Global Warmists -- Read ( Climategate )

[BerenTebogo]

I'm implying that any issue blown that's being overfocused is taking attention away from more immediate problems that we, as a people, have to deal with. These issues include, but are not limited to, war, poverty, overpopulation, supply shortages.

I'm not even going to read the rest of what you wrote since you're a sensationalist douche who annoys me.

[Leif]

i mean really, iraq was the brainchild of US and GB neoconservatives, and while US mainstream liberals may have been tacitly compliant on a whole, European liberals were in stark opposition from the get go.

So what? The "neoconservatives" liked Iraq, the liberals all agreed, and the socialists hated it. How is this new? There have always been those three categories: those who are patriots, those pretend to be patriots, and those who actively side with the enemy.

This is relevant because green/sustainability is largely a left-aligned movement, which has been strongly opposed by neocons/conservatives while most strongly advocated by liberals, particularly European ones.

Again, there is one side of the political spectrum who strives to destroy any remaining freedom in the world.

The Bush admin notoriously opposed a variety of environmental/green initiatives- kyoto protocols, any sort of carbon tax/cap&trade, vehicle emission standards, etc.

Right. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty happy the administration understood we shouldn't wreck the economy and kill jobs in the name of a phony science. Can we stop calling Bush stupid now?

OK, you go first. Provide quality, peer reviewed science that refutes the theory of climate change. And no, one little point of data does not constitute a good scientific conclusion.

No, you go first, you conspiracy-theory-believing half-brain. You don't get to put your hands up, scream bloody murder about the end of the world, and then demand your opponents provide proof the world is not ending. That's completely insane.

As the released documents clearly show, the scientists were so desperate to find "global warming" that they cooked the books.

[Solefald]

I'm implying that any issue blown that's being overfocused is taking attention away from more immediate problems that we, as a people, have to deal with. These issues include, but are not limited to, war, poverty, overpopulation, supply shortages.

I'm not even going to read the rest of what you wrote since you're a sensationalist douche who annoys me.

climate change affects and exacerbates all of those problems, though. and climate change, unlike most other issues, has a 'point of no return' which makes the need for early action even greater

[Leif]

Jesus Christ. Has anybody actually seen any evidence of "global warming"? Obviously the "point of no return" must be really close. That's why the planet has been cooling the last decade and there is no evidence of any warming this year either. I mean, how much reason needs to enter your thick skulls for you to abandon these hallucinations?

[Tristam]

climate change affects and exacerbates all of those problems, though. and climate change, unlike most other issues, has a 'point of no return' which makes the need for early action even greater

Yessir,

and this is where the field is at right now, figuring out how sustainable environmental policies contribute to successful economic policies (one of many reasons why lockstep-leif is a caricature of conservatism) and how the changes in climate will affect developing as well as first world nations.

Sadly, there's not really a good vibe coming from the climate change community. Many junior scientists and grad students have a defeatist attitude, figuring that since the population as a whole is oblivious in the face of absurdly monumental scientific evidence then to really effect policy change is a worthless endeavor.

My favorite part about leifs post was he thinks that people who understand the science are "half brain conspiracy theorists", yet he actually thinks theres a conspiracy of scientists seeking to undermine the world economy by demonstrating the dangers of a carbon based economy. Right.

I challenge leif to show where exactly in the emails and other documents falsification or unethical alteration of data took place.

[Tristam]

Jesus Christ. Has anybody actually seen any evidence of "global warming"? Obviously the "point of no return" must be really close. That's why the planet has been cooling the last decade and there is no evidence of any warming this year either. I mean, how much reason needs to enter your thick skulls for you to abandon these hallucinations?

Evidence? Besides temperature? I assume the data you're talking about is from superfreakonomics, which has been debunked by many a statistician. The cooling observed only takes place if you set the first anchor as the warmest year in the past decade. If you set the first anchor as the next year, you get super warming. But it's ok, you don't understand statistics and numbers I guess.

Climate is measured over a 30 year sliding window, that's why it's "climate" and not "the weekly forecast".

Also, the past decade, on average has been the hottest ever recorded.

edit: again leif, if intuition was all it took, you wouldn't need science. Your gut feeling is wrong.

[Cadsuane]

This is an EXCELLENT posting. It's never been a secret that there are divisions within the scientific community on global warming.

