Lemons Into Lemonade Story of the Day

Of course he will probably be sued by the Cable Company for using the Cable Signal in an unauthorized room.
 
Hamish Campbell said:
No it's really not. The greenhouse effect of excess carbon emissions has been thoroughly tested, is well understood and has never been seriously questioned by anyone in the scientific community once it was verified.

You keep referring to the fact we only have about 150 years of hard global temperature data to work with. Sure it shows a sharp increase in global averages especially since the 1950's. Whatever it's only facts right am i right? You can disregard data all you want, it doesn't matter. You're still left with the fact that we're living in a system that depends heavily on stable levels of naturally occurring greenhouse gases. Humans have introduced copious amounts of these gases at an exponentially increasing rate since the industrial revolution, there's no denying that. Unless of course you think cars and planes and trains and factories and power plants all run on fairy dust and happy thoughts.

Keep living in you're cave of willful ignorance though.
Click to expand...

Azhar said:
Well hold on, Hamish is right about humans emitting tons of greenhouse gases and pollutants. We are, and it's true that it would be ignorant to deny it. Scientists on both sides of the playing field agrees with this fact.

What they do not agree on is whether it has any lasting effect on our climate and planetary health. One side said we're destroying the planet. The other side said our contribution is insignificant.
Click to expand...

I agree with you and your post is very well put albeit a lot less venomous. Yes humans contribute to greenhouse gases.....NO DOUBT. Our factories, livestock, etc.....NO DOUBT. What I'm saying is the looking at the current climate compared to the last 150 years of tracked data and drawing conclusions IS asinine.

Go back 1 billion years and look at a 150 year sample of the Earth's climate. What occurred? We don't know because we can't narrow it down that small. So reviewing this past 150 years and saying positively that HUMANS are the reason the Earth is warmer is stupid. It might just be a cycle that only occurs once every 1,000,000,000 years. It might occur every 10,000,000 or every 1,000. WE DON'T KNOW!
 
Hamish Campbell said:
Hey thanks for pointing out a spelling mistake that would have been changed if this weren't the front page discussion forum.



Where in the world do you get this? Seriously. This is not a political argument. Science is not based on ideology. There isn't some grand conspiracy to keep free thinking conservatives from telling it like it is. The numbers, the data, the research are all neutral. If dissenting opinions were really as prevalent as you claim they would be being voiced. That is what hard science thrives on. You put forth a hypothesis and you try your hardest to DISPROVE it, that's how it works. Man-made climate change as a hypothesis and theory are well established and at this point the only controversy is to what degree our influence is having in the near term.
Click to expand...

Man, no matter what source I post you'll refute it. A lot of scientists who have come out against Global Warming have either been demonized, fired or ignored.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ef55aa3-802a-23ad-4ce4-89c4f49995d2

An excerpt from that article that pretty much says what I've been trying to get across:

MIT Scientist Dr. Robert Rose, a professor of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT with approximately 50 years of experience teaching various scientific, linked warming and cooling cycles to the “orbit and the tilt and wobble of the axis of the Earth's spin.” Rose also questioned climate model predictions on July 8, 2008, by stating, “Clearly, these are not ‘facts.’ They are computer models. They may be correct or at least lead us to the correct answer, but the earliest model appears to be incorrect,” Rose wrote. “Cooler heads [are] needed in global warming debate,” Rose wrote. “Global warming is occurring as it has many times in the past; and it will continue for some years before the cooling cycle begins and the glaciers take over, also as they have in the past. We are trying very hard to develop computer simulations to predict the contribution our activities are making to the warming, and the going has been difficult. These models can't be tested experimentally (unless we can find another planet on which to conduct our experiments) and are tested mostly by fitting them to past behavior, pretty much the same approach as handicapping horse races. http://www.salemnews.com/puopinion/local_story_189213030.html
 
Can't believe he did that alone.

What's up with the strobe light?
 
Hamish Campbell said:
Yea brosef, hate to tell you but we do.
Click to expand...

Humility is a virtue. Those FACTS that you choose to hold on tight to are based on computer models of which the basis for them may be flawed.

Be open minded is all I'm saying man. Surely you can grasp that concept..........right?! :rolleyes:
 
Just to clarify. You just admitted that humans do indeed contribute greenhouse gasses. Now greenhouse gases being what they are (an integral part of earths climate) it logically follows then that humans do indeed contribute to changing our climate.

Whether we've contributed to change isn't debatable. The only question you can ask is; Is it a positive change or a negative change.
 
Speaking out against Global Warming in general is like denying that adding extra insulation to a house will increase its ability to retain heat.

