Global Warming Myth

[gtownspur]

Check this youtube video.

Avg guy presents a wonderful presentation of how climate scientist are manipulating data, and they're conclusions are wrong.

have an open mind when viewing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHjczyA75jU

[exstatic]

have an open mind when viewing.

Funny quote when you believe 'Avg guy' on YouTube over scientists. Seems like you've pretty much made up yours

[xrayzebra]

^^like you haven't!

[gtownspur]

Funny quote when you believe 'Avg guy' on YouTube over scientists. Seems like you've pretty much made up yours

I knew you wouldnt bother to read.

[01Snake]

Funny quote when you believe 'Avg guy' on YouTube over scientists.

Geez, sounds kinda like Loose Change.

[smeagol]

Amazing that people still doubt global warming.

Even if the jury was out on this subject, isn't it better to play it safe?

It's idiotic.

[ChumpDumper]

Is that Tom Arnold?

[dg7md]

Amazing that people still doubt global warming.

Even if the jury was out on this subject, isn't it better to play it safe?

It's idiotic.

Can not agree more.

[gtownspur]

Amazing that people still doubt global warming.

Even if the jury was out on this subject, isn't it better to play it safe?

It's idiotic.


no.

Obviously you didn't view the vid.

His points were that steps taken towards curving CO2 will not cause any significant change, and will be of a worse consequence.

But you know what they say,


you can spell ARGENTINO with the same letters contained in IGNORANTE.

[gtownspur]

Is that Tom Arnold?


No, it's a minumalist attack and red herring on your part.

[ChumpDumper]

Proving once again that gtown has no sense of humor.

And can't spell.

[sabar]

Geez, sounds kinda like Loose Change.

:tu


Amazing that people still doubt global warming.

Even if the jury was out on this subject, isn't it better to play it safe?

It's idiotic.

:tu

[boutons_]

"It's idiotic."

It's idiotic, satanic ideologies of neo-cons, conservatives, evangelicals etc, that have fucked up the world for the last 6 years.

[gtownspur]

"It's idiotic."

It's idiotic, satanic ideologies of neo-cons, conservatives, evangelicals etc, that have fucked up the world for the last 6 years.


except satan doesn't exist.

[gtownspur]

wow this guy in the video is Definitely no climatologist...



he never claimed such, and pretty much disclosed the whole situation.

[Ya Vez]

nah they rather believe al gore a true scientist and oil capitalist..

check out gores ties to occidental oil... lol..

[Ya Vez]

Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate
by Bill Mesler, Special to CorpWatch
August 29th, 2000

RELATED STORY

Integrity in the Balance
Bill Mesler reports on Gore's broken promises on a toxic Ohio waste incinerator.

For thousands of years, the Kitanemuk Indians made their home in the Elk Hills of central California. Come February 2001, the last of the 100 burial grounds, holy places and other archaeological sites of the Kitanemuks will be obliterated by the oil drilling of Occidental Petroleum Company. Oxy's plans will "destroy forever the evidence that we once existed on this land," according to Dee Dominguez, a Kitanemuk whose great grandfather was a signatory to the 1851 treaty that surrendered the Elk Hills.

Occidental's planned drilling of the Elk Hills doesn't only threaten the memory of the Kitanemuk.
Environmentalists say a rare species of fox, lizard and the kangaroo rat would also be threatened by Oxy's plans. A lawsuit has been filed under the Endangered Species Act. But none of that has given pause to Occidental or the politician who helped engineer the sale of the drilling rights to the federally-owned Elk Hills. That politician is Al Gore.

Gore recommended that the Elk Hills be sold as part of his 1995 "Reinventing Government" National Performance Review program. Gore-confidant (and former campaign manager) Tony Cohelo served on the board of directors of the private company hired to assess the sale's environmental consequences. The sale was a windfall for Oxy. Within weeks of the announced purchase Occidental stock rose ten
percent.

That was good news for Gore. Despite controversy over Dick Cheney's plans to keep stock options if elected, most Americans don't know that we already have a vice president with oil company stocks. Before the Elk Hills sale, Al Gore controlled between $250,000-$500,000 of Occidental stock (he is executor of a trust that he says goes only to his mother, but will revert to him upon her death). After the sale, Gore began disclosing between $500,000 and $1 million of his significantly more valuable stock.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468

[spurster]

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2099971.ece

Disappearing world: Global warming claims tropical island

For the first time, an inhabited island has disappeared beneath rising seas.
Environment Editor Geoffrey Lean reports
Published: 24 December 2006

Rising seas, caused by global warming, have for the first time washed an inhabited island off the face of the Earth. The obliteration of Lohachara island, in India's part of the Sundarbans where the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, marks the moment when one of the most apocalyptic predictions of environmentalists and climate scientists has started coming true.

As the seas continue to swell, they will swallow whole island nations, from the Maldives to the Marshall Islands, inundate vast areas of countries from Bangladesh to Egypt, and submerge parts of scores of coastal cities.

Eight years ago, as exclusively reported in The Independent on Sunday, the first uninhabited islands - in the Pacific atoll nation of Kiribati - vanished beneath the waves. The people of low-lying islands in Vanuatu, also in the Pacific, have been evacuated as a precaution, but the land still juts above the sea. The disappearance of Lohachara, once home to 10,000 people, is unprecedented.

It has been officially recorded in a six-year study of the Sunderbans by researchers at Calcutta's Jadavpur University. So remote is the island that the researchers first learned of its submergence, and that of an uninhabited neighbouring island, Suparibhanga, when they saw they had vanished from satellite pictures.

Two-thirds of nearby populated island Ghoramara has also been permanently inundated. Dr Sugata Hazra, director of the university's School of Oceanographic Studies, says "it is only a matter of some years" before it is swallowed up too. Dr Hazra says there are now a dozen "vanishing islands" in India's part of the delta. The area's 400 tigers are also in danger.

