 
     |
| The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 11/600) |
|
4-mulaGT
|
JUL 17, 11:53 AM
|
|
Hmmm....
Bear Vs..... Manbearpig..... interesting...
|
|
|
|
FieroFanatic13
|
JUL 17, 12:10 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by silver 85 sc:
I wish I had all the facts instead of the garbage we are being fed. Here are some questions I have for the global warming people that I would love to have answered.
1) Where are the temperatures being measured. If temps are being measured in or around cities the values must be thrown out. Ever fried an egg on hot concrete? Or even a black roof. Get enough buildings together and you can bias temperature ratings to indicate that doom is inevitable. Shoot even a plowed field is warmer than a grassy prairie
.......
Rich |
|
I find this to be one of the MOST interesting questions. When the global warming activists talk about how temps have risen "x degrees in the last 100 years," what is the starting point? Random measurments taken at an air port in Reno, NV back in 1905? Well, actually, YES according to some info I've read- other places too, but that is one named in an article. And I'm not talking about on-line stuff. The problem is that we don't know how drunk that guy or gal was every night, we don't know if their equipment measured the temps even remotely correctly, etc. Nor do we know if the person just walked outside and wrote down a number they thought fit. Basing policy on this sort of information and making mandatory changes based on this stuff worries me.
I am NOT saying to ignore more recent measurements done in a more controlled manner that might indicate something is going on. I'm just saying that using measurements from a time when they weren't concerned about what they were doing like we are now is dangerous. There was an article about this very issue in Popular Mechanics for sure, and somewhere else as well I believe...
|
|
|
|
FieroFanatic13
|
JUL 17, 12:23 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 4-mulaGT:
I wonder if the Pro anthropogenic GW people are actually reading this stuff...
....
|
|
Not really- but that's the nature of the beast when people become emotionally attached to a fact related issue. When one wants to "believe," no amount of evidence to the contrary will change their minds. Same goes for the other side of the card as well. Those who don't want to "believe" can ignore facts as well. The evidence really isn't there definitively for AGW- some circumstantial stuff certainly, and we definitely should be concerned and even start being more proactive toward reducing pollution, etc. But to modify policy and force things on the populace based on loose evidence is worrisome to me.
All in all, when it comes down to emotional arguments, it becomes like the quote one of the guys on Mythbusters said one time:
"I reject your reality and substitute my own..." 
Trouble is, there really is only ONE REALITY when it comes to YES or NO on AGW. I don't think the evidence for it is strong enough yet, but I don't think we can ignore it and not investigate it fully either.[This message has been edited by FieroFanatic13 (edited 07-17-2008).]
|
|
|
|
FieroFanatic13
|
JUL 17, 12:25 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by fierobear:
That's because it has become very much like a religious belief for those who believe in AGW. You can't argue against religion with facts. |
|
See my point made above. This fits nicely. 
|
|
|
ryan.hess
|
JUL 17, 01:16 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by fierobear:
But I post info like this more for the open-minded people |
|
hahahaha
yeah, good one. Nobody here is "open minded". It's like smokey yunicks car. Either you believe it got 500mpg and 200hp or you don't. If you do, you think everyone else is being paid by the oil companies. If you don't, you think everyone's a quack. There's no middle ground and nobody will change.
I could post different studies refuting all of your points one by one... would it make a difference? No. The IPCC was paid off by Gore and all the scientists are sleeping with Alicia Silverstone. Open mind my ass.
Might as well have started a different thread altogether, you would have gotten the same results:
| quote | Originally posted by FieroFanatic13:
Trouble is, there really is only ONE REALITY when it comes to YES or NO on whether or not God exists. I don't think the evidence for it is strong enough yet, but I don't think we can ignore it and not investigate it fully either.
|
|
indeed. There's no middle ground on that one.  
|
|
|
|
Phranc
|
JUL 17, 01:25 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ryan.hess:
I could post different studies refuting all of your points one by one...
|
|
So do it.
|
|
|
|
ryan.hess
|
JUL 17, 01:32 PM
|
|
|
Thanks for the offer, but I have a life.
|
|
|
|
4-mulaGT
|
JUL 17, 01:35 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ryan.hess:
I could post different studies refuting all of your points one by one...
|
|
DO IT.
I believe the funding issue was only ONE post in this thread of ... 106
if not than dont be an arrogant fool and post crap like that.
|
|
|
|
FieroFanatic13
|
JUL 17, 02:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
rogergarrison
|
JUL 17, 03:17 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 4-mulaGT:
I wonder if the Pro anthropogenic GW people are actually reading this stuff...
. |
|
They prob dont, or skip the parts they dont want to listen to. I know people here first hand that went to Gores movie and give me all the speeches on the doom. Ive argued they only listened to his side, wont even bother to read or watch any videos of people disputing him that I print out or copy for them. He is god and his word is the only truth. Now I just look at them and laugh while shaking my head as I go to my CO2 causing V8 cars.[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 07-17-2008).]
|
|
|
|