Yes, global warming is a scientific theory, not a law of science. A theory by definition has undergone years and years of rigorous testing and hypothesizing in order to determine if it is valid. The fact that it has gone beyond a untested statement and a hypothesis to become a theory is worth quite a bit - it shows that there is great evidence to prove the point, but also questions that are unanswered. It may be proven at some point, like gravity was. It may be disproven, like the four elements of matter was in favor of atomic structure.

There are no laws of science, ie. positive proof doesn't exist in science unless you're talking about pure abstractions like mathematics. For example Newton's "law" of universal gravitation is less accurate than general relativity.

Skepticism over the opinions of scientists because they base their opinions on theories is an irritatingly common misunderstanding of the word "theory".

[Kryssan]

I challenge leif

We're exercising in futility now, I see?



Remember that quote about winning in the special olympics... it applies here. Better to simply watch than join in.

[Tristam]

We're exercising in futility now, I see?



Remember that quote about winning in the special olympics... it applies here. Better to simply watch than join in.

Dammit, you're right. Sometimes I wish I could click myself into a temporary forum penalty box just so I don't post without thinking.

[Dimmauk]

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Esse...ocs-and-emails

What say you now? Have you yet read through these documents and e-mails?

Let us have a civil debate on the scientific facts. It is a fact that this year was the third coldest summer in recorded history. How is this possible when all AGW's purport the exact opposite?

Anyways, eager to hear responses....I would go download these and read them ASAP. Pretty damning stuff.

PS: These are from some of the top academics who espouse AGW. Cheers.

yawn.

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoub...cience_ema.php

edit: and yeah, the coolest summer doesn't mean much when it's at the end of the hottest recorded decade ever.

We just had 60+ days of 100+ degree weather in San Antonio, also...

SAN ANTONIO WARMEST MONTHS OF AUGUST SINCE 1885

1. 88.3 AUGUST 2006 AND AUGUST 2009
2. 87.5 AUGUST 1962
3. 87.3 AUGUST 1993

[Jer]

Edit: Just nevermind, and the delete button is still gone.

[gaira]

people actually believe in global warming to begin with?

[Darus Grey]

people actually believe in global warming to begin with?

Global "warming" and "climate change" are facts...the cause of the phenomenon is the point of contention.


I really don't get what is so difficult to understand...hottest thing...coldest that...doesn't prove anything, and certainly doesn't disprove it. The only major evidence we have is average world temperature(which has been going up), and melting of ice(which is accelerating rapidly).

Actual global warming results in global cooling, as ice melts, it normalizes temperature in the ocean, because the water doesn't pass through the icy regions anymore, it stays warmer. Since currents are based on cold and warm water interacting to create movement...currents die out, and the planet stagnates and dies, eventually causing an ice age. It's happened a couple thousand times...the earth in it's current state is an abnormality that only exists for a few thousand years at a time generally.

We happen to be on the tail-end of our current age, and well pollution certainly isn't doing anything to slow it down, we are "due" for this anyways...at worst we've sped the process up a couple hundred years...who cares.

The real struggle is for us to pull together and create the system that will control the climate so we can maintain and recreate a planetary homeostasis that is ideal for us to live. Global warming or not the planets going to kill 80%+ of us eventually, it's just a matter of when unless we stop it.

tl;dr

Kill the planet before it kills us.

[pahnphoenix]

i only read the first page, but i want to elbow nudge point out just how funny it is when conservatives imply that anyone in academia is involved in a "liberal conspiracy" (for example, making sure no one dissents to global warming). have any of you ever been to the university of chicago? if you actually have experience with real academia (and have a brain), you should realize how crazy american politics is. uneducated right wing people fear educated 'liberals', but get their ideas from the educated conservatives that populate the majority of the academy. i'm not saying anything pro-right or pro-left (though were i to say such a thing, it would be unabashedly left), i'm just saying how funny it is when people label the media or the academy 'liberal'.

basically, when you talk about high academia as being liberal, you're saying that you didn't get very far in college, if you went at all. the scientific community collectively agreeing to push a leftist agenda is fucking ludicrous.

[Max™]

http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/V...pertatures.gif

< Past Present >

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ate_Change.png
< Present Past >

http://plymarg.files.wordpress.com/2...ng?w=523&h=368

< Present Past >

http://www.optocleaner.com/images/Earth-History-810.jpg
< Past Present >
This one is different, bottom is warm, top is cold.