Until now the Carteret Islands off Papua New Guinea were expected to be the first populated ones to disappear, in about eight years' time, but Lohachara has beaten them to the dubious distinction.

Human cost of global warming: Rising seas will soon make 70,000 people homeless

Refugees from the vanished Lohachara island and the disappearing Ghoramara island have fled to Sagar, but this island has already lost 7,500 acres of land to the sea. In all, a dozen islands, home to 70,000 people, are in danger of being submerged by the rising seas.

[smeagol]

Obviously you didn't view the vid.

No, I'm vacationing and therefore, not at my computer


His points were that steps taken towards curving CO2 will not cause any significant change, and will be of a worse consequence.

So? Other real scientists say it will help.


you can spell ARGENTINO with the same letters contained in IGNORANTE.

You calling other people ignorant is hilarious.

[smeagol]

"It's idiotic."

It's idiotic, satanic ideologies of neo-cons, conservatives, evangelicals etc, that have fucked up the world for the last 6 years.
The world has been fucked up for more than six years. Not everything is the Republican's fault. Grow the fuck up.

[Ya Vez]

Just a little fact for mr. boutons..

In 1999, the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 against the Kyoto Protocol, saying the United States should not ratify it unless China and other rapidly developing countries were also required to reduce greenhouse gases...

dam those democrats... not even one voted for it...

[ChumpDumper]

This guy can't stay on point. I'm not going to watch if he keeps talking about DDT and other shit.

[MannyIsGod]

I watched a small portion before his shitty presentation got on my nerves. Besides he states he's only going after one theory so whatever.

[boutons_]

"against the Kyoto Protocol"

typical right wing "defense" of the Repugs. Not that the Repugs did anything right, but that the Repugs are no worse than the Dems.

Ratifying Kyoto would have shown the USA was serious about atmospheric pollution, and would have put the US on the self-imposed path to emission reduction and more generally on an anti-pollution/conservation path.

To say that it's pointless for the USA to impose emission controls because China, etc can't/won't is pointless and chickenshit, and really just a sinister, dishonest way to protect energyco profits.

The USA has the clean technology for new coal-fired plants of which 1000 new plants are to be built around the planet soon. The US govt could subsidize the purchase and contstruction of those plants, rather tha letting the cheap dirty plants be built. The Repugs have let the dirty coal plants in the USA escape installing scrubbers to reduce emissions.

The Repug-compromised EPA is being sued by the states right now for failing to enforce EPA regulations, to protect coal company profits and their dirty plants.

[Ya Vez]

yeah china and india aren't part of the earth and don't contribute to global warming..

HONG KONG, China -- A dense blanket of pollution, dubbed the "Asian Brown Cloud," is hovering over South Asia, with scientists warning it could kill millions of people in the region, and pose a global threat.

In the biggest-ever study of the phenomenon, 200 scientists warned that the cloud, estimated to be two miles (three kilometers) thick, is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths a year from respiratory disease.

By slashing the sunlight that reaches the ground by 10 to 15 percent, the choking smog has also altered the region's climate, cooling the ground while heating the atmosphere, scientists said on Monday.

EXTRA INFORMATION
Asia's 'brown cloud': The facts



The potent haze lying over the entire Indian subcontinent -- from Sri Lanka to Afghanistan -- has led to some erratic weather, sparking flooding in Bangladesh, Nepal and northeastern India, but drought in Pakistan and northwestern India.

"There are also global implications, not least because a pollution parcel like this, which stretches three kilometers high, can travel half way round the globe in a week, " U.N. Environment Program chief Klaus Toepfer told a news conference in London on Sunday.

The U.N.'s preliminary report comes three weeks before the Earth Summit in Johannesburg, which opens on August 26, where all eyes will be on how not to overburden the planet.
Global threat

While haze hovers over other parts of the world, including America and Europe, what surprised scientists was just how far the cloud extended, and how much black carbon was in it, according to A P Mitra from India's National Physical Laboratory.
Pollution Asia's brown haze is altering the weather, creating acid rain. A cocktail of aerosols, ash, soot and other particles, the haze's reach extends far beyond the study zone of the Indian subcontinent, and towards East and Southeast Asia.

While many scientists once thought that only lighter greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, could travel across the Earth, they now say that aerosol clouds can too.

"Biomass burning" from forest fires, vegetation clearing and fossil fuel was just as much to blame for the shrouding haze as dirty industries from Asia's great cities, the study found.

A large part of the aerosol cloud comes from inefficient cookers, where fuels such as cow dung and kerosene are used to cook food in many parts of Asia, says Mitra.

Acid rain

Using data from ships, planes and satellites to study Asia's haze during the northern winter months of 1995 to 2000, scientists were able to track its journey to pristine parts of the world, such as the Maldives, to see how it affected climate.

They discovered not only that the smog cut sunlight, heating the atmosphere, but also that it created acid rain, a serious threat to crops and trees, as well as contaminating oceans and hurting agriculture.

"It was much larger than we thought," said Mitra. The report suggested the pollution could be cutting India's winter rice harvest by as much as 10 percent.

The report calculated that the cloud -- 80 percent of which was made by people -- could cut rainfall over northwest Pakistan, Afghanistan, western China and western central Asia by up to 40 percent.

While scientists say they still need more scientific data, they suggest the regional and global impact of the haze will intensify over the next 30 years.

Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen -- one of the first scientists to identify the causes of the hole in the ozone layer and also involved in the U.N. report -- said up to two million people in India alone were dying each year from atmospheric pollution.

In the next phase of the project, scientists will collect data from the entire Asian region, over more seasons with more observation sites and refine their techniques.

