently make my point to you on this matter?

You are also a picky little bugger. You are right I didnt ntnotsk a question it was a suggestion that you try to intelligently answer my assertion that your time lines do not go back far enough to see the VERY visible pattern of heating and cooling from the past. This would go a long way to help you understand that this is just a cycle that has been repeated over and over throughout history.

I will put it in question form since you have trouble functioning without explicit commands.

Do you see a pattern of warming and cooling going back the last 100,000 years?

Does the warming during peak tetemperatureseach levels equivalent to todays warming?

Since I personally see nothing special about our current warming tend from looking at past temperatures what makes this warming period so special? The spikes and troughs look the same during each heating and cooling cycle.

I appreciate that's quite a few questions in a row, so I anticipate you will ignore most of them or try to brush the group of them away without further comment.

Ok now on to other biz. The poster meaning for bias implied that the opinion was based on nothing. Opinion based in fact is a good thing. Thats how good decisions are made. Opinion based on feeling is called liberalism.

Just to inform some people on what the drudge report is and is not. The Drudge report is a collection of news that has been reported else where. It rarely creates its own news. Think of it as a collection point of the days most interesting new reports.

Neil Black
Quote:

You are also apparently completely incapable of understanding the issues, beyond pulling some key words out of newspaper headlines and forming your own pseudo-scientific beliefs.

Whether or not you're actually incapable of understanding the issues, he's at least partly right because you obviously don't understand the issues.

Quote:

I appreciate that's quite a few questions in a row, so I anticipate you will ignore most of them or try to brush the group of them away without further comment.

I read this as a comment on the likelihood of you answering those questions, not your capability to do so. If he hadn't made this comment you probably wouldn't have answered his questions.

Quote:

Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll start doing his opinionated and logic bereft rants to them instead of us?

While I agree with this statement, it is a personal attack and doesn't improve his argument so it would have probably been best left unsaid.

Quote:

Do you think there's a way we could get some sort of hotline fitted to his house, so we can just get him to come and deal with it every time Frank Griffin posts one of these idiotic posts of his?

You are getting kind of tiresome, Frank.

Quote:

One of the many reasons that I think nobody is engaging you in conversation is that you spend half your posts playing to an audience that you imagine is the primary reason for the existence of bulletin boards like this.

In other words, A.cc is not your personal forum to spread your political ideals. Sure, you can talk about how you think things should be, but when every other member who answers you disagrees, maybe it would be best to drop the issue.

Quote:

That's what conversations are really about, by the way — trying to persuade people. Not trying to win points, no matter how many people you are able to drag into your mire.

This thread really has become a mire, hasn't it?

Quote:

We're saying the earth rotates around the sun, you're saying that it's flat and illuminated at God's discretion.

We're listening to the science that, while not giving a comfortable message, is probably right. You're trying to rationalize a belief that the world isn't changing in order to justify ignoring this worrying new science.

Quote:

And your bias stopped you from giving due attention to any articles that disagreed with your point of view.

This is completely true. Look at the evidence on our side, not just what we've posted but the other evidence out there. Look at it objectively and you'll see that while Earth does go through warming and cooling trends (no one is trying to deny that), man seems to have pushed this warming trend to dangerous levels.

Quote:

I dare expect you'll be back next week with a post titled "When will people accept that you can square a circle?

This is simply pointing out the number of mostly pointless and completely useless threads you've created. It's another personal attack, but since it's trying to shame you into not making more threads like this it at least has a good purpose.

Now that I'm done explaining the things you quoted I'll move on to your actual post.

Quote:

You are also a picky little bugger.

Personal attack. I'm not going to say anything against it because I've made a few myself. But both of you are being hypocrites on this subject by denouncing personal attacks and then using them

Quote:

You are right I didnt ntnotsk a question it was a suggestion that you try to intelligently answer my assertion that your time lines do not go back far enough to see the VERY visible pattern of heating and cooling from the past. This would go a long way to help you understand that this is just a cycle that has been repeated over and over throughout history.

Yes, we all see the pattern. The problem, as I've pointed out before, is that man has increased the current warming trend, and we may have pushed it into dangerous levels.

