Well, its 65 million years later and I still dont see no new growth palms in Alberta.... Any change that has a real effect on us wont happen till the disappearance of mankind so who cares. ONLY thing that could change it catastophicly AND quickly is something like an asteroid strike. We could lite a match to every manmade flammable fuel on the planet in the next hour and have litterally no effect on the planet. It would be like throwing a shot glass of oil into a forest fire.
Who cares? I don't know, I'm guessing plenty were/are saying the same thing about dumbing their garbage/sewage in the ocean and rivers or spewing pollution into the air.
An analogy could be made to painting cars without using a mask, there are probably plenty who did it and still do, doesn't mean they are guarenteed to get cancer or some lung disease/problem but it sure does increase the chances. To me the choice is clear, it's time to start treating the environment better and introduce technology that will help.
Newf, the IPCC data is exactly what is in question and whether it is founded on good science. It is not. It is junk science. Data that is based on falsified reports and manipulated climatic information. You are forgetting that the North American Continent is no warmer today than it was in 1950. In fact, there have been at least 3 cooling cycles since 1950, including the present cooling cycle and the cooling cycle in the 70's. (there was a threat of the Great Ice Age returning at that time) Also remember the extreme weather in 1954 (oh I forgot, you weren't around to see it)
I see once again you switch the conversation. First it is Global Warming, then it is Climate Change and now it is Pollution. While I agree that pollution is a very real problem in North America, but more particularly in Asia, I do not agree that it includes CO2 which is the basis for the Cap and Trade scam and the Global Warming scam.
Originally posted by newf: An analogy could be made to painting cars without using a mask, there are probably plenty who did it and still do, doesn't mean they are guarenteed to get cancer or some lung disease/problem but it sure does increase the chances. To me the choice is clear, it's time to start treating the environment better and introduce technology that will help.
Newf, the IPCC data is exactly what is in question and whether it is founded on good science. It is not. It is junk science. Data that is based on falsified reports and manipulated climatic information. You are forgetting that the North American Continent is no warmer today than it was in 1950. In fact, there have been at least 3 cooling cycles since 1950, including the present cooling cycle and the cooling cycle in the 70's. (there was a threat of the Great Ice Age returning at that time) Also remember the extreme weather in 1954 (oh I forgot, you weren't around to see it)
I see once again you switch the conversation. First it is Global Warming, then it is Climate Change and now it is Pollution. While I agree that pollution is a very real problem in North America, but more particularly in Asia, I do not agree that it includes CO2 which is the basis for the Cap and Trade scam and the Global Warming scam.
How about first we read up on friendsofscience? Who are they? Does this group consist of thousands of scientists with peer reviewed articles about Climate? (Not that I'm saying everything the majority says is always right but when it comes to things like climate science I tend to agree believe the ones that have the expertise and time to study the intricacies of it.)
A quick google search shows me that they have been caught "cooking their books" and accepting money secretly from the oil companies. all while having ties to the current Government. hmmmmm...
Maybe you should read up on the subject as well before blindly believing sites that go along with your opinions. It's a good idea for all of us, myself included.
2.5 I honestly don't know enough about it. Doesn't sound great on the surface but I'd have to see more detail. To me there has to be a balance for things like that you can't just punish people and industry for the things that while might be harmful to the environment weren't recognized as such before. Like the example I used of dumping sewer waste in the ocean or river, a community shouldn't be punished for doing so but the surely should have a plan and begin to rectify it when possible.
IP: Logged
07:15 PM
Blacktree Member
Posts: 20770 From: Central Florida Registered: Dec 2001
Originally posted by newf: Who cares? I don't know, I'm guessing plenty were/are saying the same thing about dumbing their garbage/sewage in the ocean and rivers or spewing pollution into the air.