But because the lifetime of pollutants is short and they can be rained out, scientists are hopeful that if Asians use more efficient ways of burning fuel, such as better stoves, and cleaner sources of energy, time has not run out.

The Associated Press & Reuters contributed to this report.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/08/12/asia.haze/

[gtownspur]

I watched a small portion before his shitty presentation got on my nerves. Besides he states he's only going after one theory so whatever.


THe theory being that CO2 is what causes most of the global warming, which is the main theory of man made global warming.

He dissects the IPCC report in which it fails to mention that H20 (Water vapor) itself is the most heat trapping gas and that CO2 is only a trace gas which makes up less than 1 percent of the gases found in our atmosphere.


He also shows holes in the argument of how the chart most often used to show proof that CO2 emmissions have risen immensely has two very different test methods of tracing C02 amounts, not to mention that any CO2 levels taken before 1950 were taken from Antartica, and the later from volcanic rich hawaii. This chart is shown on Al gore's movie and is not a scientific report.


The video also points out that there was a warming period in the middle ages that outdid what we have today. and that the various global warming arguments love to dismiss this argument.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not pundit for what Al Gore says, but I'm not jumping on this guys bandwagon either. He does a piss poor job of addressing the real issues and instead focuses on things he thinks he can disprove. Nevermind other evidence he's not considering into his arguments.

The IPCC's reports are crap and I've said as much here. They ignore shit. But this guy does as much disservice to the issue as anyone else involved. Nevermind that the ocean is completely dying due to that trace element C02 which is completely human caused, lets instead focus on what may be bad science. Good job guy.

What did you mention earlier in this thread? Red Herring was it?

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, the issue with water vapor has been addressed. It took me all of 2 minutes of searching to find a detailed explanation and dude addresses it as if its some weird mystery? Give me a break.

I may sit down and watch the damn thing even though its 2 hours long just to tear holes through his ridiculous arguments.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol @ this guy going back and basically saying "they were wrong before so they must be wrong now" Thats classic.

[gtownspur]

I'm not pundit for what Al Gore says, but I'm not jumping on this guys bandwagon either. He does a piss poor job of addressing the real issues and instead focuses on things he thinks he can disprove. Nevermind other evidence he's not considering into his arguments.

The IPCC's reports are crap and I've said as much here. They ignore shit. But this guy does as much disservice to the issue as anyone else involved. Nevermind that the ocean is completely dying due to that trace element C02 which is completely human caused, lets instead focus on what may be bad science. Good job guy.

What did you mention earlier in this thread? Red Herring was it?


except that man is only responsible for 4 percent of CO2 emmissions. so i don't see the issue here.

[gtownspur]

:lol @ this guy going back and basically saying "they were wrong before so they must be wrong now" Thats classic.


Horrible paraphrase.

[MannyIsGod]

On the Ozone hole:


Although production of ozone-destroying gases has been curtailed under international agreements, concentrations of the gases in the stratosphere are only now reaching their peak. Due to their long persistence in the atmosphere, it will be many decades before the ozone hole is no longer an annual occurrence," said Dr. Michael J. Kurylo, manager of the Upper Atmosphere Research Program, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Damn, this guy really does his research.

http://www.theozonehole.com/ozoneholehistory.htm

[MannyIsGod]

Horrible paraphrase.O Rly? What were his attempts to talk about what was said incorrectly by a few scientists in the 70s other than an attempt to remove credibility from the current scientific consensus?

He has an agenda, and he's trying to present evidence to prove that agenda. He's the exact same as the IPCC.

[gtownspur]

BTW, the issue with water vapor has been addressed. It took me all of 2 minutes of searching to find a detailed explanation and dude addresses it as if its some weird mystery? Give me a break.

I may sit down and watch the damn thing even though its 2 hours long just to tear holes through his ridiculous arguments.


Ok,

I did say he was an avg guy, and btw this same guy said from the beginning that he wasn't a scientist, and the material he was using is not his own.

Yes, i don't think the presentation is perfect, but it does a fine job of discrediting al gore's movie and other alarmist arguments.


and towards the end, he does say that there are good evidence of global warming, so he's not saying it doesn't exist.

The global warming myth he's trying to debunk is that of that man is the main arbiter and perpetrator and that very bad consequences are ahead if we don't implement their regulations.

[gtownspur]

O Rly? What were his attempts to talk about what was said incorrectly by a few scientists in the 70s other than an attempt to remove credibility from the current scientific consensus?

He has an agenda, and he's trying to present evidence to prove that agenda. He's the exact same as the IPCC.


I guess you or I don't have an agenda either. Look, everyone has an agenda.

But he was giving those examples of bad science in the 70's as reason why we should not take these climatologist word for word like faith and believe in their conclusions. THat's all.

It's called establishing examples to make your argument.

He doesn't leave it at that, so just watch and you'll see the bigger pic. ALthough i'm not saying you'll by it word for word.

[gtownspur]

On the Ozone hole:



Damn, this guy really does his research.

http://www.theozonehole.com/ozoneholehistory.htm


he addresses that later, when he mentions that although we ommited CFC usage, the Ozone is still getting bigger.

[MannyIsGod]

The point was that he addresses it incorrectly. There is a reason that the ozone layer is growing even though we stopped usage and that is because a delay in the reduction of CFC's which are just now reaching their peak. The hole is a delayed reaction and will eventually start to decline.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, I don't have an agenda when reciving scientific information. I don't seek information to prove my point of view, I form a point of view after viewing the information.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao @ Silicone breast implants being brought up while debunking Global Warming

[MannyIsGod]

This guy is a fucking joke!

[turambar85]

Ok,

I did say he was an avg guy, and btw this same guy said from the beginning that he wasn't a scientist, and the material he was using is not his own.