Quote:

I will put it in question form since you have trouble functioning without explicit commands.

Another personal attack.

Quote:

Do you see a pattern of warming and cooling going back the last 100,000 years?

I've made my views on this clear.

Quote:

Does the warming during peak tetemperatureseach levels equivalent to todays warming?

Yes, it does. But our warming doesn't seem to have peaked, does it?

Quote:

Since I personally see nothing special about our current warming tend from looking at past temperatures what makes this warming period so special? The spikes and troughs look the same during each heating and cooling cycle.

Like I said in answer to your last question, the current warming trend hasn't peaked yet, even though it's already reached the peaks of other warming trends. Unless you go back to before the dawn of man, but that isn't applicable because the whole point is that the warming is reaching levels that are dangerous to man, and man wasn't around to be endangered during the Triassic.

Quote:

I appreciate that's quite a few questions in a row, so I anticipate you will ignore most of them or try to brush the group of them away without further comment.

What's the point of this? So far he has shown that he will answer every part of you post (for that matter so have I). Saying this just makes you look stupid and ruins what little credibility you have left.

Quote:

Ok now on to other biz.

Sorry, you don't get to arbitrarily end the argument.

Quote:

The poster meaning for bias implied that the opinion was based on nothing. Opinion based in fact is a good thing. Thats how good decisions are made.

You're right, bias was the wrong word to describe your opinion. "Wrong" would have been a much better word to describe your opinion.

Quote:

Opinion based on feeling is called liberalism.

Now you're throwing personal attacks at an entire group of people. What's worse is that you're wrong.

Quote:

Just to inform some people on what the drudge report is and is not. The Drudge report is a collection of news that has been reported else where. It rarely creates its own news. Think of it as a collection point of the days most interesting new reports.

I'll have to claim ignorance on this one. I don't recall seeing this mentioned in the thread, although I may have just missed it.

Slartibartfast
Quote:

Opinion based on feeling is called liberalism.

This seems like an opinion based on feeling, which makes you a liberal.
And I have just expressed an opinion that is based on a feeling that your opinion is based on a feeling, which I guess makes me a liberal as well.
Damn. Contagious.

Fladimir da Gorf

I believe no one in this thread is capable of arguing this subject since none of us are really experts on the subject. Frank, do you really believe that all those 16,000 scientists that agree on the climate change have never seen the things you just posted? They know it pretty well. In fact, we were teached those things in a school biology class. But they also know the facts that you don't know.

A few years back only something like half of the top environmental scientists agreed that the global warming existed. Now it's almost difficult to find anyone who disagrees with it. That's not because they're brainwashed (after all, disagreeing with the mainstream opinion gets you to news much easier), but because with all the gathered facts, somehow they're still convinced.

I bet a better idea than discussing this in a programmer forum would be to find a forum or chat which is regulated by professionals on the subject. There you can try if you get all those scientists believe you. Maybe in the meantime they could provide you with the facts you're missing.

Frank Griffin

Neil Black your quoting and commenting on every line of a post is a bit much. The post was mainly directed for Thomas I do not want you to do his homework for him especially since you seem to be misinformed on most counts. Neil you miss the beauty of my comments towards Thomas. The very first post he made was an attack and he has posted way more comments that could be considered attacks. Then he gets upset after interpreting something as a slight to him and he declares a problem with personal attacks. Doesnt this stike you as funny, kinda reminds me oh HRC. His mindless comment about me ignoring questions if foolish since look I am even responding to your posts about me that were not even directed at you hehe. I try to answer most questions or comments. I reused some of the same verbage he sent my way since he does not live up to his own standards. "Sorry, you don't get to arbitrarily end the argument" jeez you are just looking for trouble. I spent the whole top portion of the post trying to get Thomas up to speed and I was just turning my attention to other posts. I do not expect to convince people like you or thomas. I may sway a few people that are more open minded and less confrontational about their beliefs. That does not mean that you are even wrong since people interpret data differently. I also figured someone like you would latch upon the quotes and have to comment on them and look you are the lucky winner to get there first congrats. The play by play on almost every single sentence is truly "getting kind of tiresome" as you would put it.

