Im not a right winger, don't listen to the radio shows you do and do not watch TV. If you know what shows are on TV and which radio shows there are you must at least occasionally watch and listen. Or do you just do a google of "Right wing tv and radio shows"? and then try to throw that at people? I think for myself thank you.
2010: hottest year ever despite solar activity at record low
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
we'll see VERY shortly. with the graph shooting up as it is now, only 2 degrees is unlikely without cutting ties to fossil fuels asap. i have another 50+ years on this earth, i would bet the farm that we'll see the effects within our lifetimes.
but let me ask you this, since you seem to think that hotter temps in the polar regions are inconsequential: do you really believe that such extremes in remote places of the world will not make their effects known in populated places? or do you think the polar ice caps are made of a substance that does not melt? do you think that extreme temps in these remote regions will not effect weather patterns and climates globally, or do you believe that what happens in the poles, stays in the poles?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
please explain. i do not understand the scam. would you possibly be able to articulate how the evidence is more consistent with a conspiracy? no one so far has been able to explain this to me. it makes me sad that i am left out of the group of elites who uncovered this decades-in-the-making scam.
Magnificient
Well-Known Member
Actually, temperature records go back for at least 400,000 years. Ironically, they get readings from Ice cores, which are quickly melting. http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
Near
Active Member
Yes you are a right winger, regardless of whether or not you like the term. I don't listen to that radio program you idiot. That's twice now you've assumed I watch something for no reason. It's possible to know of radio personalities and television shows without actually being a viewer. I don't know why that's a difficult concept for you.
A person doesn't simply decide to go against scientific fact. You're influenced by the right wing nonsense which denies climate change even if you don't realize it.
So you trust an insane person like Alex Jones?
1 degree Fahrenheit is not an extreme.
If I don't watch or listen to right wing personalities then please explain to me how they can possibly influence my prerogative? Oh and what facts do you mean? Its not scientific fact that humans are the cause of the latest warming trend, its only a theory, which is NOT fact. Perhaps you need to learn about the scientific method and how to discern BS from Fact.
Is anyone who disagrees with your opinion an Idiot? or is it just me?
And 420,000 years would be 1/10,000th of the earths history. BTW the graphs show at least 4 periods in earths history that were WARMER than it is now, and what happened after those periods? It cooled off, wow what a concept , a cycle that repeats every 50-70,000 years and looks like we are right on schedule.
Near
Active Member
Stop acting as if you live in a shell. I guarantee some sort of media reaches you.
It is only a theory in the same sense that evolution is a theory. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting it and there is a scientific consensus. I really wouldn't be surprised if you didn't believe in evolution though.
It's just you.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you continue to spew irrelevant facts as if you knew more about the subject than the climatologists who write peer-reviewed research papers and have come to an overwhelming concensus. maybe you should bring these well known phenomenons like how it is cooler at night than day or feedback cycles to their attention. you refer to the phenomenon as 'just a theory'...kinda like how evolution is just a theory that some scientists believe in....LOLZ.
i'm glad you brought up how the earth cools itself off once things get too hot. it's true, there is a feedback cycle responsible for this. and according to it, things SHOULD be going steadily down.....yet we look and they are rising dramatically....WHAT GIVES? suppose even, that temps were supposed to be still rising (debatable)....that's fine. i'll grant that....then tell me why they are rising dramatically faster than they should be since the start of the industrial revolution and widespread use of fossil fuels.
also, please explain to me what happened to your assertion that 'the sun' has more to do with global warming than anything else now that it has been brought to your attention that shit still gets hot even when solar irradiance is at a minimum. where did that trump card dissapear to?
doc111
Well-Known Member
I have to say that I'm on the fence as to whether I believe in this anthropogenic climate change stuff. This shit is very complex and works in ways we are just beginning to understand. We are only in our technologic infancy yet think we already have most of the answers. EGO!
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Naah, it is more basic than that. It comes down to money.I have to say that I'm on the fence as to whether I believe in this anthropogenic climate change stuff. This shit is very complex and works in ways we are just beginning to understand. We are only in our technologic infancy yet think we already have most of the answers. EGO!
You see, research scientists need funding for their studies. Now, they have to get this funding from donors including private, public and government donors. If you say it might get hotter you probably are not going to get much funding. However, if you say OMG WE ARE GONNA FUCKING DIE!!! it tends to get you more attention.
The global warming industry is a multi-billion dollar industry. All those people have an interest in making sure the funding does not dry up. Al Gore has made the bulk of his fortune on global warming.