Yes, i don't think the presentation is perfect, but it does a fine job of discrediting al gore's movie and other alarmist arguments.


and towards the end, he does say that there are good evidence of global warming, so he's not saying it doesn't exist.

The global warming myth he's trying to debunk is that of that man is the main arbiter and perpetrator and that very bad consequences are ahead if we don't implement their regulations.

Ok....so all we have accomplished through the numerous spurstalk argument on the subject is to decide that we can't decide.

Some scientists say yes, it is happening, and we can stop it from continuing. Some scientists say that it is, and we cannot do anything to stop it. And finally, some say that it is not, and we cannot. There is no way to know at this point in time.

However, we know one thing for sure, that if option A is true, then we have control over our destiny...if B or C is true, then we are along for the ride...

Sooo....

Let us play a hand of "Pascal's Wager"

A= global warming happening, and can stop.
B= global warming happening, and we cannot stop.
C= global warming is bullshit, so no worries.

Now, If A, we can either try to fix the situation, or leave it be. If we try to fix the situation and succeed, we have saved the Earth from, at the least, catastrophic results. If we try and fail, we have maybe shaved a few years off of our time, or, at worst, expended energy needlessly.

If B, we can either try to stop it, or ride the ride. If we try to change our situation, then we spend time, energy, and a little bit of money and obtain nothing. If we do nothing, we live as we would, and die when the world ends.

If C, we can try, or not. If we try, same as B....we lose time, money, and energy, but think that we are accomplishing something, so the loss is not as great as it sounds. If we do nothing, nothing happens and we live on as we would have.

In conclusion, the only situation which has a positive gain is if we try to help, and it works. This is an unlimited reward, as the extension of Earth's existence and its billions of inhabitants is the greatest trial that mankind will face, and to lose would have been destruction on the scale of millions of holocausts. That means that this is the only scenario that a rational mind would prefer if the results are not known.

The only situations in which we lose through choosing are if we do nothing and the world ends, or if we do something and don't help. If we do nothing and the world ends, we lose everything. This is, by far, the worst possibility. If we do something, an change nothing, then we lose a tiny bit of production for a few years or decades, yet over time the ship rights itself, and the economic changes become the norm. We lose a a small percentage of profit, which, over time, is almost indicipherable.

The only choice that truly matters is if global warming is real...all others pros and cons are miniscule and laughable in comparison. Thus, if it is real, we choose between nearly infinite gain, and nearly infinite loss.

You are the gambler, you decide your fate. Let us see how well you play your hand.
:ace

[gtownspur]

:lmao @ Silicone breast implants being brought up while debunking Global Warming

Really, he said that sillicone breast implants safe use is the reason why global warming doesn't exist?

Ok,.... :blah

[turambar85]

And, btw, if you are ignorant of "Pascal's Wager" it is referring to belief in God, and this argument runs precisely parallel to the other one. If God exists, then either choice has infinite consequences. If God does not exist, then you expend a little energy and effort, though with some internal reward, attempting to believe, and your loss, while possibly there, is almost insignificant, especially when compared to your win/loss if "he" does exist.

As with global warming, we cannot prove God's existence. However, if admittance to Heaven simply meant admitting God's existence, no matter how you convinced yourself to believe it is so, then anybody with any sense would at least claim to believe, and nobody would work against belief in God.

[MannyIsGod]

Really, he said that sillicone breast implants safe use is the reason why global warming doesn't exist?

Ok,.... :blahQuote me again and tell me if what I said was false? Where breast implants not brought up in an argument against global warming?

Lets go fishing for :

http://vnuuk.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/red_herring.jpg

[gtownspur]

Ok,


Lets make this the about Flying Saucers.


A= UFO's exist, we must wear protective tin foil hats to protect oneself from being manipulated by aliens

B= UFO's maybe exist, lets wear tin foil hats for good measure.

C= You're a bunch of loonies.

So to this let's conclude that to be logical, we need to all wear tinfoil hats in case UFO"s may exist.

[MannyIsGod]

I apparently suck at UBB code.

Anyhow, I'm now to the wator vapor portion.

First, he gives the arbitrary figure of 95% of global warming is caused by water vapor. So much for taking more than one measurement (he says that a few minutes prior) because there are differing values ranging from 60% to 98%. I guess in this case its better for him to use the one measurement that is highest. Good job.

Secondly, it doesn't matter either way. To understand why, read either:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/water-vapour-is-not-dominant.html

Guess he didn't want to take that into consideration. Oops.

[gtownspur]

Quote me again and tell me if what I said was false? Where breast implants not brought up in an argument against global warming?

Lets go fishing for :

http://vnuuk.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/red_herring.jpg


wrong, breast implants were brought up to weaken the whole "science consensus" argument.

he didn't link it to disproving GW directly like your post implied.

[turambar85]

Ok,


Lets make this the about detainees.


A= UFO's exist, we must wear protective tin foil hats to protect oneself from being manipulated by aliens

B= UFO's maybe exist, lets wear tin foil hats for good measure.

C= You're a bunch of loonies.

So to this let's conclude that to be logical, we need to all wear tinfoil hats in case UFO"s may exist.

C=

LOL, not bad on short notice.

However, wearing, or not wearing, tin-foil hats has a much smaller effect on the person, and on the community as well. If I forget to wear mine, then I lose some, or all, control over myself, but do not know this is the case because I have lost control over my mind. This sucks, sure, but is hardly an infinite loss. Now, if I don't wear my hat, this has no effect on the community unless the aliens make my kill others, but then I will be put to death, or put in jail, and the aliens lose their little helper.

Also, there is at least some scientific data supporting global warming. No scientists say that tin-foil hats prevent alien intervention. Thus, there is no true reason to believe in this happening, the results are much lesser, and so is the reward as you look like a nut and lose friends...and your livelihood, in the process.