Now.

Compare the scales there, with something NOT us affecting the climate.

vs

http://www.marine.uq.edu.au/news/08....ange-graph.jpg

http://plantsneedco2.org/html/WhichG...tonSteward.gif

http://www.maine.gov/dep/air/globalw...es/figspm2.jpg

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/imag...Comparison.png

Yeah...

The little squiggly lines kinda speak for themselves.

Know what worries me? We're artificially boosting the effects which have been in play since the end of the last ice age, no doubt. The Co2 level is 100+ ppm higher than it would normally be.

http://discoverywire.org/schoolhouse...771/graphA.jpg

Now, normally when the climate reaches this point, the processes begin to work against themselves and we slip back into a cold spell, and eventual ice age.

Right now these processes have been adjusted by our actions, so what I wonder is...

If we stop making it worse, will it begin trending into a natural cooling period?

If we pull vast amounts of Co2 out of the system while it's in this artificially boosted state, will it reverse back into a cooling trend again?

Could it collapse into a steep ice age cooling pattern?

[Correction]

Know what worries me? We're artificially boosting the effects which have been in play since the end of the last ice age, no doubt. The Co2 level is 100+ ppm higher than it would normally be.

Leif usually bows out after stuff like this gets posted, I'll make his next 10 climate change posts for him, oh wait he's given us this genius copypasta talking point already.

Jesus Christ. Has anybody actually seen any evidence of "global warming"? Obviously the "point of no return" must be really close. That's why the planet has been cooling the last decade and there is no evidence of any warming this year either. I mean, how much reason needs to enter your thick skulls for you to abandon these hallucinations?

Stop hallucinating, Max, embrace the truthiness. Leif's just going to keep posting this until you see his way of thinking, after all.

[Max™]

Eh, I've debated this point on other boards, I know the shit really well at this point.


What do you think is the main greenhouse gas?

Did you guess CO2?


*BZZZT*

It's water vapor, which accounts for something like 70% of the total heating, the other gases are just forcing factors causing the atmosphere to hold more vapor, transfer heat to it better, and prevent the normal heat exchange cycles.

[Skjie]

I have to say, I'm confused which side you're arguing for, Max.

[Nystul]

So what? The "neoconservatives" liked Iraq, the liberals all agreed, and the socialists hated it. How is this new? There have always been those three categories: those who are patriots, those pretend to be patriots, and those who actively side with the enemy.

You know ... This reminds me of a guy I knew. He insisted that a good friend would back him up no matter what. This came up in a conversation because he got drunk at a bar, instigated a fight for no reason with other guys at the bar, and was mad that a friend he was with didn't back him up. His friend insisted that his role as a good friend was to not be unconditionally supportive, and certainly not to put his own health at risk just because his buddy was drunk and wanted to fight. He simply told his buddy that he was being an ass and that he should leave, or fight the guys alone. I agree with the friend. I don't think being a good friend means supporting and standing by your friends no matter what they do. I certainly wouldn't put myself at risk just because a so called friend wanted to start shit for no reason.


I would say that your definition of being a patriot means categorically agreeing with the administration but unfortunately that means you're no longer a patriot. Does being a patriot mean only agreeing with republicans? Is it not possible to both want the best for your country and NOT want to start a war?

The world is far more grey area than black and white. In my experience, I find that those who are adamant and unyielding in their views, those that have extreme views and who are very outspoken on them, see things in black and white terms. Republicans and conservatives in your view are right 95% of the time and only wrong when they happen to, for whatever reason, agree with a liberal or democrat. This is a strong indicator that you have a very limited understanding of the world. There are consequences to consider for all policies and practices. Nothing is perfect and often times one can take two routes to the same location that are different but equal in a practical sense.


Do you look at global warming data and research, then make a decision solely on what the data presents, or do you make a decision using your political ideology (ie, I choose to not WANT to believe in global warming because that is in line with my political beliefs) and then seek out data that supports that stance only?

I could say the same thing to others around here that have the opposite political ideology. It's not just because you're conservative. There is a certain irony in the fact that you and Beckwin go at eachother so much- one day you're both going to realize that you're two sides of the same coin. You'll get civil unioned together and live out your own little Carville-Matalin romance.

But honestly- the "if you don't agree with me 100% then you are 100% against me" thing is silly.

[Zilong]

Why are you even trying to explain logic to leif?