Nick and Kelsie, it doesnt matter about their SUVs and private planes because if they weren't using them to get to a climate change conference, they'd just be using them to go somewhere else.

 

Why should we give them power and money then if they cannot practice what they preach? If it was a real issue, the people crying about it would be living lives that are the opposite of this. Many scientist, don't practice what they preach, because of elitism.

Because people have jumped on the bandwagon to make a buck means the original argument is now rendered useless?

 

Scientists have been campaigning about global warming for decades in some cases, its the harsh weather conditions that have brought it to light in the last decade. Politicians, celebrities, CEOs, have used it as a way of promoting their apparent ethos and make more money, but thats completely irrelevant, the problem is a lot more long term then self-indulgent bastards. Also irrelevant is bringing up the buzz words that tabloids use such as terrorists and bird flu, the topic is about global warming, its been an issue for some people before our generation, and similar to people in power, just because the media is capitalising on it when its become an issue, does the original argument suddenly go away?

 

Ah, you say, what I would like to say, if I was better with words.

No one is willing to debate the issues is another reason why I have a hard time believing it.

 

Why has the last decade been cooling? Ice increasing? Polar bear population increasing?

No one is willing to debate the issues is another reason why I have a hard time believing it.

 

Why has the last decade been cooling? Ice increasing? Polar bear population increasing?

 

You get the Info that suits your opinion as much as I get Info that supports mine. But how do you or I know, what is historically correct? I've read, that the glaciers in the Himalayas slowly dissolve. Water that 'feeds' big parts of China and India ( well and some smaller countries around). So what about that?

 

Fuck, it's so exhausting to debate here, when not a native english speaker.:disappointed:

It takes me ages to write my little posts, duh.:(

No one is willing to debate the issues is another reason why I have a hard time believing it.

 

There are quite some people debating it Nick. And quite a few have for decades.

Ho, leaving the scene, when sensible criticism is brought up reminds me of Mc- Squared.

Ceolsige and Nick?

I don't want to argue about this, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy.

2000–2009, THE WARMEST DECADE

 

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html

I don't want to argue about this, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy.

 

Yeah, but that hypocrisy shouldn't distract you at all, I think. That's just the way it is at the moment.

Well, anyway.

Global Surface Temperature Trend : Result from three Global datasets: NOAA (NCDC Dataset) , NASA (GISS dataset) and combined Hadley Center and Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (UK) (HadCRUT3 dataset)

 

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/images/NewImage.PNG

Thanks for those links!

No one is willing to debate the issues is another reason why I have a hard time believing it.

 

For the record I wont be debating it, you sound like another conspiracy theorist nut who cant seem to focus on what we're debating, but an infinite number of contexts surrounding the evidence of what we're debating and why this information is apparently distorted.

 

The 'hacked emails' look ridiculous by the way, and their significance in the climate change debate hasn't even been acknowledged by those who don't believe in global warming and want to keep their respectability in tact. Its been like 3 weeks since that happened, and 100% of these pro-global warming scientists are all making so much money from it that they turn a blind eye to it?

 

Tens of thousands of scientists, researchers and students are constantly outlining direct ways into which global warming is happening, there's no way that I believe all of them are getting filthy rich off of it. You may be right that some of them could be, but similar to arguments I made earlier, just because a small percentage represents the face of the problem, does not mean it doesn't exist.

Thanks for those links!

 

no problem:)

It's because Mr. Government spent MANY MANY years saying 'Climate change, what is this?' and telling us to look the other way, and now they've changed the party line and it's confused the people. It's exactly the same as drug legislation, AMIRITE COME ON WHOS ON IT HERE?

For the record I wont be debating it, you sound like another conspiracy theorist nut who cant seem to focus on what we're debating, but an infinite number of contexts surrounding the evidence of what we're debating and why this information is apparently distorted.

 

The 'hacked emails' look ridiculous by the way, and their significance in the climate change debate hasn't even been acknowledged by those who don't believe in global warming and want to keep their respectability in tact. Its been like 3 weeks since that happened, and 100% of these pro-global warming scientists are all making so much money from it that they turn a blind eye to it?

 

Tens of thousands of scientists, researchers and students are constantly outlining direct ways into which global warming is happening, there's no way that I believe all of them are getting filthy rich off of it. You may be right that some of them could be, but similar to arguments I made earlier, just because a small percentage represents the face of the problem, does not mean it doesn't exist.