Don't get me wrong. I do think pollution and deforestation are important issues. Just look at the Great Pacific Garbage Patch as a shameful example of water pollution. Then look at the South American rain forests, which are being bulldozed to make room for crops to be fermented into ethanol (which ironically is touted as a "green" fuel). However, I don't think we should be so quick to classify CO2 as a pollutant. After all, CO2 is just as vital to plant life as Oxygen is to animal life.
IP: Logged
08:04 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Yet you seem to discount all that science in favour of what you call proof. My problem with that is what makes it proof and the rest meaningless in your mind.
You are mixing up scientific proof, by way of published papers and data, with the idea that a certain number or percentage of scientists agreeing on something. The latter isn't proof, and is meaningless. You can line up all the scientists you want, they can say anything they want, but if ONE scientist comes along with evidence that disproves the theory, then the rest are WRONG. Numbers or percentages of scientists don't mean a damn thing. THAT'S the point you seem to be missing.
IP: Logged
08:33 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
You are mixing up scientific proof, by way of published papers and data, with the idea that a certain number or percentage of scientists agreeing on something. The latter isn't proof, and is meaningless. You can line up all the scientists you want, they can say anything they want, but if ONE scientist comes along with evidence that disproves the theory, then the rest are WRONG. Numbers or percentages of scientists don't mean a damn thing. THAT'S the point you seem to be missing.
So how can you be sure the evidence this one scientist comes up with is correct? Because he says so and you agree?
Does science always have to be 100% accurate before one acts on it. Hope you never get sick, you think medical treatment is based on 100% fact?
IP: Logged
08:40 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by newf: A quick google search shows me that they have been caught "cooking their books" and accepting money secretly from the oil companies. all while having ties to the current Government. hmmmmm...
You quoted someone's blog (who calls themself a journalist), using the standard well-worn and dismissive tactic of the warmists - "accepting money secretly from the oil companies". Right.
Maybe you should read up on the subject as well before blindly believing sites that go along with your opinions. It's a good idea for all of us, myself included.
LOL Now this is rich. This is a guy who registered his blog on Tucows.com. Hardly qualified I'd say.
Every time somebody prints the truth, you will take pains to find somebody or other to agree with you. Try harder.
This is from the University of Calgary's own website concerning the funneling of funds from the oil companies to FoS
"We had sufficient concerns last year to sever any relationship with Friends of Science,” added Harrison. “That decision has not changed.”
Earlier this year the University of Calgary advised Elections Canada and Canada Revenue Agency of its concerns regarding the accounts Friends of Science and the ongoing auditor’s review.
This is from the University of Calgary's own website concerning the funneling of funds from the oil companies to FoS
"We had sufficient concerns last year to sever any relationship with Friends of Science,” added Harrison. “That decision has not changed.”
Earlier this year the University of Calgary advised Elections Canada and Canada Revenue Agency of its concerns regarding the accounts Friends of Science and the ongoing auditor’s review.
You quoted someone's blog (who calls themself a journalist), using the standard well-worn and dismissive tactic of the warmists - "accepting money secretly from the oil companies". Right.
newf is accepting money secretly from GW alarmists to spread the propaganda. He's part of their street team. I hear they have their own Twitter feed.
This is from the University of Calgary's own website concerning the funneling of funds from the oil companies to FoS
"We had sufficient concerns last year to sever any relationship with Friends of Science,” added Harrison. “That decision has not changed.”
Earlier this year the University of Calgary advised Elections Canada and Canada Revenue Agency of its concerns regarding the accounts Friends of Science and the ongoing auditor’s review.
Elections Canada governs election expenses and political parties. Canada Revenue Agency governs payable tax in Canada. Neither have purview over Scientific Publications. Daaahhhh..........
Now, in terms of funding, East Anglia was funded by the British Government who are now investigating their fraudulent publications. If a scientist is funded by anyone other than a government, does that negate their findings?
If I contribute to a scientific research, does that taint their research? If John Rockefeller contributes to the Library of Congress, does that contaminate their historical research?
Don't look for funding as the red herring issue. Look at this. Is Canada any warmer today than it was in 1970? Think about it. Think about it hard. The truth may sink in. There is no change. Again. daaahhh......