Now on to more important Biz.

BTW Niel global warming stopped 10 years ago. Global cooling began 3 years ago.
Time to jump on board the new band wagon before the grant money runs out.

Here is that link I told you guys about. There is a petition containing 19,000 signatures now from scientists that disagree with the Global warming Hoax. They are urging the USA to avoid costly co2 caps and argue that a modest increase in temperature is actually good for the planet.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm

I may have typed it wrong but there are 1,600 who signed the IPCC document not 16,000. There are far more scientists that disagree with global warming than agree with it. The true believers in global warming are just more vocal. This is the off topic area if I remember correctly. You are correct that this is a scientific issue BUT the main push behind action on this are political people like Al Gore who is no more qualified than all of us to make this decision so I see nothing wrong with us talking about it. Enough facts are sitting right in front of us. The main problems is how they are being interpeted. Misguided spending will have consequences even on all of us programmers so it is relevant. There will never be a aha moment about this because the issue is just going to slowly disapear without any fan fare just like 99% of all the mass media scares do.

Fladimir da Gorf
Global Warming Petition Project said:

The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment

:D:D:D:D Yeah, right!

There's no telling if those people who have signed the petition have any knowledge of the area. Many of them don't even seem to have reported if they're scientists at all.

Still, the numbers are not comparable. You may think that only the 17,000 scientists agree on global warming. In reality there is probably a lot more.

Quote:

BTW Niel global warming stopped 10 years ago. Global cooling began 3 years ago.

OK now I have no idea where you got that information. It's not supported by any of the sites that were linked here.

Oh, and before continuing this rant, Frank, could you please at least read the Wikipedia article on this subject?

Dustin Dettmer
Evert said:

Neat, I didn't know that one.

Shesh, don't take me so seriously.

Thomas Harte
Quote:

While I agree with this statement, it is a personal attack and doesn't improve his argument so it would have probably been best left unsaid.
...
But both of you are being hypocrites on this subject by denouncing personal attacks and then using them

These are valid criticisms.

Quote:

Neil you miss the beauty of my comments towards Thomas. The very first post he made was an attack and he has posted way more comments that could be considered attacks. Then he gets upset after interpreting something as a slight to him and he declares a problem with personal attacks.

I think you misinterpret. The first posts were emotional, the more recent are logical. In my opinion, as already stated, your views are overwhelmingly based on biases you formed a long time ago and not on objective thought. Regardless of whether I'm correct about that (I've already had your say, and for the record, you've already denied that such is the case), in my experience, people who have that condition are often not willing to enter into rational debate. It can therefore be futile to attempt it. In this thread I launched on completely the wrong foot.

However, I do think it's correct to say that I have become increasingly civil over the course of this thread, whereas you have done the opposite. If that's because you perceive me to still be writing every post as a direct attack on your character rather than your opinions then that's understandable. But I still maintain that it is true.

As I consider that your most recent post directed at me was based on that pattern, I'm going to take it in good character and offer you the opportunity to re-express it in a form removed of any character comments before I respond to it. Similarly I'm not going to respond to any of your new concerns for the time being.

I appreciate that it is not, and should not be, your responsibility to do that if your hostility is a result of my original hostility. However, I think it would be a justified courtesy to do so.

Neil Black

EDIT:

For the record, this is the last time my posts will be this long in this thread.

END EDIT

I like what their petition says: "BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, and related disciplines" No requirement for any knowledge in this field. Checking through the list of signers, I found some biologists, a few physicists, a chemist, and others, whose training had nothing to do with climatology or weather or anything related to global warming. So it's basically 19,000 random college educated people.

Quote:

Neil Black your quoting and commenting on every line of a post is a bit much.

Don't think putting it all in a huge block of text will stop me.

Quote:

The post was mainly directed for Thomas I do not want you to do his homework for him especially since you seem to be misinformed on most counts.

If it was directed for Thomas then use private messages, that's what they're there for.

