Global Warming Update

CrackerJax

New Member
Poor Paddy.... all alone with his fudged data. :lol:

That's just the point. No one now knows what data is any good. Then as we have all seen, the conclusions drawn are based on SPECULATION.

If we weren't talking about trillions of dollars being sucked out of countries to others.... no one would care much. But they are, and we do care.

We just want GOOD science.

A do over is required.

It's obvious to all but the ones who can't maintain an open mind.

Carbon as was just illustrated by iivan clearly shows that it is not the deciding factor in climate tipping. It works out to a ridiculously small amount of the atmosphere (man's contribution). Carbon also cannot be shown to parallel climate swings in history. There's a very good reason for that.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
India is overtaking us in that department. For centuries the look has been one of being skinny. Not having enough to eat had something to do with it.

Now it is the opposite and the mothers are fattening up their kids to the point of obesity. A human nature knee jerk reaction to extra cash and food.

If only they had Wal-Marts....
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
ok pada i got your irrufutable proof that the science is not settled as our president likes to say "the irrifutable evedence of global warming"

(but he says climate change so he is not actually lieing, just a play on words to enslave the obtuse)



any way its you against 6 billion China Men, many of them breaking their backs to put enough food on the tale for thier children who are going to be the future leaders of the new lone superpower of the world after our idiot corrupt bastard leaders sink this ship


CHINA: Cause of global warming not clear...


China unsure on warming cause, to stick with CO2 cuts
10 Mar 2010 12:22:50 GMT
Source: Reuters

* Cause of global warming not clear, top negotiator says

* World should act to cut carbon emissions anyway

* U.S. must not shirk its responsibilities


By Emma Graham-Harrison


BEIJING, March 10 (Reuters) - China's top climate negotiator said on Wednesday that the cause of global warming was still not clear but the problems it was creating were so serious that the world must anyway act to cut greenhouse gas emissions.


Xie Zhenhua, vice-chairman of the powerful National Development and Reform Commission, also warned the United States it should not use domestic divisions over climate change as an excuse to pass its responsibilities off onto other countries.


"There are still two different viewpoints in the scientific field about the cause of warming," Xie told a news conference on the sidelines of the annual session of China's largely rubber-stamp parliament.

"At present, many people, or the most mainstream view, is that the combustion of large amounts of fossil fuel over the process of industrialisation caused an increase in greenhouse gases, which caused climate warming."


"Another point of view holds that the main reason is changes in sunspots, or natural changes in the environment. There is an even more extreme point of view, that human influence on changes in nature can only be miniscule," he added.


Influences on changes in the Earth's climate includes cycles in solar activity -- traditionally measured by sunspots -- but that is far outweighed by recent increases in greenhouse gas emissions, most scientists say.


Public conviction of global warming's risks may have been undermined by damaging admissions from a U.N. climate panel that it had published at least two errors and by the disclosure of hacked emails revealing scientists sniping at sceptics, who leaped on these as evidence of data fixing.


But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stood by its main 2007 finding -- that it was more than 90 percent certain that human activities were the main cause of global warming in the past 50 years. [ID:nLDE61P1NX]


ACT NOW, INVESTIGATE LATER


There are powerful constituencies among China's politicians and business community who would welcome a slowing of Beijing's push for cleaner growth, although they are less vocal than their counterparts in the United States and Europe.


But despite Xie's unusually sceptical comments, he made it clear that Beijing has no intention of rowing back from ambitious commitments to greener growth that it sees as vital to energy security and growth as well as tackling warming.


China has pledged to cut "carbon intensity", or the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each yuan of national income, by some 40 to 45 percent by 2020.


"As far as governments around the world are concerned, as the existence and long term development of climate change will cause great damage to mankind, it is better to believe that it is happening than that it isn't," said Xie, adding that China was already experiencing rising temperatures.

"We should take scientific measures to avoid these problems happening," Xie said. He agreed with another official who said questions about the human contribution to warming should be left to scientists, while governments pushed ahead with investments in green technology.

U.S. President Barack Obama recently also urged his country to embrace a push towards cleaner energy, and said climate sceptics should see past their doubts about the causes of warming to the benefits of green technology. [ID:nSGE60R08F]


"Even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy," Obama said in his first State of the Union speech to Congress in January."
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Hahahah.... China is playing us like a deck of cards!!!