It's equivilent to a true "jury of your peers" where only people who have been accused of the same crime can be jurors.
There's so much research money, funding, salaries involved, ($billion$) that any scientist would be hard pressed to say anything that would kill this cash cow. Considering that, I would be far more inclined to believe science that disproved or cast doubt on GW over 'data' coming from those whose livlihood/standing/prestige depended in entirety or in part on that funding.
It's equivilent to a true "jury of your peers" where only people who have been accused of the same crime can be jurors.
There's so much research money, funding, salaries involved, ($billion$) that any scientist would be hard pressed to say anything that would kill this cash cow. Considering that, I would be far more inclined to believe science that disproved or cast doubt on GW over 'data' coming from those whose livlihood/standing/prestige depended in entirety or in part on that funding.
What about the cash cow that funds the skeptic science? ($trillion$)
Isn't likely that if the evidence was there to disprove the Climate Change theory that industries that has most of the money would gladly fund it?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-14-2010).]
Elections Canada governs election expenses and political parties. Canada Revenue Agency governs payable tax in Canada. Neither have purview over Scientific Publications. Daaahhhh..........
Now, in terms of funding, East Anglia was funded by the British Government who are now investigating their fraudulent publications. If a scientist is funded by anyone other than a government, does that negate their findings?
If I contribute to a scientific research, does that taint their research? If John Rockefeller contributes to the Library of Congress, does that contaminate their historical research?
Don't look for funding as the red herring issue. Look at this. Is Canada any warmer today than it was in 1970? Think about it. Think about it hard. The truth may sink in. There is no change. Again. daaahhh......
Arn
Ahhhhh yes the view that the temperature hasn't warmed much locally so it's not true. Another brilliant arguement but how does it correlate with sunspots I wonder? daaaahhhh.... as you would say...
Do you even know what the theory says or do you just listen to conjecture and alarmists and then turn off?
"The most common measure of global warming is the trend in globally averaged temperature near the Earth's surface. Expressed as a linear trend, this temperature rose by 0.74 ± 0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005. The rate of warming over the last half of that period was almost double that for the period as a whole (0.13 ± 0.03 °C per decade, versus 0.07 °C ± 0.02 °C per decade)"
"Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century"
I always find it interesting, that an observation over a person's, over even over a person's, their father's, and grandffather's lifespans are thrown out as "anecdotal". Let a scientist use the same timeline, and suddenly--it's "settled science".
How many recognized scientific bodies are disagreeing with the Climate Change theories?
There you go again with "scientific bodies", which is nothing more than another way of saying "consensus" or number of scientists. You just don't get that it doesn't matter.
There you go again with "scientific bodies", which is nothing more than another way of saying "consensus" or number of scientists. You just don't get that it doesn't matter.
You do realize by saying that you are undermining all the facts and figures you like to copy and paste?
If you believe it only takes one person disprove a theory and you are not an expert in that particular field how can you ever be sure of anything. If you want to say it's your opinion that Climate Change theory is false then so be it but you seem to keep claiming you know somehow that it is. By your own words you can never be sure of that.
People make decisions based on consensus everyday, they have to or things would come to a standstill. Like I said, hope you never get sick because most of medicine is based on consensus, sometimes you have to trust the experts. Not saying scientists or doctors are never wrong because there have been plenty of cases but claiming you know better is difficult when you (or I) don't have the knowledge to make that claim. If I were to get sick however and had the ability to ask as many doctors as I could and the vast majority came back with the same solution, I think I would go with it.
Edit: I hope this goes with out saying but the sickness thing is just an example, not matter what difference of opinion we ever have I hope you never get sick me niether for that matter.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-15-2010).]
IP: Logged
02:24 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
You do realize by saying that you are undermining all the facts and figures you like to copy and paste?