Try again G.

[MannyIsGod]

Dude, don't go off the handle now. HE brought up breast implants, not me. I was pointing out how ridiculous it was for breast implants to even be mentioned with global warming. If the science is against global warming, there is absolutely no need to say a single word about breast implants in your presentation.

Correct?

[MannyIsGod]

wrong, breast implants were brought up to weaken the whole "science consensus" argument.

he didn't link it to disproving GW directly like your post implied.Reread what my post said. There were no implications what so ever. I laughed at him bringing up breast implants while debunking global warming.

[ChumpDumper]

I apparently suck at UBB code. For a picture, just use the img code, not the url stuff.

[MannyIsGod]

Another note on water vapor...

Even if it caused 95% of the greenhouse effect, he just mentioned that CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere. Would that not indicate C02 is cause a disproportionate amount of warming relative to its atmospheric content? Man, this guy would be the easiest person ever to debate using his own information.

[MannyIsGod]

For a picture, just use the img code, not the url stuff.I used the wrong code at first then it converted it to a URL and I fucked it all up.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

HYDROGEN POWERED CARS WOULD TURN OUR CITIES INTO RAIN FORESTS.


Holy shit!

[turambar85]

Ok,


Lets make this the about Flying Saucers.


A= UFO's exist, we must wear protective tin foil hats to protect oneself from being manipulated by aliens

B= UFO's maybe exist, lets wear tin foil hats for good measure.

C= You're a bunch of loonies.

So to this let's conclude that to be logical, we need to all wear tinfoil hats in case UFO"s may exist.

Actually, if aliens exist, you lose either way, as you are a prisoner inside of your own body whether controlled by aliens, or your own lunacy. You lose all hopes of a normal life, friends, socialization, a job, getting laid, etc. Now, if they do not exist, you lose horribly by believing that they do, and you gain/lose nothing, except for the comparitive gain, by assuming that they do not exist as well.

There is no correlation between the two examples.

[MannyIsGod]

Why do they not focus on water vapor?


So: adding CO2 to the atmosphere warms it a bit and ends up with more WV. Adding WV does nothing much and the atmos returns to equilibrium. This is why WV is not the *dominant* GHG; its more like a submissive GHG

[gtownspur]

Dude, don't go off the handle now. HE brought up breast implants, not me. I was pointing out how ridiculous it was for breast implants to even be mentioned with global warming. If the science is against global warming, there is absolutely no need to say a single word about breast implants in your presentation.

Correct?


Show me where i went off on you?

ANd since scientific consensus is used to justify the belief in man made GW, he was using examples of how scientific consensus has been wrong in the past.

HE already used global cooling consensus as an example against the science of global warming consensus.

Your point is moot.

You're clearly misrepresenting his argument.

[gtownspur]

Why do they not focus on water vapor?


You see, though.

In that qoute you used can't be proven to the effect that CO2 causes warming.

In fact, throughout history warming comes first, then the spike in CO2.

[MannyIsGod]

No, I'm not. Prooving that someone was wrong on one completed unrelated item (especially when that someone isn't the same someone) does NOTHING to prove that they are wrong on a completely unrelated issue.

[gtownspur]

LOL, not bad on short notice.

However, wearing, or not wearing, tin-foil hats has a much smaller effect on the person, and on the community as well. If I forget to wear mine, then I lose some, or all, control over myself, but do not know this is the case because I have lost control over my mind. This sucks, sure, but is hardly an infinite loss. Now, if I don't wear my hat, this has no effect on the community unless the aliens make my kill others, but then I will be put to death, or put in jail, and the aliens lose their little helper.

Also, there is at least some scientific data supporting global warming. No scientists say that tin-foil hats prevent alien intervention. Thus, there is no true reason to believe in this happening, the results are much lesser, and so is the reward as you look like a nut and lose friends...and your livelihood, in the process.


Try again G.


But there's no scientific data proving GOd, so what's the point?

[ChumpDumper]

I used the wrong code at first then it converted it to a URL and I fucked it all up.Fixed. Be sure to vote me in as worst mod!

[MannyIsGod]

You see, though.

In that qoute you used can't be proven to the effect that CO2 causes warming.

In fact, throughout history warming comes first, then the spike in CO2.I'm not trying to prove that. In fact, I'm not trying to prove anything at the moment other than this guy did a piss poor job of representing the facts. He's spent a lot of time focusing on water vapor when there is a completely logical reason the global warming community doesn't focus on it. He's trying to show that they're wrong for not focusing on it, which is incorrect.

If this guy was a legal prosecuter, he'd be focusing on where the alleged criminal was 2 weeks before the crime instead of focusing here he was when the crime was commited. He's horrible.

[gtownspur]

No, I'm not. Prooving that someone was wrong on one completed unrelated item (especially when that someone isn't the same someone) does NOTHING to prove that they are wrong on a completely unrelated issue.


Ok, but the fact is that he didn't relate breast implants to global warming.

You did for the sake of argument.


You're just gonna make me repeat myself.

It's like you saying, "well the Bush admin was wrong on WMD's why should we believe them when they say Sadaam had ties to Alqueda?" , followed by me accusing you of saying that, "missing WMD evidence proves that there were no ties to Alqueda."

See it doesn't work that way.

[gtownspur]

I'm not trying to prove that. In fact, I'm not trying to prove anything at the moment other than this guy did a piss poor job of representing the facts. He's spent a lot of time focusing on water vapor when there is a completely logical reason the global warming community doesn't focus on it. He's trying to show that they're wrong for not focusing on it, which is incorrect.

If this guy was a legal prosecuter, he'd be focusing on where the alleged criminal was 2 weeks before the crime instead of focusing here he was when the crime was commited. He's horrible.


