|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Mar 23, 2009 18:05:09 GMT -6
I care what the guys at MIT think. Are you starting to get the fucking picture? You mean guys like Richard Lindzen? ;D No, not that MIT grad. The other one.
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Mar 23, 2009 18:35:58 GMT -6
You just described ALL scientists. You don't know what the f**k you are talking about. Some places on earth, such as the Maldives and the English coast, are already dealing with the effects of rising sea levels. It's happening in real time. It's not a fucking hypothetical anymore. I'm gonna try to explain this to you like you're a sixth grader: Most systems on the planet are carbon neutral or carbon sinks (negative). Plants and the oceans, for example, store more carbon than they emit on balance. Humans, though...not so much. Every year, humans release more carbon into the atmosphere than they remove (via industrial activities.) Still with me? Here's the kicker, basic chemistry: Higher CO2 levels = more stored heat. Always. Atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising bince the industrial revolution began. Concurrently (sorry, big word) so have average temperatures. A predictable result. Heat drives climate and weather (see: gulf of Mexico and hurricanes). So it's not really the warming per se. It's the climate change. Because human society is predicated upon the climatological status quo. f**k with the climate, and...uh oh. But hey, you say, a bunch of volcanoes could drive climate change too. Yeah, they could. But that's like saying that it's ok that the crips gang raped your sister, bince the bloods might have done it anyway. Historically, Co2 lags temperature. These findings are supported by some AGW proponents including the peer reviewed study by Siegenthaler et al 2005 which states: “The lags of CO2 with respect to the Antarctic temperature over glacial terminations V to VII are 800, 1600, and 2800 years, respectively, which are consistent with earlier observations during the last four glacial cycles.” Temperatures have risen bince the Industrial revolution but a look at a historical temperature chart shows this "sharp" rise to be a micro bump. The vaunted Hockey Stick has also been disproven. Any major volcanic activity would have a net cooling effect on mean global temperatures due to the haze effect (see the effects of Laki, Tambora, Krakatau, El Chicon and Pinatubo). For an added bonus, check out Laurie David's childrens book The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming . They have the Siegenthaler Co2 vs. Temperature chart but mislabeled it to show that Co2 leads temperature. Good stuff. Edit: Please see former IPCC hurricane expert Christopher Landsea's thoughts on global warming's effect on hurricanes. He worked on the first three IPCC reports and withdrew during the fourth and is currently the Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center. You should also check out his resignation letter to the IPCC.
|
|
|
Post by Gumbyhawk on Mar 23, 2009 21:20:56 GMT -6
I also wonder why the Wrong... errr.... right always insists on using the "hey, it's cold in Iowa in January" argument.
What part of "global" don't you understand?
No, it's not a cop-out reply. It's a legit response. Global = entire earth. Just because it is still cold in Iowa in January does not mean that Antartica is breaking up any less.
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Mar 23, 2009 22:16:19 GMT -6
True, Gumby. Same goes for the local "it's so f'ing hot" stories. There are too many mechanisms that drive climate shifts and not enough knowledge about them to assign one thing (Co2) as the main culprit at this time. Climate science is still in it's infancy.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 24, 2009 10:35:56 GMT -6
True, Gumby. Same goes for the local "it's so f'ing hot" stories. There are too many mechanisms that drive climate shifts and not enough knowledge about them to assign one thing (Co2) as the main culprit at this time. Climate science is still in it's infancy. And as such is open to abuse. I've got a pretty extensive scientific background. I know that increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere lead to more stored heat. I know that heat drives weather. I know that weather drives climate. I know that the climatological status quo is the best scenario for continued human survival. So people can take the politics and ideology and shove them up their asses. I don't give a fuck. Pollution doesn't give a shit what you worship, it's gonna pollute you just the same. I know chemistry, and the dice are being rolled. It's a big experiment, and we are the guinea pigs. I better be able to fucking ski on snow in 20 years or there is gonna be hell to pay.