If they didn't run their own citizens down with tanks, I'd think about moving over there.
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
ok how about a comprimise

what if we deploy huge mirrors made out of mylar to be dispatched above our oceans in space to reflect the sun away and cool the seas which absorb the most heat because they are dark, that way we can solve the supossed problem without too much cost

how much does 1,000 cubic miles of mylar cost:shock:




hhhmmmm on another note, what if instead of putting sanctions on Iran we just deploy a huge mylar umbrella above thier country dropping them into 24/7 darknest until they stop accelerating a nuculer arms race in the middle east:-P




 

dukeofbaja

New Member
Poor Paddy.... all alone with his fudged data. :lol:
.
.
.
We just want GOOD science.
.
.
.
A do over is required.
.
.
.
Hey now, Padawan is not standing alone. I still lean as heavy as ever towards MMCC, but why debate something contentious when we can debate something more utile? Like sustainable energies and how we can benefit from them: financially, economically, and environmentally.

But I bet if there was a 'do-over' using 'good' science, 97% of those who know best would still come to the same conclusion and certain other folks would still say it is a conspiracy to take our money.

Like some folks have said...It's obvious to all but the ones who can't maintain an open mind.
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
i for one am not stupid and most are not either, if my earth was in danger i would do whatever it took to save it and anyone with any self preservation instinct 99.999% feel the same way

so duke is right, it shouldnt be a left issue


it should be an exhasting non partisan study that is fluid,

we reached a curve in the river, lets survey it before we plunge ourselves balls deep into the unknown
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
Poor Paddy.... all alone with his fudged data. :lol:

All alone... 97% of the scientific community... all the same I guess...
:?

That's just the point. No one now knows what data is any good. Then as we have all seen, the conclusions drawn are based on SPECULATION.

... If you truly believe this to be the case, then why do you favor NOTHING being done? I'll get back to this point a little later, but the minor argument duke, me, jeffchr, Obama and the rest of the scientific community are saying is that EVEN IF IT'S 100% FAKE, IT IS STILL A GOOD IDEA TO SWITCH TO CLEAN ENERGY. How could you possibly disagree with that Cracker? How do you see it as a bad move to develop innovative cleaner renewable energy? Lead the world in research and development and boost our national economy (indirectly boosting the global economy), create American jobs... Dude, I just don't see your reasoning at all. I think all you see is "they're stealing my money!!"... and that's where the thinking stops...


If we weren't talking about trillions of dollars being sucked out of countries to others.... no one would care much. But they are, and we do care.
... still haven't explained that one yet. What "trillions of dollars"? Where does it go?

We just want GOOD science.

A do over is required.
No, what you want is anything that says anthropogenic climate change is false (or that you think is false, as I'll show you with P's perfect example down this post...). You've already proven you are the one who isn't interested in the SCIENCE. As I keep posting source after source of accurate science, and all you guys have is media manipulation. Oh and about that...

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.132.9906&rep=rep1&type=pdf


It's obvious to all but the ones who can't maintain an open mind.
You're clouded by politics, it's obvious to everyone else dude..

Carbon as was just illustrated by iivan clearly shows that it is not the deciding factor in climate tipping. It works out to a ridiculously small amount of the atmosphere (man's contribution). Carbon also cannot be shown to parallel climate swings in history. There's a very good reason for that.
See what I mean man... you're going to take a RANDOM motherfuckers word on a POT GROWING FORUM to base your opinion of climate change upon instead of the scientists because he agrees with your conclusion. That's politics, not science.

ok pada i got your irrufutable proof that the science is not settled as our president likes to say "the irrifutable evedence of global warming"

(but he says climate change so he is not actually lieing, just a play on words to enslave the obtuse)

any way its you against 6 billion China Men, many of them breaking their backs to put enough food on the tale for thier children who are going to be the future leaders of the new lone superpower of the world after our idiot corrupt bastard leaders sink this ship

CHINA: Cause of global warmingnot clear...