Nope. Wrong. And what is this crap about "copy and paste"? I posted a link to a scientific paper that proves the climate models are wrong. What the hell do you want? A vote of a majority of scientists?
quote
If you believe it only takes one person disprove a theory and you are not an expert in that particular field how can you ever be sure of anything. If you want to say it's your opinion that Climate Change theory is false then so be it but you seem to keep claiming you know somehow that it is. By your own words you can never be sure of that.
We can't be completely sure of anything. But we can be sure enough to make decisions. Those decisions could be right or wrong, but we have to base them on *something*.
But yes, it is possible that one *scientist* can come up with a *proof* that makes all the other scientist's theories and agreements moot. That's how science works - not by a vote of the majority, but by whether something is true and provable (I believe they call it "falsifiable").
quote
People make decisions based on consensus everyday, they have to or things would come to a standstill. Like I said, hope you never get sick because most of medicine is based on consensus, sometimes you have to trust the experts. Not saying scientists or doctors are never wrong because there have been plenty of cases but claiming you know better is difficult when you (or I) don't have the knowledge to make that claim. If I were to get sick however and had the ability to ask as many doctors as I could and the vast majority came back with the same solution, I think I would go with it.
People used to believe in bloodletting. That was the consensus. Until we knew better. They don't do that any more. Same principle goes for doctors. The "consensus" might agree now, but one doctor can come up with a new idea, and the old consensus is dead. Happens all the time.
quote
Edit: I hope this goes with out saying but the sickness thing is just an example, not matter what difference of opinion we ever have I hope you never get sick me niether for that matter.
Agreed. I'd hate to have to give up hamburgers and scotch, and you'd have to give up Molsons and back bacon.
An analogy could be made to painting cars without using a mask, there are probably plenty who did it and still do, doesn't mean they are guarenteed to get cancer or some lung disease/problem but it sure does increase the chances.
I agree it does increase chances. But its also not proven science. My firsthand knowledge.....Ive painted cars since early '60s, in shops and my own shop. I only started wearing a mask of any kind when I started painting catalyzed paints since around '95. I dont wear one still spraying primer, basecoats, sanding or anything else...except spraying the urathane clear. My latest physical exam had me completely healthy, so much so the doctor even questioned my age saying physically I was more comparable to 40 yo than 60. My only current problems are due to a broken toe not healing correctly. I dont take ANY medications and dont even have to wear glasses. My family even has a history of cancer deaths and I have no suspicion of having any.
I agree it does increase chances. But its also not proven science. My firsthand knowledge.....Ive painted cars since early '60s, in shops and my own shop. I only started wearing a mask of any kind when I started painting catalyzed paints since around '95. I dont wear one still spraying primer, basecoats, sanding or anything else...except spraying the urathane clear. My latest physical exam had me completely healthy, so much so the doctor even questioned my age saying physically I was more comparable to 40 yo than 60. My only current problems are due to a broken toe not healing correctly. I dont take ANY medications and dont even have to wear glasses. My family even has a history of cancer deaths and I have no suspicion of having any.
First off let's hope you stay as healthy as you are and let's hope the earth is as lucky.
To follow the analogy we can ask...
Why did you decide to start using a mask at all? Is it proven science that spraying paint can cause problems? Are people that do use respirators and full suits foolishly wasting money?
IP: Logged
09:25 AM
PFF
System Bot
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
Hardened/catalyzed paint is far more deadly. First time I sprayed some Imron...without a mask...I was coughing for weeks afterward. Pain and sore throat were definately not worth it. I do now for just catalyzed stuff. I just dont like the restriction of wearing a mask If I dont have to. Its personal choice if you want to. I have no problem with people even wearing a mask to sand if they want. It dont hurt. Just to me, its overkill, like using a grade 10 bolt to hold on a mud flap. Ive never worn a hood or suit. My safety gear is long legs and long sleeves so paint doesnt stick to my arms and legs. I might even wear a hat if I spray some plain enamel. That stuffs hard to wash out of your hair.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 10-15-2010).]