He didn't focus only on water vapor, he also focused on the flawed methods of climatoligist in using different data gathering methods instead of the same to reach as a conclusion.

I mean, when one is looking at CO2 levels one should look at different sources, but one should not mix those sources and weld them together to fit your own conclusions, but that's not where the climatologist went wrong. They chose two locations and discriminated the data from both to fit their conclusion.

[turambar85]

But there's no scientific data proving GOd, so what's the point?

Well, there are many in the scientific community that believe in a creative influence due to the complexity of the eye, and random evolutionary flaws, such as the complex interdependence within ecosytems, and the inability of some animals to occupy their niche, and yet not striking forth to another.

[MannyIsGod]

Ok, but the fact is that he didn't relate breast implants to global warming.

You did for the sake of argument.


You're just gonna make me repeat myself.

It's like you saying, well the Bush admin was wrong on WMD's why should we believe them when they believe Sadaam had ties to Alqueda?I never said anything of the sort.

I said he mentioned breast implants while debunking global warming. Did he or did he not?

[MannyIsGod]

If he focuses on their methods, I'll take a look at that when it comes up in the yt video.

Right now, as far as I'm concerned his entire section on water vapor is complete crap and thats where I'm at.

[gtownspur]

I never said anything of the sort.

I said he mentioned breast implants while debunking global warming. Did he or did he not?


NO, he was debunking the strength of scientific consensus specifically that time.

Saying it like you say implies that he said that off on a tanget in itself and then went back to talking about water vapor, which he didn't. He paused out of the rudiments of global warming and focused on the flaw of scientific consensus.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

This guy just put up the page I linked, and did NOTHING to mention anything on the page except the figures for water vapor and not why it isn't the most important greenhouse gas.

Why on earth would you do that unless you're trying to prove your agenda's points and not make a clear presentation?

[MannyIsGod]

NO, he was debunking the strength of scientific consensus specifically that time.

Saying it like you say implies that he said that off on a tanget in itself and then went back to talking about water vapor, which he didn't. He paused out of the rudiments of global warming and focused on the flaw of scientific consensus.Dude, whatever. When he wants to make a film on breast implants, he can. In a film about global warming, breast implants have NO PLACE at all. You name me a published scientific paper that does something of that nature and I'll agree with you.

[ChumpDumper]

Breast implants were better when they had DDT in them.

[MannyIsGod]

This guy just gets better and better. First he says we can't model the S&P 500 much less the weather. REALLY FUCKING WRONG. Weather models work every single day.

Then, after saying how complex weather modeling is, he says that anyone with a terrarium can prove a specific part of global warming related to C02.

Seriously, the inconsistencies in this video are amazing. Gtown, you should think twice before endorsing such pieces of crap.

For the record, I'm not a proponent of CO2 caused global warming. C02 has lots of negative impacts - especially in the ocean - but I'm not convinced that its the main cause of global warming. This guy is an idiot, however.

[MannyIsGod]

On the CO2 measurements


The Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 measurements constitute the longest continuous record of atmospheric CO2 concentrations available in the world. The Mauna Loa site is considered one of the most favorable locations for measuring undisturbed air because possible local influences of vegetation or human activities on atmospheric CO2 concentrations are minimal and any influences from volcanic vents may be excluded from the records. The methods and equipment used to obtain these measurements have remained essentially unchanged during the 47-year monitoring program.

Because of the favorable site location, continuous monitoring, and careful selection and scrutiny of the data, the Mauna Loa record is considered to be a precise record and a reliable indicator of the regional trend in the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the middle layers of the troposphere. The Mauna Loa record shows a 19.4% increase in the mean annual concentration, from 315.98 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of dry air in 1959 to 377.38 ppmv in 2004. The 1997-1998 increase in the annual growth rate of 2.87 ppmv represets the largest single yearly jump since the Mauna Loa record began in 1958. This represents an average annual increase of 1.4 ppmv per year. This is smaller than the average annual increase at the other stations because of the longer record and inclusion of earlier (smaller) annual increases.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm

[gtownspur]

Dude, whatever. When he wants to make a film on breast implants, he can. In a film about global warming, breast implants have NO PLACE at all. You name me a published scientific paper that does something of that nature and I'll agree with you.

This is a video and not a scientific paper. Remember, he's not a scientist,(as he admitted from the start) so he lost already on your expectations.

You're totally being all seinfeld about this.

Everything else you brought up is valid, but to nitpick on one thing like that, is puzzling.


"But,,,but...the breast implants."


If he would of brought up some like a nutritional example, or solar power ex. to disprove scientic consensus, would you have been up in arms about this?

But the fact is that, other examples unrelated to GW were brought up to discredit scientific consensus, and you choose to only pick on breast implants.

I admit, it was funny, but he wasn't trying to discredit GW on that by any means.

[MannyIsGod]

Its just funny to me that this guy thinks that every scientist out there is working with some kind of predisposition they're trying to prove and looking for data to fall into that or that he's the only one wondering about the differences in data collection. Obviously there are differences in data collection and they've factored that into the findings. And its EASY to find just where and how that is being done, yet he acts as if there is some sort of conspiracy to hide these issues/situations.

[MannyIsGod]

K, fuck the breast implants. Too bad nothing else he's saying adds up.

[gtownspur]

On the CO2 measurements



http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm


It's funny.

And how do they dissect CO2 influences from volanic vents, they don't explain this. Are we to take their word?

If that's so, you could dissect CO2 influences from anywhere in the world.

But the fact remains, that the climatologist chose two different locations to sample CO2 and bridged them together instead of avg them together side by side so that they could produce favorable data conclusions.

[MannyIsGod]

Now he's comparing CO2 sampling to a weight loss study. Do I really need to break it down as to why thats a ridiculous analogy?

[MannyIsGod]

It's funny.