Quote:

Neil you miss the beauty of my comments towards Thomas. The very first post he made was an attack and he has posted way more comments that could be considered attacks. Then he gets upset after interpreting something as a slight to him and he declares a problem with personal attacks. Doesnt this stike you as funny

So it's ok for you to do it because he did it first? I think you're both in the wrong in the area of personal attacks (actually, all of us are, because I've done it a few times myself).

Quote:

His mindless comment about me ignoring questions if foolish since look I am even responding to your posts about me that were not even directed at you

You saying it about him was mindless because he had already demonstrated his willingness to answer all parts of a post. At the time he said it you had demonstrated no such willingness. He has since been proven wrong, but you were proven wrong before oyu even said anything.

Quote:

I do not expect to convince people like you or thomas. I may sway a few people that are more open minded and less confrontational about their beliefs.

Please don't call me close-minded simply because I don't agree with you. That's another personal attack, which if you'll notice I'm trying to stop doing. I won't argue about the confrontational bit, though. ;D

Quote:

I also figured someone like you would latch upon the quotes and have to comment on them and look you are the lucky winner to get there first congrats.

I win? YAY! I want my prize.

Quote:

The play by play on almost every single sentence is truly "getting kind of tiresome" as you would put it.

My logic for the line-by-line is this: maybe you'll either understand what I'm tying to tell you and realize how wrong you are (and you are wrong), or you'll go away. Either way, the community wins.

Quote:

BTW Niel global warming stopped 10 years ago. Global cooling began 3 years ago.

Really? And your proof is?

Quote:

Time to jump on board the new band wagon before the grant money runs out.

Sorry, I don't jump on board bandwagons. Too many diseases. I prefer to study the facts and go with the side I agree with, no matter which side is more popular.

Quote:

I may have typed it wrong but there are 1,600 who signed the IPCC document not 16,000. There are far more scientists that disagree with global warming than agree with it.

Just because there's more of them doesn't make them right. Who's jumping on the bandwagon now?

Quote:

his is the off topic area if I remember correctly. You are correct that this is a scientific issue BUT the main push behind action on this are political people like Al Gore who is no more qualified than all of us to make this decision so I see nothing wrong with us talking about it.

EDIT2:

edited because I was being hypocritical.

You're annoying the crap out of everyone, for one thing. I have no problem with you believing global warming is a hoax. You can believe the U.S. government controls world temperatures with giant underground radiators for all I care. I hope you don't have a problem with the fact that I think you're wrong, and that if you're going to come onto a public site and declare as fact something that I think is wrong, them I'm going to tell you that it's wrong. If you're lucky, I might even take the time to tell you why.

END EDIT2

Quote:

There will never be a aha moment about this because the issue is just going to slowly disapear without any fan fare just like 99% of all the mass media scares do.

Believe me, I sincerely hope that's true. However, given that it is more likely that something bad will happen due to this climate change, it's in our best interests to try to do something about it.

imaxcs

I am being on your side on the main issue, but...

Quote:

My logic for the line-by-line is this: maybe you'll either understand what I'm tying to tell you and realize how wrong you are (and you are wrong), or you'll go away.

Quote:

You can believe the U.S. government controls world temperatures with giant underground radiators for all I care. But don't tell me I'm wrong because I disagree with you.

First you tell Frank that he is wrong and then you tell him he shouldn't tell you because you disagree with him... :P

Neil Black

... oops. Let me re-think that hypocritical statement.

EDIT:

Ok, I fixed it. I feel dumb for doing that in the first place.

Frank Griffin

Yep that was kinda funky reading. You have told me I am wrong several times meaning that you are right. You have just complained to me for such statements. You and Thomas both have trouble abiding by your own rules. I of course have set no rules for my self (like a democrat) so I am just fine hehe. Your wanting me to go away reminds me of children holding their hands over their eyes and ears not wanting to listen to something they dont want to hear. Dont take this as an attack but really how old are you two? Dont worry because like a good teacher I am here to help you so I am not going away but you two keep coming back to learn more and this way the community wins.

BTW Thomas still has not answered my questions thus proving he cannot live up to his own rules. Of course that does not stop him from creating more rules or hoops for people to jump thru.