IP: Logged
09:35 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by rogergarrison: Hardened/catalyzed paint is far more deadly. First time I sprayed some Imron...without a mask...I was coughing for weeks afterward. Pain and sore throat were definately not worth it. I do now for just catalyzed stuff. I just dont like the restriction of wearing a mask If I dont have to. Its personal choice if you want to. I have no problem with people even wearing a mask to sand if they want. It dont hurt. Just to me, its overkill, like using a grade 10 bolt to hold on a mud flap. Ive never worn a hood or suit. My safety gear is long legs and long sleeves so paint doesnt stick to my arms and legs. I might even wear a hat if I spray some plain enamel. That stuffs hard to wash out of your hair.
lol - yes - I to can get away with doing things which would make a "normal" human choke but - I know it's me being awesome - not everyone else being lame I would NEVER recommend things I do to anyone else everyone is different. not everyone can be me. if they were - I wouldn't be the amazing person I am.
this is the most succinct and concise explanation of what has actually happened regarding Global Temperature, that I have found. It is found at http://www.climatechange101.ca/
Climate has continually changed throughout history, including the age of the dinosaurs living in humid, lush green surroundings, followed by much colder periods. The earth later had alternating periods of glaciation. During much of this time, CO2 levels were about 10 times higher than today. The last cold period ended about 15,000 years ago, when ice sheets extended as far south as Missouri. More recent history, about 1000 to 1350 AD, experienced temperatures of about 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (C) warmer than today. During this time food crops were abundant and civilization prospered. This period was followed by the Little Ice Age, when crop failures, famine and disease prevailed until about 1850 . Since then, fortunately, temperatures on average have been rising about 0.6 degrees C per century. Fluctuations include global cooling from about 1940 to 1975, followed by warming until 1998. Since then, the earth has actually been cooling again. Humans and animals currently live in an average temperature of 5 °C in Helsinki and 27 °C in Singapore. If the climate continues to warm less than a degree per century, which it well may not, should we really be concerned about the ability to adapt?
Climate is driven by energy from the sun. The greenhouse effect stops enough of this energy from escaping back into space, resulting in the earth having a temperature capable of supporting life as we know it. Without greenhouse gases the average earth temperature would be minus 18 °C, rather than our current livable plus 15 °C. Natural water vapour and clouds make up about 95% of the greenhouse effect, with CO2 responsible for 3.6%. Of this, about 0.12%, or 0.039 °C can be attributed to human activities.
BTW, this information has been posted on many other websites and comes from established research scientists and satellite data.
The truth is that while you can observe a century to century rise in Global Temperature at 0.6 Degrees per century, the Global Warming scare was created to try to prove that Western Democracies were generating an accellerated rate of Global Warming. This is an economic battle plan to steal our money. It is fully documented that there was actually Global Cooling from about 1950 to 1974 and again currently from as far back as 1998. More particularly since 2007. So, all the hype about accelerated Global Warming since 1998 by Al Gore and others, is particularly false, misleading and errant.
It does not matter one iota what the Global Warming Alarmists publish, (and it is ubiquitous), the temperature has not risen above the high of 1950 so far as I can find. Moreover, the famous "hockey stick" graph is proven to be fiction; the rising oceans predicted 10 years ago have not happened; and the violent weather predicted for last year, simply did not happen. The weather and the oceans continue to operate within the known norms.
Global Warming has most certainly been found to be a scam.
Arn
IP: Logged
12:21 PM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
Originally posted by newf: Why did you decide to start using a mask at all? Is it proven science that spraying paint can cause problems? Are people that do use respirators and full suits foolishly wasting money?
The key here is "he will or won't decide" to wear a mask. If the warmists win, none of us will have a choice but to pay higher prices for everything because it's by government mandate.