What I find interesting is that the Sun is in a rather low state of activity at the moment, meaning that temperatures should be going down on Earth, if all other variables remained roughly the same. This means that some of those variables got nudged significantly enough to allow the Earth's atmosphere to retain heat better. Since we haven't had any super volcanos erupt lately, the most obvious thing to point at is human contributions to greenhouse gases and similar (CO2, Methane, fine particles in the atmosphere, increased water vapour/clouds) in addition to large scale changes to the surface of the planet, changing the amount and way sunlight is reflected and absorbed by the ground and air.

Wobble of the Earth? Seems pretty insignificant if present as it won't change the surface area of the Earth exposed to the Sun's rays.
 
Hamish Campbell said:
Just to clarify. You just admitted that humans do indeed contribute greenhouse gasses. Now greenhouse gases being what they are (an integral part of earths climate) it logically follows then that humans do indeed contribute to changing our climate.

Whether we've contributed to change isn't debatable. The only question you can ask is; Is it a positive change or a negative change.
Click to expand...

Or..........................negligible. I choose.................to keep an open mind. Join me. ;)
 
Elledan said:
Speaking out against Global Warming in general is like denying that adding extra insulation to a house will increase its ability to retain heat.
Click to expand...

A lot of the scientists speaking out are questioning the "FACTS" and whether HUMANS are the cause of it. I think they're saying we need to keep looking and stop hitting the panic button.

Elledan said:
Wobble of the Earth? Seems pretty insignificant if present as it won't change the surface area of the Earth exposed to the Sun's rays.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, I'll go ahead and take the word of the MIT Professor over yours.
 
Filthy Fernandez said:
A lot of the scientists speaking out are questioning the "FACTS" and whether HUMANS are the cause of it. I think they're saying we need to keep looking and stop hitting the panic button.
Click to expand...
Did I say anything about humans causing GW? Maybe contributing.

Still, if you think that we can bring the CO2 levels in the atmosphere back to those of 65 million year ago by burning all these fossil fuels (when the earth was a lot warmer than now, and the CO2 levels a lot higher), and not invoke any changes, you got to be very much near being delusional.

Respectfully, I'll go ahead and take the word of the MIT Professor over yours.
Click to expand...

He said he didn't know whether wobble would cause it either, just proposed it as an option. I did the same. Learn to read.
 
Filthy Fernandez said:
Man, no matter what source I post you'll refute it. A lot of scientists who have come out against Global Warming have either been demonized, fired or ignored.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ef55aa3-802a-23ad-4ce4-89c4f49995d2

An excerpt from that article that pretty much says what I've been trying to get across:
Click to expand...

First, you're quoting an article introduced by a political group who has a vested interest in glossing over the severity of global warming. Second, of course earth has many different influential factors contributing to its climate cycles over the last 5 billion years. That's obvious and goes without saying. Just as obvious that humans are now one of those influential factors.

Keeping an open mind is one thing, but that's not really what you're doing here is it? By denying the science and quoting politicians or their policy advisers you're kind of lending credence to the opposite opinion by default. In this case the opposing viewpoint is devoid of supporting evidence or any insight at all.
 
Sly said:
Why couldn't you be a normal kid and just built a treehouse?
Click to expand...
We built treehouses also.
It was fun was the biggest reason.
Who wants to sit around in the house all winter?
We were out as much as we could, sledding, snowball fights, building forts and other fun stuff.
In the summer it was building treehouses and teepees as well as bike ramps and race tracks.
Campfires going all day and night, sleeping under the stars, bb gun wars.
One of our summer forts even had a stone fireplace we built.
Good times :}
 
Elledan said:
Did I say anything about humans causing GW? Maybe contributing.

Still, if you think that we can bring the CO2 levels in the atmosphere back to those of 65 million year ago by burning all these fossil fuels (when the earth was a lot warmer than now, and the CO2 levels a lot higher), and not invoke any changes, you got to be very much near being delusional.



He said he didn't know whether wobble would cause it either, just proposed it as an option. I did the same. Learn to read.
Click to expand...

I didn't say we're not contributing to it. In fact, agreed we are. The affect of our contribution is what I'm debating and I'm advocating that we keep an open mind. I can't see how that's a bad thing.

Try being less of a prick and more of an advocate of your own advice; learn to read. :rolleyes:
 
Filthy Fernandez said:
A lot of the scientists speaking out are questioning the "FACTS" and whether HUMANS are the cause of it. I think they're saying we need to keep looking and stop hitting the panic button.

Respectfully, I'll go ahead and take the word of the MIT Professor over yours.
Click to expand...

A sensible attitude. It justifies inaction.

Let's see if we can't steer this thread back on topic: What would it cost to ship all that U.S. snow to the Olympics?