The US Government does not control world temperatures with giant underground radiators just to help yea out there.

You are right about the 19,000 being a collection of individuals that are probably not all climatologists but the IPCC signatories are not all weather related individuals also. Also not all signatories want their good name on the IPCC document anymore.

I will find the link about the last 10 years of global temperatures for yea.

Here is a another good article from the drudge report. It is about how the founder of the weather channel, he is preparing to sue Al Gore to expose the global warming fraud along with the carbon credit schemes.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080303175301.aspx

Fladimir da Gorf

Frank, I hope you understand that the weather channel guys are just after money? And that site you linked is owned by industry lobbyists?

But anyways, it's been fun to read your posts. They just get better every day.

Thomas Harte
Quote:

You and Thomas both have trouble abiding by your own rules.

I'll reiterate the thoughts I semi-iterated earlier. If you have trouble with some of the "rules" that are being set out in this argument then please explain what they are. If you agree with the "rules" then why do you keep giving them ownership?

Quote:

Your wanting me to go away reminds me of children holding their hands over their eyes and ears not wanting to listen to something they dont want to hear.

It reminds me of the last time I had a cold. My body didn't enjoy it, so it wanted it to go away. Childish body.

Quote:

Dont take this as an attack but really how old are you two? Dont worry because like a good teacher I am here to help you so I am not going away but you two keep coming back to learn more and this way the community wins.

The question isn't a personal attack. The part afterwards clearly is. As a result, and because I don't think it's relevant, I am not inclined to answer this question.

Quote:

BTW Thomas still has not answered my questions thus proving he cannot live up to his own rules.

This would be true had I at any point set the rule that "all people must answer all questions addressed to them under all circumstances". You seem to believe I did, and I would be interested to find out how you imputed that. Regardless of whether I did or not:

Quote:

Of course that does not stop him from creating more rules or hoops for people to jump thru.

Please either provide justification for this comment or withdraw it.

Re: your questions rather than the method you use to re-affirm them. The questions as restated by you:

1. Do you see a pattern of warming and cooling going back the last 100,000 years?
2. Does the warming during peak tetemperatureseach levels equivalent to todays warming?
3. Since I personally see nothing special about our current warming tend from looking at past temperatures what makes this warming period so special? The spikes and troughs look the same during each heating and cooling cycle.

1. I am unable to find detailed sources of information that go back 100,000 years. The data you linked to was clearly a simplification, though that isn't surprising given the period it covers. But the way the temperature just jumps from one side to the other makes me think that the author simplified it to communicate the point he wanted more clearly (a good presentation technique and not necessarily to be criticised).

2. I am unable to answer this question due to my answer to part 1. I would assume that it does. I don't think that humans have, or indeed could, find a way to make this planet warmer than it has ever been.

3. What bodies such as the IPCC allege is that this warming period is special because (a) we actually know that it's happening; and (b) human activity is contributing to it in a more than negligible way. If you accept both of those as facts (and for the record, I know that you don't) and believe that increasing temperatures could lead to death then the argument runs that we should curb our activities that contribute to the climate change so as not to exaggerate it further than we already have.

Incidentally, I believe you are new to these boards, and it doesn't affect the quality of your arguments in the slightest, but you can use the '{quote}' and '{/quote}' (but with square brackets instead of curly) tags to produce boxes like this:

Quote:

... you are right about the 19,000 being a collection of individuals that are probably not all climatologists but the IPCC signatories are not all weather related individuals also. Also not all signatories want their good name on the IPCC document anymore.

It's actually 20,000 per the form you get if you want to sign up. I think the front page may be out of date.

Quote:

Here is a another good article from the drudge report. It is about how the founder of the weather channel, he is preparing to sue Al Gore to expose the global warming fraud along with the carbon credit schemes.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080303175301.aspx

Sadly it says that he is advocating that someone sue Al Gore, not that he is preparing to do so. I think the problem is that he doesn't really suggest a plausible legal cause of action.

