This thread is a shame
Just a shadow of the past
It lacks the spamming
URGENT!
well not really…
i need the assistance of someone smart. can you please give me some information or your thoughts on this “lord christopher monkton” guy. im all for hating politicians and i AM a global warming “denier”, but im too lazy to fact check everything he says.
if you dont know who he is: hes basically the loudest blowhard going after the IPCC, the UN and Al Gore. just youtube him and you’re bound to see something you (dont) like.
I’ll check him out, but just know that I’m coming off of courses studying the raw data of global warming and I think denying global warming is as stupid as not ‘believing’ the earth revolves around the sun.
Maybe you can deny the outcomes predicted by the ipcc or the importance of altering our entire infrastructure ‘just in case’, but denying the greenhouse effect and the human contributions to it is IMHO insane.
In other words, I’ll watch it when I get home, but I heard of this guy in classes last year, and I think even my profs said some of his arguments are purely legit while some are so wrong they just make him look bad…
IMHO, I say we burn them all for witchcraft.
nice someone who’s actually studied this in school.
couple questions i have, and i don’t assume to be right. i’d like legit answers and dont care if im wrong.
- if human contributions of CO2 are to blame for global warming why is the entire solar system seeing increased warming and magnetic activity. by solar system i mean other planets. mars has melting polar icecaps, saturn has a hexagonal magnetic storm in its north pole and jupiter has formed another red spot. all recent planetary changes. (there are more but too lazy to dig them up) This to me suggests the sun plays a larger role in planetary changes than we’re told.
- how do you account for geological evidence that proves periods of warmer temperatures before any industrial developments. namely the famous “medieval warm period”
- why does the IPCC insist on non-transparency and withholding data.
- the famous leaked IPCC e-mails which call for trashing and discrediting of scientists that disagree with their methods, data or conclusions.
- Al Gore is a lying scumbag and also owns 51% of a major carbon credit trading company.
- the argument is often made that the planet’s CO2 levels were in balance, and us adding to it disrupts that delicate balance which creates a terrible downward spiral. however plants breathe CO2 and the planet has a number of self regulating mechanisms to cool itself down, mostly storms and hurricanes. worst case scenario wouldn’t we just see an increase in hurricane and storm weather activity?
- there hasn’t been any significant warming since around 1995 http://monet2.sempre.fi/image/5732 yet CO2 levels continue to rise.
- the effect of water vapor on the green house effect.
these are the most important questions i have that i’d like answered because in all the “research” ive done i can’t find a proponent for anthropogenic global warming that has addressed them. again, i dont assume to be right. im curious.
edit: i don’t agree with christopher monkton’s “solution” of do nothing. i think pollution is a terrible problem on a grand scale, but CO2 /= pollution and global warming is about essentially putting a lock on the economies of the world unless they pay money to world banks for carbon credits, yes?
edit2: added 8 and…
i want to make this clear. it’s obvious the climate is changing, but i think it’s a natural process instead of man made. i also find it funny that it used to be global cooling, then global warming, now climate change.
I could write a rightwing biased tirade about the subject but in all fairness and honesty I strongly suggest you spend some time reading a few newspapers on the subject. I know it sounds like a daunting task to read those novel-sized columns and articles but you’d be doing yourself a big favor if you did.
Everyone has the time to browse the internet for stupid useless shit, so they outta make the time to read up on really important things like this that could affect all our lives.
Emphasis on reading multiple papers by the way. You’ll eventually figure out which ones are biased to which political spectrum. Then read a bit from each. I started small a few years ago and now I can’t imagine going a few days without looking at the CBC, NATIONAL POST and other news sites.
Pfft really important things my ass. Global Warming ain’t gonna change shit in my lifetime. Excuse me while I start pumping some CFCs up into my backyard.