 

It's not a conspiracy its human nature to control through fear. Why did we invade Iraq? Fear of terrorism, without the fear Bush would have never had the power or support to do what he wanted. Leaders throughout time have used fear to do what they want.

 

There are thousands of scientist who are putting out research that says global warming is not man made. And many studies showing solar activity is to blame. Right now more evidence is showing we are not in global warming and climate changes are not caused by man.

Whos debating fear? Whos debating Iraq?

 

I never doubted that some institutions use fear and control, can they do it to the infinite lengths that your suggesting? No.

 

Global warming has been a widespread issue for a handful of years now and is being reverred by (Like I said) tens of thousands of scientists. Some anti-global warming scientists bring up the warnings in the 70's and at the start of this decade about the Big Freeze, and how those wacky scientists will make up anything to make money. The reality is that there werent many of them, and their theories were proven incorrect within a fairly short space of time.

 

If it wasnt happening the idea of it would've been quashed a long time ago.

I never doubted that some institutions use fear and control, can they do it to the infinite lengths that your suggesting? No.

 

Yes. They are. Fear has been used in every major issue in our world. In just about every war or the financial panic, or disease that is dangerous.

 

If it wasnt happening the idea of it would've been quashed a long time ago.

 

Throughout time false ideas have taken hundreds or thousands of years to be "squashed", just because it hasn't been does not make it real. How long did it take to realize the earth was round or the sun was the center of the universe?

 

We stopped listening to science and substituted it with fear and browbeating people into believing something far from being proven.

Oh no you used 'People thought the earth was flat once upon a time!' argument which is a pet peeve of mine.

 

We thought the earth was flat because, unlike now, we didnt have any scientific or geographical proof to say otherwise. I mean for fucks sake we're talking about global warming, not the Iraq war, not terrorism, not fear mongering, not the earth being round and NOT the sun being at the center of the universe! Do you have to back up every point with some wildly vague citing?!

 

Well heres mine- people can be wrong sometimes so you are definately wrong and further proof on top of that, people are right sometimes so I am definately right.

 

I win.

There was scientific evidence but it was ignored by the elites. They ignored science and common sense like what is happening now, but also happens on all major issues. People throw out facts and science because of fear or ignorance.

 

I was talking about Iraq, terrorism and those other issues because there is a trend with all these major "deadly" issues, fear is used to manipulate the masses and later on we learn the original information was a lie or wrong. Humans are always afraid of the future and everyone plays on that on every major issue. But if people open their eyes look past the propaganda and at the facts they realize it's just fear mongering to gain money and power. There may be a few people that aren't like that, but that doesn't make them right. The majority are power hungry.

It's rather complex, and looking at it from a perspective of a few years is like trying to discern the quality of a road based on one inch or two centimeters of travel on it. While we may have been in a (long time-frame) natural cooling trend, that trend has been slowed or perhaps reversed from our activities (which encompasses more than CO2 emissions - everything from agriculture to methane from livestock to deforestation).. I tend to think there are those who go along for the ride, trying to get more funding for their research, those who can make a buck on the fear, and those who are stuck in a mindset. But then there are those who really want to understand the true nature of what's occurring, and are motivated by the moments of enlightenment - human nature throughout history tells us that this is the case. While modeling may be limited, it has come a long ways from the past, and we are getting a better grasp on what's going on - from both models and from empirical evidence.

But one outstanding thing keeps cropping up in my mind - the earth's crust acts as a sort of dynamic buffer, a place where fixed carbon is stored. As we have in a short span of time burned a significant amount of the stored carbon in this crustal buffer, putting this into CO2 in the atmosphere, which winds up in a new equilibrium with the oceans, air, plant uptake, etc. - this is big, and no doubt cannot be ignored, whatever the effects may be. I think there is legitimate reason for concern, albeit from a careful, rational view of what is really happening, and what may likely occur in the future. To acidify the oceans is something to consider, as well as how CO2 levels and photosynthetic uptake keeps up or not, depending on the conditions. Slowing the warming trend may be a significant amount of soot particles in the atmoshere, that have been reducing the amount of light reaching the surface. As particulate emissions decrease, the latent effects of climate change may become more pronounced.

Anyhow, it's been swell - I must go now!

There was scientific evidence but it was ignored by the elites. They ignored science and common sense like what is happening now, but also happens on all major issues. People throw out facts and science because of fear or ignorance.

