Global Warming Debunked!!! - Finally!

[HummBebe]

:perfect10s: :perfect10s: :perfect10s: :perfect10s: :perfect10s:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=CCUV4X10NS3PRQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYI V0

[CO Hummer]

No matter how much information is provided on this subject, the treehuggers will never acknowledge it. Environmentalism is their religion. They PRE-SUPPOSE global warming (and a number of other things). You can't win an argument when two parties have differing fundamental presuppositions.

[HummBebe]

Well, at least someone has done the math.....:giggling:

It gives those who oppose global warming a comprehensive source of information,though you will never see it published in the media....on any continent.

I'm keeping a copy with me at all times:)

[NEOCON1]

oh no will GLOBLWARMR have to change his name :p :p :p ;)

[PARAGON]

Come on, you can't argue global warming. It's simply a fact that the world has been "warming."

But so the fck what? It does that. Has done that. And will always do that, no matter what WE do.

It will warm up some and then cool back off over years just like the tides move in and out. Oh well.

[HummBebe]

de?bunk (dhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif-bhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ubreve.gifngkhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif)
tr.v. de?bunked, de?bunk?ing, de?bunks To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug.
de?bunkhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifer n.

Not arguing, debunking.....different.

[PARAGON]

Not arguing, debunking.....different.Chill, no pun intended:giggling:

THEY use "global warming." It's a fact that it's warming. The debunking is the myth that we somehow are the cause of it, not that it actually is warming.

[PARAGON]

Besides my argument comment was aimed generically, not at anyone in particular.:o

[HummBebe]

oh :)

[h2co-pilot]

I'm keeping a copy with me at all times:)

Definitely a print job.:D

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Very interesting. I don't know if I would call it "debunked", but the paper sheds a lot of light on the process of global warming and really puts greenhouse emissions into perspective with other sources of climate change. Still, that's no reason to make cars less fuel efficient or more polluting overall. After all, if global warming occurs naturally, why add to the problem?

Besides, global warming is far from the only reason to make vehicles and factories more fuel efficient and less polluting. Poisons like carbon monoxide are still poisonous. The particulates in diesel and gas exhaust are known to cause or aggravate asthma and other respiratory diseases. There are good political arguments for fuel efficiency, like reducing dependence on foreign oil. Plus there are economic reasons like the high price of fuel, supply and demand fluctuations due to weather, terrorism and natural disasters.

etc, etc, etc

[PARAGON]

Very interesting. I don't know if I would call it "debunked", but the paper sheds a lot of light on the process of global warming and really puts greenhouse emissions into perspective with other sources of climate change. Still, that's no reason to make cars less fuel efficient or more polluting overall. After all, if global warming occurs naturally, why add to the problem?

Besides, global warming is far from the only reason to make vehicles and factories more fuel efficient and less polluting. Poisons like carbon monoxide are still poisonous. The particulates in diesel and gas exhaust are known to cause or aggravate asthma and other respiratory diseases. There are good political arguments for fuel efficiency, like reducing dependence on foreign oil. Plus there are economic reasons like the high price of fuel, supply and demand fluctuations due to weather, terrorism and natural disasters.

etc, etc, etc

About the only person that might care if you call it "anything" is Alec.

[HummBebe]

Very interesting. I don't know if I would call it "debunked", but the paper sheds a lot of light on the process of global warming and really puts greenhouse emissions into perspective with other sources of climate change. Still, that's no reason to make cars less fuel efficient or more polluting overall. After all, if global warming occurs naturally, why add to the problem?

Besides, global warming is far from the only reason to make vehicles and factories more fuel efficient and less polluting. Poisons like carbon monoxide are still poisonous. The particulates in diesel and gas exhaust are known to cause or aggravate asthma and other respiratory diseases. There are good political arguments for fuel efficiency, like reducing dependence on foreign oil. Plus there are economic reasons like the high price of fuel, supply and demand fluctuations due to weather, terrorism and natural disasters.

etc, etc, etc

Fuel efficiency and air pollution issues I agree are real. It would be socially irresponsible to deny it. However, Al Gores version of Global Warming is another way to create chaos in the world which is equally socially irresponsible.

It just pisses me off that so many people believe that sh1t.

Fuel efficiency - because there is a finite amount, we need alternatives.

Air Pollution - in metro areas where large cities lie in basins, ie L.A., Portland etc., is real.

BAD SCIENCE BRINGS THE SUCK

BUT FOR PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THAT OUR EMISSIONS ARE GOING TO CAUSE MORE HURRICANES MAKES ME ILL.

rant off.

[PARAGON]

BUT FOR PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THAT OUR EMISSIONS ARE GOING TO CAUSE MORE HURRICANES MAKES ME ILL.

rant off.It did this year, right?:giggling:

[HummBebe]

Ex - fuggin - actly....:D

[PARAGON]

No, wait. Since gas prices were higher there was less travel so less emissions, therefore less Hurricanes.:clapping:

[HummBebe]

Sh1t;)

[DDWH]

Unfortunately............The weenwangs will still contune to follow the almighty Mr.knowitall algore and his nutjobieness in their lemming like blindness!:twak:

[DennisAJC]

Sweet find Bebes. More ammo for us.:D

[SnakeH2]

Come on, you can't argue global warming.