James’ post is epic and I’m tired, aka I’ll do it tomorrow. I tried to write an answer for #6 but I’m way too tired to do it justice. Just know that the earths buffers are temporary methods for slowing down the rise in temperature, but in the end the CO2 gain still has a major affect. The terrible downward spiral people go off about are just people who look at the worst case scenarios that the IPCC has presented. Reason for the confusion is that the amount of global temperature gain per doubling of atmospheric CO2 is between 1.5-4K, which is an extremely large difference in terms of climate (we’ve already doubled CO2). The fear mongering comes when people look into the future and if the world continues on the ‘business as usual’ model, in which 3-8K increases are expected. These numbers are much worse and could lead to the ‘downward spiral’. Not because of the melting of ice caps and all that, but because the loss of the microscopic ocean life that serves as a buffer are extremely sensitive to temperature changes. A 3 degree increase would result in significant losses in the bottom of the food chain, which as you know leads to extreme losses at the top end. And the fear mongers deal with the top end of 8 degrees increase from today’s global temperature, which is essentially unthinkable.
I dunno if there was a point in there or even an answer to your question, but I think its important to know the debate centers around how much temperature increase the CO2 causes, and not if CO2 causes temperature increases.
-
why does the IPCC insist on non-transparency and withholding data. <=== Have you ever tried reading an IPCC release? There is so much data its ridiculous.
-
The answer for #1 is actually very simple and intuitive but I’m too tired to explain it. But in brief, the effects that the atmosphere has on climate far outweigh the affects that the sun has on climate.
-
I don’t know… but put yourself in his shoes. You think the entire world needs to change, you see a solution to do it, you’re a greedy bastard like everybody else on the planet. Thus, you have 51% in a carbon trade company. Problem is carbon trade is not the real solution, there are much better solutions around that do not require so much regulation. Basically one entire course was learning how to increase energy efficiency and how even with today’s oil prices it was cost effective at all steps if done right, and with expected oil prices 10-20 years from now its stupid to not invest in energy efficiency. There’s a venture capitalist who came to talk with us who is trying to make a push for energy efficiency in TO, looking at it from a purely business view, aka ‘if I do this will I save money’, and he is showing that at any time when companies need to renovate, they save massive amounts of money renovating in a way that allows them to save energy. This kind of action is imo a better solution than Gore’s, since gore’s method will essentially never be taken up by big business.
OKAY, real answers to come tomorrow when I’m not so stupidly tired. Ignore this post as its just a rant.
Random edit - I had the largest rant posted here and lost it, gfg.
Long story short, global warming exists, and it does have negative consequences, but not to the extent that the fearmongerers make it out to be. It’s probably because in order to create change, people need to be told that this will affect THEM, as opposed to their grandchildren, hence the exaggerated reports of melting ice caps and rising sea levels.
Except the melting ice caps and rising sea levels are already put in motion such that that is the least that can happen… The melting of the icecaps is a positive feedback system, so there’s no question that they’re already donedoff and 5-10m of sea level rise is inevitable.
The real fearmongers claim global extinction with 5-8k temperature increase…
the potential for this to be a worldwide scam to make money is there, but we’re just supposed to look at the situation half full because the stakes are so high?
didnt they do this with iraq? that genius phrase…we better act now before the only evidence is the smoking gun of an atomic bomb…
governments put everything in the right context to trick you.
thats why so many people are religious despite evidence because the stakes are SO high when you die. some people literally dont want to spend eternity in hell.
im tired of people telling me my whole life to make the “safe bet”. people coming to my door to get me to convert. being sold 8 years ago on iraq (i wasnt, i didnt have to wait 8 years to realize the bush administration wasn’t credible, especially with the video of bush fingering he camera before a speech went live). and now this.
most people these days have the balls to be atheist, i guess cause nukes in iraq and global warming work on people because they have a semi basis in reality and the possibility of being true so our balls to confront religion shrink and we side with the safe bet.
thats really all it takes to make an agenda work, provide an ultimatum scenario where theres a logical bet that has risk, and a safe bet that requires we lose something or adhere to something to remain in control/safe. and the path of least resistance is followed.
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
read the story from last november
Sauga thread with… a discussion about a topic!? BULLSHIT!