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Mar 24, 2009 11:33:34 GMT -6
Baby steps............
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Mar 24, 2009 11:53:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Mar 24, 2009 15:55:05 GMT -6
True, Gumby. Same goes for the local "it's so f'ing hot" stories. There are too many mechanisms that drive climate shifts and not enough knowledge about them to assign one thing (Co2) as the main culprit at this time. Climate science is still in it's infancy. And as such is open to abuse. I've got a pretty extensive scientific background. I know that increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere lead to more stored heat. I know that heat drives weather. I know that weather drives climate. I know that the climatological status quo is the best scenario for continued human survival. So people can take the politics and ideology and shove them up their asses. I don't give a f**k. Pollution doesn't give a shit what you worship, it's gonna pollute you just the same. I know chemistry, and the dice are being rolled. It's a big experiment, and we are the guinea pigs. I better be able to fucking ski on snow in 20 years or there is gonna be hell to pay. Of course it's open to abuse. I agree with your politics/ideology and ski sentiments. What does your extensive scientific background think about Landsea's ideas on warming/huricanes and Siegenthaler's study?
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Mar 29, 2009 8:10:43 GMT -6
I don't care whose name is inserted with the AGW argument. It isn't a proven theory no matter what Thee IPCC says. Everyone should agree with Master Chief's statement but it doesn't have a place in the AGW debate. Iammrhawkeyes stole my thunder. Master Chief is absolutely correct. That being said, you can't tie the "we should treat earth nice" argument with the "global warming is legit" argument. They are not mutually exclusive. "Believers" spout that those who believe that global warming is BS (that number is growing by the way) somehow don't care about the earth and want to trash it. It is a cop out. Psychological garbage. The fact of the matter is that those of us who called the global warming myth on the carpet care every bit as much about the world as those who bought the myth hook, line and sinker. The difference is that we are not about to advocate a new world order or advocate the taxing of our citizens into oblivion in the name of global warming. We also aren't real keen on the U.S. Government directing what kind of vehicles must be manufactured, sold and bought in what is supposed to be a free marketplace. If more fuel efficient or alternative fueled vehicles are important to the cause, and I assume they are to you, right?.....all manufacturers have to do is make them so consumers will buy them because they like them and willingly choose to buy them, not because they have been directed to do so. As far as the algore reference....the fact of the matter is that it doesn't help your cause when those who preach loudest about man made global warming are the worst offenders.....algore, Edwards, Pilosi, Kennedy, etc. Have you written them letters about their hypocritical behavior?....probably not, huh? You have been played for suckers. Well...lookie here. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510937,00.html
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 30, 2009 12:44:06 GMT -6
Do you ever fucking read anything that doesn't come wrapped in right-wing bias? I mean really, what the fuck? Are you so terrified of opposing viewpoints (aka "truth") that you won't even allow your beady little eyes to see them? Here's something terrifying. Hope it's wrong. www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1480669.eceGo read it before you spout off again. I suppose the deniers don't care, but their kids will. The grandkids might not, though...their existence is real fucking hypothetical. Oh, by the way...these scientists who you loathe are not economists. They don't have some conspiratorial economic agenda (as opposed to the hacks hired within the products defense industry). They report findings as they determine them. It's called the "scientific method." The fact that you are reading my admonition to go fuck yourself with a serrated broomstick is proof that it works. Try to pound this through your shit-filled skull: The earth is warming, the product-defense paid deniers notwithstanding. You can see evidence everywhere. It's SCIENTIFICALLY measured. It's gonna fuck the human race. So your defense of the status quo, which is untenable in any event, renders you an idiot and a villain. Tell us, will you...what is in it for you to parrot the lies of the product defense industry? Are they paying you? Or are you just so fucking worked over that you've forfeited the well-being of your kids to avoid cognitive dissonance? You're a grown man. Grow the fuck up and act like one. Your refusal to use your mind as anything but a repository of lies and propaganda is an affront to God and nature.
|
|