And how do they dissect CO2 influences from volanic vents, they don't explain this. Are we to take their word?

If that's so, you could dissect CO2 influences from anywhere in the world.

But the fact remains, that the climatologist chose two different locations to sample CO2 and bridged them together instead of avg them together side by side so that they could produce favorable data conclusions.If I find it - and I will because everything scientists due as far as methedology is concerned is published so that you DON'T have to just take their word for it - will you be able to understand the methodology? I doubt you will, and thats no knock on you becasue I doubt any of us who aren't atmospheric experits will.

I'll look for it though.

[gtownspur]

Its just funny to me that this guy thinks that every scientist out there is working with some kind of predisposition they're trying to prove and looking for data to fall into that or that he's the only one wondering about the differences in data collection. Obviously there are differences in data collection and they've factored that into the findings. And its EASY to find just where and how that is being done, yet he acts as if there is some sort of conspiracy to hide these issues/situations.


He doesn't think that.

He mentioned the fact that there were 3500 scientist who signed a petition which stated that they had significant differences with the consensus.

ALso, he brought up very good points in how the bar chart data was flawed since their date collection method was flawed.

And when they finally did factor the different data findings, they still end up saying that there was no conclusive point after all like in the Real climate site you posted.

[gtownspur]

Now he's comparing CO2 sampling to a weight loss study. Do I really need to break it down as to why thats a ridiculous analogy?


THe weight loss study is fictional as he stated.

he's just using it to illustrate how today the metods of data gathering occuring in estimating CO2, lack common sense, and he's using a fictional diet study to put it in laymen's terms.

[MannyIsGod]

Also, the measurements used for that graph may only be the Hawaii measurements, but there samples taken from all over the world. Thats what goes into the studies. What Al Gore used for his movie is irrelevant.

[MannyIsGod]

THe weight loss study is fictional as he stated.

he's just using it to illustrate how today the metods of data gathering occuring in estimating CO2, lack common sense, and he's using a fictional diet study to put it in laymen's terms.They don't lack common sense. Do you really think that all atmospheric scientists are idiots and are completely manipulation data collection?

[MannyIsGod]

I'm at the 37 minute mark. I'll pick it up again tomorrow. I'm bored at the moment, and this is proving far less challenging than I had envisioned.

[MannyIsGod]

map of network gathering carbon dioxide data

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/gallery2/d/26553-2/ccggmap.png

[gtownspur]

They don't lack common sense. Do you really think that all atmospheric scientists are idiots and are completely manipulation data collection?


In that study he was referring to it involved only a group of scientist who used one location to used data for CO2 levels pre 1950 and using a different site to showing CO2 levels after 1950.

These were only a handful of scientist, and not all of them as you claim who did this bar chart, therefore it's not insane to hold them accountable for using a flawed method of combining two diff areas to show how CO2 levels have risen, because C02 levels are different in many parts of the world.

It's as if i took data that showed the purchasing of Chevy tahoes in Granolaville, Oregon in 2005 and then using data from sales amount of Chevy tahoes in Sugarland, Tx to show that chevy sales have improved 100% within the last year. THat's not right.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, if the global warming theory was based on that one study then maybe he'd have a leg to stand on.

[xrayzebra]

Cant you just feel the warmth of Christmas. I can
and can you figure out how to measure that? I can.
Good Will Toward Man.

Hope everyone had a good CHRISTmas and have a
good New Year.

[smeagol]

No need to see the clip. Manny is doing a good job refuting your video.

[boutons_]

Even the WH admits global warming is a fact.

====================

U.S. Wants Polar Bears Listed as Threatened

Designation May Force Action on Global Warming
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 27, 2006; A01


The Bush administration has decided to propose listing the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, putting the U.S. government on record as saying that global warming could drive one of the world's most recognizable animals out of existence.

The administration's proposal -- which was described by an Interior Department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity -- stems from the fact that rising temperatures in the Arctic are shrinking the sea ice that polar bears need for hunting. The official insisted on anonymity because the department will submit the proposal today for publication in the Federal Register, after which it will be subject to public comment for 90 days.

Identifying polar bears as threatened with extinction could have an enormous political and practical impact. As the world's largest bear and as an object of children's affection as well as Christmastime Coca-Cola commercials, the polar bear occupies an important place in the American psyche. Because scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide from power-plant and vehicle emissions is helping drive climate change worldwide, putting polar bears on the endangered species list raises the legal question of whether the government would be required to compel U.S. industries to curb their carbon dioxide output.

( I'm sure dubya wont' actually inconvenience any polluting (energy) corps about silly old polar bears. I figure the Arctic ice and polar bears are now beyond saving )


"We've reviewed all the available data that leads us to believe the sea ice the polar bear depends on has been receding," said the Interior official, who added that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials have concluded that polar bears could be endangered within 45 years. "Obviously, the sea ice is melting because the temperatures are warmer."

Northern latitudes are warming twice as rapidly as the rest of globe, according to a 2004 scientific assessment, and by the end of the century, annual ocean temperatures in the Arctic may rise an additional 13 degrees Fahrenheit. As a result, researchers predict that summer sea ice, which polar bears use as a platform to hunt for ringed seals, will decline 50 to 100 percent. Just this month, researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research outlined a worst-case scenario in which summer sea ice could disappear by 2040.

By submitting the proposal today, the Interior Department is meeting a deadline under a legal settlement with three environmental advocacy groups -- the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace -- that argue the government has failed to respond quickly enough to the polar bear's plight. The department has been examining the status of polar bears for more than two years.

NRDC senior attorney Andrew Wetzler, one of the lawyers who filed suit against the administration, welcomed the proposal for listing.

"It's such a loud recognition that global warming is real," Wetzler said. "It is rapidly threatening the polar bear and, in fact, an entire ecosystem with utter destruction."