China unsure on warming cause, to stick with CO2 cuts
10 Mar 2010 12:22:50 GMT
Source: Reuters

* Cause of global warming not clear, top negotiator says

* World should act to cut carbon emissions anyway :idea::o

* U.S. must not shirk its responsibilities


By Emma Graham-Harrison


BEIJING, March 10 (Reuters) - China's top climate negotiator said on Wednesday that the cause of global warming was still not clear but the problems it was creating were so serious that the world must anyway act to cut greenhouse gas emissions. :shock:

Xie Zhenhua, vice-chairman of the powerful National Development and Reform Commission, also warned the United States it should not use domestic divisions over climate change as an excuse to pass its responsibilities off onto other countries.

"There are still two different viewpoints in the scientific field about the cause of warming," Xie told a news conference on the sidelines of the annual session of China's largely rubber-stamp parliament.

"At present, many people, or the most mainstream view, is that the combustion of large amounts of fossil fuel over the process of industrialisation caused an increase in greenhouse gases, which caused climate warming." :-|

"Another point of view holds that the main reason is changes in sunspots, or natural changes in the environment. There is an even more extreme point of view, that human influence on changes in nature can only be miniscule," he added. :dunce:

Influences on changes in the Earth's climate includes cycles in solar activity -- traditionally measured by sunspots -- but that is far outweighed by recent increases in greenhouse gas emissions, most scientists say.

Public conviction of global warming's risks may have been undermined by damaging admissions from a U.N. climate panel that it had published at least two errors and by the disclosure of hacked emails revealing scientists sniping at sceptics, who leaped on these as evidence of data fixing.

This is where you guys pick out the 1 scientist who lied in my previous example and then discredit the 9 other scientists findings based off of the one guys dishonesty... Brilliant logic fellas! :-|

But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stood by its main 2007 finding -- that it was more than 90 percent certain that human activities were the main cause of global warming in the past 50 years.

ACT NOW, INVESTIGATE LATER

There are powerful constituencies among China's politicians and business community who would welcome a slowing of Beijing's push for cleaner growth, although they are less vocal than their counterparts in the United States and Europe.

But despite Xie's unusually sceptical comments, he made it clear that Beijing has no intention of rowing back from ambitious commitments to greener growth that it sees as vital to energy security and growth as well as tackling warming.

China has pledged to cut "carbon intensity", or the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each yuan of national income, by some 40 to 45 percent by 2020.

"As far as governments around the world are concerned, as the existence and long term development of climate change will cause great damage to mankind, it is better to believe that it is happening than that it isn't," said Xie, adding that China was already experiencing rising temperatures.

"We should take scientific measures to avoid these problems happening," Xie said. He agreed with another official who said questions about the human contribution to warming should be left to scientists, while governments pushed ahead with investments in green technology.

U.S. President Barack Obama recently also urged his country to embrace a push towards cleaner energy, and said climate sceptics should see past their doubts about the causes of warming to the benefits of green technology.

"Even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy," Obama said in his first State of the Union speech to Congress in January.
 

dukeofbaja

New Member
i for one am not stupid and most are not either, if my earth was in danger i would do whatever it took to save it
It is not so much the earth that is in danger; the earth can, will, and has recovered from worse. The danger, methinks, is the impact on us humans. Inches worth of change in sea levels and 1 or 2 degrees average temp changes may not seem like a lot, but their cumulative effects could very well be devastating in many ways, not just economically.

In any case, let's move away from that ball of uncertainty and talk about how I can light my grow room for cheaper.
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
It is not so much the earth that is in danger; the earth can, will, and has recovered from worse. The danger, methinks, is the impact on us humans. Inches worth of change in sea levels and 1 or 2 degrees average temp changes may not seem like a lot, but their cumulative effects could very well be devastating in many ways, not just economically.

In any case, let's move away from that ball of uncertainty and talk about how I can light my grow room for cheaper.

sell 1 ounce for $400 and pay for your electricity for months
 

dukeofbaja

New Member
I'd have to sell 2 ounces around these parts to pull $400. Plus, my op is only self-sustaining, not a whole lot of excess by the time next harvest is ready.