Neil Black
Quote:

Your wanting me to go away reminds me of children holding their hands over their eyes and ears not wanting to listen to something they dont want to hear. Dont take this as an attack but really how old are you two? Dont worry because like a good teacher I am here to help you so I am not going away but you two keep coming back to learn more

I want you to go away because I am convinced you are wrong in every thread you've made so far. Note my word choice, I don't believe you are wrong, I'm convinced you are wrong. I've put thought into the matter and looked at the evidence and decided that I cannot agree with your viewpoint. Which means I'm tired of hearing it. I won't try to force you to go away, because not only is it a futile effort (you have no reason to listen to me), it goes against my belief in freedom of speech. That won't stop me from wanting you to go away, though.

For you fund of general knowledge, I am 20 years old.

I have learned a lot from this thread, so I guess i will keep coming back to learn more. However, let it be known that what I've learned goes against what you are saying, and you yourself have taught me nothing.

Erikster

I've decided to lighten up the tension in the thread by adding my own sarcastic joke, like Vanneto. (I'm not ripping him off, I'm contributing to his joke.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Actually, the Weather is heavily influenced by small molecules. They're called dihydrogen monoxide molecules. They cause precipitation, clouds, and humidity. If you take a pot of water, and boil it, you can see them float up into the air like smoke.

However, a network of those molecules, put in a temprature of 273.15 K, will turn into a solid object.

Amazingly, this element is essential to human life, and the solid version of it is highly sought after by children during school in the Winter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Get it?

alethiophile

Most amusing. Has anyone seen the sites on "dihydrogen monoxide" and its dangers? Some city actually banned styrofoam cups because they contain it. ::)

BAF

Styrofoam cups contain dihydrogen monoxide? Without being filled with it?

Frank Griffin

It looks like Thomas and Neil have calmed down and have agreed to disagree on this topic. Time will determine who is right and who is wrong not the statement I am right and you are wrong. You should avoid the use of always, never, everything and nothing because you end up not being 100% right which would make you wrong in the end.

The biggest point about all of this Global warming stuff is the hyseria and jump to action mentality without thinking about the consequences. Here is a link to just such a story that popped up today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/news/2008/03/05/nplane105.xml

The airline had a perfectly resonable answer and just like ethanol these people need to look at the whole system. Ethanol is a net loser by the time you look at the total input to create a single gallon of ethanol. The Greenies should have looked at the average of passengers over many flights because I know they would not shuttle five passenger over and over. They also ignore the consequences of canceling this one flight. Holding a single flight back can cause a large chain reaction of problems and people depend on a timely and reliable transportation systems. Could you imagine wanting to take a bus and it arrive 2 hours late because the bus driver refused to leave a stop until he had enough people to make it co2 acceptable. Can you imagine the chaos if every form of transportation acted like this. If a route is unpopular the market will take care of it and it will be phased out or modified all on its own without some do gooder making noise.

This type of behavior is what I expect from many Global warming believers, over reaction without understanding the whole picture. Let the science work itself out and then let the politicians figure out how they can make a buck off of it.

Thomas Fjellstrom

Give it a rest Frank ::)

LennyLen
Quote:

You should avoid the use of always, never, everything and nothing because you end up not being 100% right which would make you wrong in the end.

And you should avoid bringing up peoples age multiple times in a thread. It makes you look like a snotty little 13 yr old who's just started high school and starts talking down to all their 12 friends, telling them they're too young too understand anything.

Vanneto

Frank, you should know...

// != as in "not always"
Age != (Wisdom | Knowledge)

More likely:

Age == Alzheimer && Alzheimer == Bad & Stupidness

Sure, it could be:

Youth == Freshness && Freshness == Ignorance

But nobody's that young. :P

And no offense to anyone who has Alzheimer ( my grandpa has it... its horrible ). Just read another thread and you will forget it in a minute!

Neil Black
Quote:

Time will determine who is right and who is wrong not the statement I am right and you are wrong.

Well if you're right then everything is fine and dandy, but if everyone else on this site is right then we're all screwed if we don't take action now. Time will tell, but it will tell us too late.

Thread #595343. Printed from Allegro.cc