There are 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears worldwide, 4,700 of which live in Alaska and spend part of the year in Canada and Russia. The other countries with polar bears in their Arctic regions are Denmark and Norway.

Although scientists have yet to fully assess many of the 19 separate polar bear populations, initial studies suggest that climate change has already exacted a toll on the animals.

The ice in Canada's western Hudson Bay is now breaking up 2 1/2 weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago, giving polar bears there less time to hunt and build up fat reserves that sustain them for eight months before hunting resumes. As local polar bears have become thinner, female polar bears' reproductive rates and cubs' survival rates have fallen, spurring a 21 percent population drop from 1997 to 2004.

Scientists have not charted the same rapid decline within the U.S. polar bear populations, but federal scientists have observed a number of troubling signs as the bears have resorted to open-water swimming and even cannibalism in an effort to stay alive.

Polar bears normally swim from one patch of sea ice to another to hunt for food, but they are not accustomed to going long distances. In September 2004, government scientists observed 55 polar bears swimming offshore in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, an unprecedented spike, and four of those bears died. In a separate study that year, federal scientists identified three instances near the Beaufort Sea in which polar bears ate one another.

The Interior official said government officials studying Alaskan polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea area have observed thinner adult bears and a lower rate of survival among cubs. Although the population has yet to dip, "unless the polar cub survival rate goes up, it would have to happen," the official said.

Still, the official added that the decision to propose polar bears as threatened with extinction "wasn't easy for us" because "there is still some significant uncertainty" about what could happen to bear populations in the future.

"This proposal is sort of like a scientific hypothesis. You put this out there and say to the world, 'Tell us, is this right or is this wrong?' " the official said, adding that Interior will hold several public hearings about its proposal. "We're projecting what we think will happen in the future, not just what's happening at this moment."

The department could take up to a year to complete its proposal, and it could abandon the listing if it unearths new scientific projections about the bears' fate. But that appears unlikely, as recent models have consistently pointed to a faster deterioration of Arctic sea ice.

Although federal officials cited rising sea temperatures once before in a threatened species proposal -- in May, when they called them a "major stressor" on Caribbean elkhorn and staghorn corals -- today's proposal will mark the first time the administration has identified climate change as the driving force behind the potential demise of a species.

Robert Correll, the scientist who chaired the international Arctic Climate Impact Assessment in 2004 and now directs the global change program at the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, said in an interview that the proposal to place polar bears on the endangered species list is "highly justified."

Correll added that he is participating in an administration-funded study at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on how climate change could affect national security and foreign policy.

That, along with the proposal on polar bears, he said, "plays into a reality that, in my opinion, they're going to be rethinking their position" on global warming.

http://www.uclick.com/feature/06/12/28/ta061228.gif

[boutons_]

December 29, 2006

Ice Mass Snaps Free in Arctic

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 6:46 a.m. ET

TORONTO (AP) -- A giant ice shelf has snapped free from an island south of the North Pole, scientists said Thursday, citing climate change as a ''major'' reason for the event.

The Ayles Ice Shelf -- all 41 square miles of it -- broke clear 16 months ago from the coast of Ellesmere Island, about 500 miles south of the North Pole in the Canadian Arctic.

Scientists discovered the event by using satellite imagery. Within one hour of breaking free, the shelf had formed as a new ice island, leaving a trail of icy boulders floating in its wake.

Warwick Vincent of Laval University, who studies Arctic conditions, traveled to the newly formed ice island and couldn't believe what he saw.

''This is a dramatic and disturbing event. It shows that we are losing remarkable features of the Canadian North that have been in place for many thousands of years,'' Vincent said. ''We are crossing climate thresholds, and these may signal the onset of accelerated change ahead.''

The ice shelf was one of six major shelves remaining in Canada's Arctic. They are packed with ancient ice that is more than 3,000 years old. They float on the sea but are connected to land.

Some scientists say it is the largest event of its kind in Canada in 30 years and that climate change was a major element.

''It is consistent with climate change,'' Vincent said, adding that the remaining ice shelves are 90 percent smaller than when they were first discovered in 1906. ''We aren't able to connect all of the dots ... but unusually warm temperatures definitely played a major role.''

Laurie Weir, who monitors ice conditions for the Canadian Ice Service, was poring over satellite images in 2005 when she noticed that the shelf had split and separated.

Weir notified Luke Copland, head of the new global ice lab at the University of Ottawa, who initiated an effort to find out what happened.

Using U.S. and Canadian satellite images, as well as seismic data -- the event registered on earthquake monitors 155 miles away -- Copland discovered that the ice shelf collapsed in the early afternoon of Aug. 13, 2005.

Copland said the speed with which climate change has effected the ice shelves has surprised scientists.

''Even 10 years ago scientists assumed that when global warming changes occur that it would happen gradually so that perhaps we expected these ice shelves just to melt away quite slowly,'' he said.

Derek Mueller, a polar researcher with Vincent's team, said the ice shelves get weaker and weaker as temperatures rise. He visited Ellesmere Island in 2002 and noticed that another ice shelf had cracked in half.

''We're losing our ice shelves and this a feature of the landscape that is in danger of disappearing altogether from Canada,'' Mueller said.

Within days of breaking free, the Ayles Ice Shelf drifted about 30 miles offshore before freezing into the sea ice. A spring thaw may bring another concern: that warm temperatures will release the new ice island from its Arctic grip, making it an enormous hazard for ships.

''Over the next few years this ice island could drift into populated shipping routes,'' Weir said.

================

Another aspect of shipping is that the lack of Arctic ice will open up new year-round shipping routes.

[dg7md]

It might already be too late, this is a very scary thought, in addition to the fact the arctic is one of the most interesting when it comes to animals and habitat.