Nuclear energy? I haven't looked a whole lot at the advantages/disadvantages. Anyone more informed then me?
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
how about this, ....






our coastal cities suck. from NY to SF to FL. would it really hurt us to flood them and move inland 100 miles? if the climate is changing then we will be able to habitat areas that once weren't habitatable(sp). the valleys will get the water they so need, so food will flourish again. cities will have to be rebuilt so jobs will be created. new roads, new seaports, new cities. would that really be so bad? it happens slow enough that you can back up a little. and the human race is not gonna die off.

the "climate" is like a huge earth tide. the tide is coming in. put on your boots.

it could happen. :wink:
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Paddy that is exactly that attitude that has brought down the charade of global warming.

What you forget repeatedly is science cannot exist without public approval and BELIEF in that science. In cases like this, it parallels religion. You can have all the scientists in the world scream to the rooftops, but if the public turns their back on them...they are no more than a nuisance.

Science is KEENLY aware of this and that is why the retractions are in FULL FORCE.

The fact that you can't even recognize the back peddling by the VERY SAME ppl who started it all shows you have lost any objectivity.

And that's a shame. I figured you to more level headed.
 

iivan740

Well-Known Member
EVEN IF IT'S 100% FAKE, IT IS STILL A GOOD IDEA TO SWITCH TO CLEAN ENERGY.
I don't think anyone is saying changing to a clean renewable source of energy is a bad idea. I am just tired of the scientific manipulation and lies that are rampent, and I don't think that cap and trade is the solution. Don't start taxing my cows farts (+CO2) unless your gonna give me a tax credit for the corn (-CO2) I raise to feed the cow.
the one who isn't interested in the SCIENCE. As I keep posting source after source of accurate science, and all you guys have is media manipulation. Oh and about that...
Quote "The atmosphere has a mass of about five quintillion (5 × 1018 or 5,000,000,000,000,000,000) kg, three quarters of which is within about 11 km (6.8 mi; 36,000 ft) of the surface. " source: Lutgens, Frederick K. and Edward J. Tarbuck (1995) The Atmosphere, Prentice Hall, 6th ed., pp14-17, ISBN 0-13-350612-6

quote "Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 1018 kg "
Source: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

Quote "CO2 365 ppm"
source: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/221.htm

Quote "CO2 388.63 "
Source: http://co2now.org/

qoute "manmade CO2 = 3.225%"

Quote " how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not."
source:http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Quote " “Man-made CO2 doesn’t appear physically capable of absorbing much more than two-thousandths of the radiated heat passing upward through the atmosphere,” Peden writes "
Quote "Peden is hardly the only skeptical scientist. In December 2007, 100 scientists signed an open letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon "
Source: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2009/01/19/man-made-co2-cant-cause-global-warming-it-doesnt-have-the-mojo/

Another perspective on global warming by a scientist. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/

A graph of earths CO2 content based on ice core sampleing going back 20000 years. Notice that CO2 ppm has hovered between 250 and 300 for about 12000 years.
Source: Brighton UK http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/20000yrfig.htm

Ivy League geologist Robert Giegengack, chairman of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, said he doesn't even consider global warming among the top 10 environmental problems.
Quote "Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air."
source: comment comes from Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin
Quote “The great lesson from geologic history is that carbon dioxide is critical to life. The move to label it as a pollutant is simply preposterous. The logical extension to that thought process is that the government has legally regulated life. The notion would be laughable if it were not so tragically real.”
source: physical science and mathematics professor Richard F. Yada 2009 paper, “Reality Check: CO2”:

padawan I could go on but do you really want more?
See what I mean man... you're going to take a RANDOM motherfuckers word on a POT GROWING FORUM to base your opinion of climate change upon instead of the scientists because he agrees with your conclusion.
That wasn't my random (to quote PadawanBater) "motherfuckers word" it is the science that (in part) derailed the World Climate Conference-3 in Geneva. I.E. That cap and trade summit.
 

jeff f

New Member
It is not so much the earth that is in danger; the earth can, will, and has recovered from worse. The danger, methinks, is the impact on us humans. Inches worth of change in sea levels and 1 or 2 degrees average temp changes may not seem like a lot, but their cumulative effects could very well be devastating in many ways, not just economically.

In any case, let's move away from that ball of uncertainty and talk about how I can light my grow room for cheaper.
florida is about 14 degrees hotter on average than my place.....hasnt hurt me yet. i think i will be able to stand the increased point 5 degree increase over the next 50 years....yeesh. use your head.
 
Top