IP: Logged
12:47 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by Arns85GT: It does not matter one iota what the Global Warming Alarmists publish, (and it is ubiquitous), the temperature has not risen above the high of 1950 so far as I can find. Moreover, the famous "hockey stick" graph is proven to be fiction; the rising oceans predicted 10 years ago have not happened; and the violent weather predicted for last year, simply did not happen. The weather and the oceans continue to operate within the known norms.
Global Warming has most certainly been found to be a scam.
Arn
This is important. NOTHING they have said has happened, and they were saying that it would happen or start happening "within 5 to 10 years", and that we'd reach a "tipping point". They are simply wrong.
IP: Logged
12:55 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
This is important. NOTHING they have said has happened, and they were saying that it would happen or start happening "within 5 to 10 years", and that we'd reach a "tipping point". They are simply wrong.
That's why they're in such a hurry to enact changey hope. If they don't seize the moment RFN, enough time will go by to demonstrate they don't know what they're talking about.
This is important. NOTHING they have said has happened, and they were saying that it would happen or start happening "within 5 to 10 years", and that we'd reach a "tipping point". They are simply wrong.
Lots of claims but little facts. Show where please.
I assume you are goingto the rally to "Keep Fear Alive"
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-15-2010).]
this is the most succinct and concise explanation of what has actually happened regarding Global Temperature, that I have found. It is found at http://www.climatechange101.ca/
Climate has continually changed throughout history, including the age of the dinosaurs living in humid, lush green surroundings, followed by much colder periods. The earth later had alternating periods of glaciation. During much of this time, CO2 levels were about 10 times higher than today. The last cold period ended about 15,000 years ago, when ice sheets extended as far south as Missouri. More recent history, about 1000 to 1350 AD, experienced temperatures of about 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (C) warmer than today. During this time food crops were abundant and civilization prospered. This period was followed by the Little Ice Age, when crop failures, famine and disease prevailed until about 1850 . Since then, fortunately, temperatures on average have been rising about 0.6 degrees C per century. Fluctuations include global cooling from about 1940 to 1975, followed by warming until 1998. Since then, the earth has actually been cooling again. Humans and animals currently live in an average temperature of 5 °C in Helsinki and 27 °C in Singapore. If the climate continues to warm less than a degree per century, which it well may not, should we really be concerned about the ability to adapt?
Climate is driven by energy from the sun. The greenhouse effect stops enough of this energy from escaping back into space, resulting in the earth having a temperature capable of supporting life as we know it. Without greenhouse gases the average earth temperature would be minus 18 °C, rather than our current livable plus 15 °C. Natural water vapour and clouds make up about 95% of the greenhouse effect, with CO2 responsible for 3.6%. Of this, about 0.12%, or 0.039 °C can be attributed to human activities.
BTW, this information has been posted on many other websites and comes from established research scientists and satellite data.
The truth is that while you can observe a century to century rise in Global Temperature at 0.6 Degrees per century, the Global Warming scare was created to try to prove that Western Democracies were generating an accellerated rate of Global Warming. This is an economic battle plan to steal our money. It is fully documented that there was actually Global Cooling from about 1950 to 1974 and again currently from as far back as 1998. More particularly since 2007. So, all the hype about accelerated Global Warming since 1998 by Al Gore and others, is particularly false, misleading and errant.
It does not matter one iota what the Global Warming Alarmists publish, (and it is ubiquitous), the temperature has not risen above the high of 1950 so far as I can find. Moreover, the famous "hockey stick" graph is proven to be fiction; the rising oceans predicted 10 years ago have not happened; and the violent weather predicted for last year, simply did not happen. The weather and the oceans continue to operate within the known norms.
Global Warming has most certainly been found to be a scam.
Arn
Your sources are again laughable. Lat's start with the first one seeing that you found the gentleman that had his work published in one of the most respected newspapers in our country so funny.
The second one http://wattsupwiththat.com/about2/ I’m a former television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun.
Like I said if your health depended on it you can trust the experts in the field to treat you with the best available knowledge or you can go to a witch doctor.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-15-2010).]
me niether for that matter.