 

I was talking about Iraq, terrorism and those other issues because there is a trend with all these major "deadly" issues, fear is used to manipulate the masses and later on we learn the original information was a lie or wrong. Humans are always afraid of the future and everyone plays on that on every major issue. But if people open their eyes look past the propaganda and at the facts they realize it's just fear mongering to gain money and power. There may be a few people that aren't like that, but that doesn't make them right. The majority are power hungry.

 

 

 

Im very well aware of scare tactics, you don't have to keep reminding me by using the most well known examples around. When I first heard of Global Warming nearer the earlier part of this decade, I didnt suddenly jump out of my chair and shout "THE DOOMSDAY IS UPON US"

 

I did of course question it, but I also looked at is a possibility, mainly because it started off as a news item that didnt get great coverage and that not many cared to know about it. But over the course of this decade the importance of climate change has continued to become more important, because clearly it is now a real issue. Not like swine flu or the many other things you could bring up which came and went, providing a nice diversion from war and economic problems.

 

The main thing that I do not understand with your argument, is that you are talking about the greed of the human race (Which I agree with) yet the corporate bastards and oil barons who run this earth definately do not see Global Warming as an advantage to them, and in future if the importance of the preservation of the world becomes number 1 priority to us living on it (very unlikely) then they will have to make serious environmental changes to how they conduct business.

I tend to think there are those who go along for the ride, trying to get more funding for their research, those who can make a buck on the fear, and those who are stuck in a mindset. But then there are those who really want to understand the true nature of what's occurring, and are motivated by the moments of enlightenment - human nature throughout history tells us that this is the case. While modeling may be limited, it has come a long ways from the past, and we are getting a better grasp on what's going on - from both models and from empirical evidence.

 

This is both sides of the coin that I'm referring to Nick. In terms of the two short periods when the earth severely cooling was of minor relevance, it didn't take long to be proven to be false. The basic principles of why global warming is happening (And the predicted rise in temperature in correlation with higher CO2 levels) have not changed in decades.

What do we really have to lose as a world though by being energy efficient? If everyone in the world put a solar panel on their roof where there was regular sunlight, we would cut down CO2 output by tonnes. The only people who lose out of the global warming are the rich barsted who sell us the fuel anyway. Australia has the same issue with water, being so dry and all. If every australian had a water tank in their backyard, the water saving would be enormous. Question: I am told that American's don't use clotheslines? Is that correct?

What do we really have to lose as a world though by being energy efficient? If everyone in the world put a solar panel on their roof where there was regular sunlight, we would cut down CO2 output by tonnes. The only people who lose out of the global warming are the rich barsted who sell us the fuel anyway. Australia has the same issue with water, being so dry and all. If every australian had a water tank in their backyard, the water saving would be enormous. Question: I am told that American's don't use clotheslines? Is that correct?

 

Clotheslines don't work for people with allergies. We could all cook with fire, bath in rivers and go back to the stone age, but that didn't stop the last ice age or the earth from being a giant desert before.

 

Everyone loses out on global warming scams with job losses and less productivity. Things will cost a lot more and millions of jobs will be lost.

P.S. There is a lot of evidence that C02 is actually good for the environment.

 

Dr. Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, one of the nation's leading carbon dioxide research centers, examined records of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and air temperature over the last 250,000 years. There were three dramatic episodes of global warming that occurred at the end of the last three ice ages. Interestingly, temperatures started to rise during those warming periods well before the atmospheric carbon dioxide started to increase. In fact, the carbon dioxide levels did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm. Concludes Dr. Idso, "Clearly, there is no way that these real-world observations can be construed to even hint at the possibility that a significant increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will necessarily lead to any global warming."1

 

On the other hand, scientists have lots of evidence demonstrating that increased carbon dioxide levels leads to healthier plants. A team of scientists in Nevada conducted a five-year experiment in which they grew one group of ponderosa pine trees at the current carbon dioxide atmospheric level of about 360 parts per million (ppm) and another group of pines at 700 ppm. The doubled carbon dioxide level increased tree height by 43 percent and diameter by 24 percent. Similarly, a team of scientists from Virginia Tech University reported that growing loblolly pine trees in a greenhouse with a carbon dioxide concentration of 700 ppm increased average tree height 9 percent, diameter by 7 percent, needle biomass by 16 percent and root biomass by 33 percent.2

 

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA334.html

 

http://sibbyonline.blogs.com/sibbyonline/2009/10/co2-good-for-the-environment.html.

 

http://ker-plunk.blogspot.com/2008/01/more-co2-is-good-for-environment.html

 

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/05/carbon-dioxide-emissions-good-for.html