Vancouver warm spell breaks records
 
Hamish Campbell said:
Keeping an open mind is one thing, but that's not really what you're doing here is it? By denying the science and quoting politicians or their policy advisers you're kind of lending credence to the opposite opinion by default. In this case the opposing viewpoint is devoid of supporting evidence or any insight at all.
Click to expand...

I am keeping an open mind and I'm not denying the science. I'm stating there are scientists (SCIENCE) who disagree with the SCIENCE used to reach the conclusions which you are taking as FACTS.
 
Fact: Oh noes there are inconsistencies with the weather!

Response: Let's make some money off of it and cause a panic!

Sometimes I wonder if GW was imagined up on a slow news day as a means to control the population even further.

Bash me all you want, I'm in a house surrounded by 2-3ft of snow in southwest Ohio.
 
Dark Shade said:
Fact: Oh noes there are inconsistencies with the weather!

Response: Let's make some money off of it and cause a panic!

Sometimes I wonder if GW was imagined up on a slow news day as a means to control the population even further.

Bash me all you want, I'm in a house surrounded by 2-3ft of snow in southwest Ohio.
Click to expand...

There was a rumor years ago (I didn't buy into it) that DuPont hyped a lot of the panic around the use of CFC freon in air conditioners/refridgeration. It made the older freon very valuable and the transition to the new freon much quicker. Win/Win for them.
 
Dark Shade said:
Bash me all you want, I'm in a house surrounded by 2-3ft of snow in southwest Ohio.
Click to expand...

How is that relevant to anything? This is basically the same comment Steve made when he posted this article that got this whole sidetrack started. It's the kind of comment that reveals a complete lack of understanding about climate change issues.

Your area receiving a greater amount of snow fall than average in a single winter means next to nothing in this debate.
 
Filthy Fernandez said:
There was a rumor years ago (I didn't buy into it) that DuPont hyped a lot of the panic around the use of CFC freon in air conditioners/refridgeration. It made the older freon very valuable and the transition to the new freon much quicker. Win/Win for them.
Click to expand...

But there's a difference between doing something irresponsibly and it's negligent effects on the climate. Just because we know that carbon monoxide emission isn't going to effect the climate doesn't mean we should keep spewing it. Creating cleaner cars would still be the responsible thing to do. It's the same with CFC and factory emission and everything else.

I live in Chesterton, Indiana and I work downtown Chicago. I see the destruction of the city of Gary, Indiana every day. The city is polluted and destroyed beyond belief. I'm sure many will say the same of South Chicago and Detroit. Being clean for the stake of being clean is always a good thing or we'll be looking at a lot of eyesores in the near future.
 
Hamish Campbell said:
How is that relevant to anything? This is basically the same comment Steve made when he posted this article that got this whole sidetrack started. It's the kind of comment that reveals a complete lack of understanding about climate change issues.

Your area receiving a greater amount of snow fall than average in a single winter means next to nothing in this debate.
Click to expand...

Then Vancouver having a slight heat wave means nothing either.
 
Filthy Fernandez said:
There was a rumor years ago (I didn't buy into it) that DuPont hyped a lot of the panic around the use of CFC freon in air conditioners/refridgeration. It made the older freon very valuable and the transition to the new freon much quicker. Win/Win for them.
Click to expand...

It might have been a 'win win' for them but that doesn't invalidate the concerns about using CFCs. It's a 'win win' for a lot of corporations and the entirety of humanity if we can find ways to drastically reduce our impact on earths climate.
 
Ahhh.... Free time, the source of so many useless but fun projects.

I'd love to be somewhere in the middle from where I am now, I can't get the stuff done I need to at home. Let alone build a man snow cave.

*

AGW - I've become... skeptical... in the last few years. It is not as cut and dry as we are told it is. As a regular reader of ScienceDaily.com in the last few weeks I have read articles saying that glacial melting is not as fast as it is predicted to be and other articles trying to explain why the world hasn't heated as much the last decade as was expected. Huh? I've also read about how two of the major research institutes don't account for the urban heat effect in their data? Huh again? We know this, you pave, local temperatures rise. Furthermore there have been scandals about the practices and statistical methods at another couple of the major research institutes. There are only a handful of institutes that everyone else is basing there data on. Their are major failings in the peer review process at these institutes.

If there is any one thing that we have learned during the last several decades of intensive study in the climate it is that there has never been a stable period for the climate. What is ideal? There is no normal to answer this question.

The problem is not as drastic as the media tells us. Then again, nothing is as drastic as the media tells us.

[/science geek]
 
Ouch... I usually don't fail at the proper use of there and their that hard.

Damned boss making me sit in a meeting with him instead of letting me proof my post.:p
 
This is retarded. All of this time could have been spent looking for another job. Deadbeat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top