It always comes down to money. Seriously...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
money is behind just about anything and everything.
so please remind me, on what side of the debate do we happen to find the big spenders?
oh, wait...i already know the answers. it is the people who stand to lose a shitload if people buy into this whole green crap: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Business/story?id=2767979&page=1
tell me, sir....there is a theory that can never be proven that smoking tobacco causes cancer and health woes. it is ONLY a theory, mind you. these hundreds of thousands of dying fools may all just be already unhealthy people who just happen to smoke....total coincidence, no proof, go home with your allegations that smoking kills, right?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
LOL!!! You are so busy pointing at the people who have stuff to lose that you are not even noticing the people who have much more to gain. But yeah, there are two sides to the argument.
My issue is that the environmentalist side wants my energy bills to be 20%-70% more to do something that will have an admitted almost 0 effect on the climate and that the majority of the world is not going to cooperate with making the entire effort moot...
I want them to prove to me that there is verifiable proof and a realistic and effective plan before they raid my wallet... You seem to have no such concern...
Everybody wants to save the planet...
My issue is that the environmentalist side wants my energy bills to be 20%-70% more to do something that will have an admitted almost 0 effect on the climate and that the majority of the world is not going to cooperate with making the entire effort moot...
I want them to prove to me that there is verifiable proof and a realistic and effective plan before they raid my wallet... You seem to have no such concern...
Everybody wants to save the planet...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yeah, al gore has so much to gain and exxonmobil has so little to lose....beware that boogeyman al gore! you provide me much comical entertainment.
so this is all a conspiracy by environmentalists to raid your wallet? paranoid much?
what an incredible mischaracterization of 'environmentalists'. i put environmentalists in quotes because you do not need to be one to want to ween off fossil fuels and towards sustainable energies. i know many capitalists, investors, and opportunists jumping into the cause simply for the ROI. they are making money by saving other people money in the long run. win win.
i am also an environmentalist and do not want my energy bills to go up at all. why do you assume i do?
but i'm sorry, you were saying something to the tune of 'everybody is out to get my lucky charms'.... sorry to interrupt. exactly how and who wants what and why? please explain to me this conspiracy, as i've said before, i'm not part of the elite who are privy to this farce
EDIT - also, please explain how tax breaks for upgrading to energy efficient appliances is a concerted effort by environmentalists to take your money. that example and many others are very inconsistent with the 'they want to take my money' conspiracy you speak of
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
and if you deny climate change altogether or do something to obfuscate the issue you get WAYYYYY more lucratively funded by exxonmobil, the heritage foundation, or others trying to advance a viewpoint for personal gain rather than do the right thing based on overwhelming evidence and scientific concensus.
To the blue-green Hollywood Eco-Smurfs and Na'vi wannabe's, we are NOT living on a green Pandora that needs rescue from the evil RDA mining company. Humanity will not be saved by mythical noble savages or a forced return to a primitive life style. It took most of the nineteenth century to formulate the Laws of Thermodynamics. It took most of the twentieth century to apply those laws to the benefit of society. There will be no solutions to problems in the twenty first century that do not comply with these laws.
Curiously missing from the Climatology degree plan is any mention of Thermodynamics. Avoidance of these Laws must give license to break these Laws. Thus clouds can have a negative factor during the day, with their pesky 'albedo' effect reflecting sunlight back into space and then just hours later have a positive effect by blanketing the warmth at night. A reflector or greenhouse at the whim of a Climatologist.
Climatologists can ignore the specific heat and thermal mass of the entire planet and provide a computer model PROVING that the trace human portion, of a trace gas, in the trace portion of the Earth mass that is the atmosphere, is the single greatest climate forcing factor. They can then empower this three atom molecule the unique ability to radiate in a reverse flow in opposition to all proven Thermodynamic Laws. This is lawless behavior, which is by definition, criminal behavior.
Curiously missing from the Climatology degree plan is any mention of Thermodynamics. Avoidance of these Laws must give license to break these Laws. Thus clouds can have a negative factor during the day, with their pesky 'albedo' effect reflecting sunlight back into space and then just hours later have a positive effect by blanketing the warmth at night. A reflector or greenhouse at the whim of a Climatologist.
Climatologists can ignore the specific heat and thermal mass of the entire planet and provide a computer model PROVING that the trace human portion, of a trace gas, in the trace portion of the Earth mass that is the atmosphere, is the single greatest climate forcing factor. They can then empower this three atom molecule the unique ability to radiate in a reverse flow in opposition to all proven Thermodynamic Laws. This is lawless behavior, which is by definition, criminal behavior.