I demand a recount
A recount indicates you were able to count before and that is just something I can’t believe.
wow are you serious?
i dont read newspapers?
i dont know what’s on the news box?
you dont know me.
try being more condescending next time, jesus christ.
edit: the fact that you think im right wing biased shows the scope of your understanding.
lol news box
You were asking about global warming, which has received a ton of attention from the press lately, so I assumed you didn’t frequent the news often. My mistake.
Also, I don’t know how you came to the conclusion that I think your right wing.
I’m right wing.
Let’s all be friends.
Global friendship >>>> Global warming???
Okay, attempting some more answers. . .
- The only evidence of warming on mars is a few years data on a single melting ice cap. This is actually assumed to be due to them entering an interglacial period (yes… mars is now them) much like we’re in. This is due to changes in orbit and such and not due to the sun heating up and follows a predictable cycle.
Why its not the sun. . . The output from the sun can be recorded on earth as radiative forcing, and is recorded constantly. Radiative forcing modulates constantly and although it does contribute to short term fluctuations, the average radiative forcing has not increased enough to suggest it is responsible for the observed increases in temperature. The Greenhouse Effect contributes an increase of ~33 K to global temperature, and has the potential to fluctuate more than radiative forcing. To answer #8 as part of this, water IS the most powerful greenhouse gas, but is not a forcing parameter, it is a function of temperature. What I mean by this is that the amount of H2O in the atmosphere is regulated by global temperatures and does not affect global temperature. . . When they do calculations for the effects of other GHG’s, the only reason the values are as high as they are is because they consider also the increase in atmospheric H2O due to the temperature increase from the GHGs themselves.
-
The reason people always site the MWP is because one (and only one) source of data suggested that the MWP was actually warmer than it is now. Scientific evidence highly refutes this claim, and multiple and independent streams of evidence suggest that the 90s were the hottest years in ~two thousand years.
-
I looked into this, and it was more specifically a complaint with the original ‘hockey stick graph’ study by Mann et al which was made famous by Mr. Gore. The thing is, this was only one line of evidence, which even after being shown to have some fudged data and then fixed, still produced the same results. Mann et al also performed another study of the same type which yielded the same results and did not have fudged data
Keep in mind this is just one line of evidence (something about tree rings), but there are many others which are used to determine long term temperature changes that are not so hotly disputed. In addition simple surface temperature measurements cannot really be questioned. . .
Keep in mind this is just one line of evidence (something about tree rings), but there are many others which are used to determine long term temperature changes that are not so hotly disputed. In addition simple surface temperature measurements cannot really be questioned. . .About those leaked e-mails, I read what gk posted about, and I don’t even know wtf was going on, but it doesn’t really matter. The IPCC is just one group of scientists who have put together the evidence independently. There are many (~30-40 I think) different major scientific communities from many different countries that have come to the same conclusion on analysis of the data.
-
Al Gore very well could be a scumbag/douchebag/newsbox.
-
Well that’s just wrong. 1998 was the warmest year on record, and those who claim global warming stopped use 1998 as a point to show that it got cooler since then. Yes it was insanely hot, and yes it was due to a lot of factors coming together to create such a warm year, and yes average temperatures have kept increasing since then. When averaging results of global temperature, 1998 is actually ignored as it is such an outsider it would skew the warming results much more than it should. There are year to year fluctuations of course, but the overall trend is still upwards.
I answered 8).
And to gkr, I’m glad you’re not so easily convinced of many major decisions (religion, war, climate change), but you should try looking at the actual data instead of looking at and linking me the opinion of someone who openly admits he doesn’t understand the raw data and who’s intro claims he is “never wrong”. Just feel its worth asking. . . I understand for the war on iraq the evidence was obviously not presented to the public, but for religion and climate change all the information you need to make an informed decision is available to anybody freely and openly. Before you discovered you had the balls to be an atheist, did you try reading any religious text? Before condemning climate change, have you tried reading primary research on the topic?
My guess is no on both accounts (sorry to assume something about someone I’ve never met/talked to before but I’m trying to make a point here), and in the latter case the evidence is laid out for you in full, not asking you to rely on faith for it to be a reality… It is a reality (to 99.9995% certainty or whatever number they’re currently at).