Ohhh, come on. I bet you could:D

[BlueHUMMERH2]

Very interesting. I don't know if I would call it "debunked", but the paper sheds a lot of light on the process of global warming and really puts greenhouse emissions into perspective with other sources of climate change. Still, that's no reason to make cars less fuel efficient or more polluting overall. After all, if global warming occurs naturally, why add to the problem?

Besides, global warming is far from the only reason to make vehicles and factories more fuel efficient and less polluting. Poisons like carbon monoxide are still poisonous. The particulates in diesel and gas exhaust are known to cause or aggravate asthma and other respiratory diseases. There are good political arguments for fuel efficiency, like reducing dependence on foreign oil. Plus there are economic reasons like the high price of fuel, supply and demand fluctuations due to weather, terrorism and natural disasters.

etc, etc, etc
I agree pollution is probably a much larger problem right now than worrying about our creation of greenhouse gasses. I've always been for cleaning up pollution, ecological preservation, etc... I am definately not sold on the whole "we're causing the warming" thingy. As a geo guy, I know there have been wild fluctuations in the past, and they're nothing new.

And, now that I'm reading some of the article (:D), yes, there are some logical folks in academia that don't believe the hype. Dr. William Grey in Colorado is also a good example.

[westhillsat]

Glacier National Park might soon need a new name. :crying:

The Montana park has 26 named glaciers today, down from 150 in 1850. Those that remain are typically mere remnants of their former frozen selves, a new gallery (http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?imgid=626&gid=42&index=0) of before and after images reveals.

All arguments about global warming aside, now is a time of clear retreat by age-old ice packs in many locations around the world. Some retreat just a few inches or feet per year, but others are melting (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=snow+cone&spell=1) faster than a snow cone in Texas.


http://www.livescience.com/environment/060324_glacier_melt.html

[HummBebe]

It's important that we make sure the scientific "evidence" we are provided is good science.

Simple things I have found, pictures of Glaciers melting from one year to the next is not really evidence, being that the Earth fluctuates in temperature on cycles that span more than a single human lifetime.

Sometimes they will throw in a summer photo and compare it to a winter photo from years past. Not good as scientific evidence, but good for dramatic effect.

Photography has not been around long enough to prove anything.

Wasn't the Sahara Desert an Ocean at one time? They have found whole whale carcasses in the desert.

Smog has been around before autos. Forest and grass fires pollute too.

We truly have no idea what Mother Earth has in store for us. To blame humanity and industrialism as the cause is just plain crazy.

Maybe even arrogant.

[BlueHUMMERH2]

This is like an extention of my hurried previous comment:

The planet changes, plain and simple. It's a dynamic system. Humans have trouble seeing that. We're ego-centric for one, and our lifespans are too short to really comprehend the magnitude of things.

I think what is hardest to get around is that we are releasing CO2 that has been pent up for millions of years, stored out of the system. Now it's back in the system. The question is: does that mean anything? I'm not saying that we should assume that means we're affecting the climate. But that's the question that needs to (and hasn't been in my mind) definatively answered. I think the general opinion is, "It certainly seems like it would have some effect." But no one knows. This whole issue is being discussed A LOT in academia, but it's already been decided in the media. :rolleyes:

Gaia is always a very interesting theory about the planet, and I've met some professors who actually believe this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theory_%28science%29

[PARAGON]

Ohhh, come on. I bet you could:DI sure as hell could give it a good shot.:beerchug:

[KenP]

No matter how much information is provided on this subject, the treehuggers will never acknowledge it. Environmentalism is their religion. They PRE-SUPPOSE global warming (and a number of other things). You can't win an argument when two parties have differing fundamental presuppositions.Limbaugh has been citing scientists for over 5 years on the lack of global warming.:beerchug:

[KenP]

Glacier National Park might soon need a new name. :crying:

The Montana park has 26 named glaciers today, down from 150 in 1850. Those that remain are typically mere remnants of their former frozen selves, a new gallery (http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?imgid=626&gid=42&index=0) of before and after images reveals.The global climate has it's highs and lows. We're about to peak on the high side, if we haven't already.

[h2co-pilot]

It could probably get a lot hotter.

The hype caused by some on our effect of global warming is extreme. But there is no denying that all of our C02 emmissions must do something.

Climate CO2 is natural, but not to the extent that we have been emitting it. If the world cycles (which would only make logical sense), a glacier being one extreme and a volcano being the other. Volcanic activity produces mass amounts of CO2 by outgassing and the combustion of organic matter. I would think that volcanic activity would be the natural accelerant for a "global warming". So it could only be fair to say that we are contributing unnaturally to greenhouse gases and there effects by emmiting more carbon and the destruction of oxygen emmiting organisms.

But then the question arises, at least in my mind "Is it unnatural?" or "Are our emmisions already in the natural plan?" or "Mobile organisms produce CO2 by respiration. Is the world conditioned to make adjustments in temperature, via the carbon emmisions (Carbon being the sixth most abundant element in the known universe) as an instincual self preservation?:D:p:D


buckminsterfullerenes..........:jump: :popcorn:

[Mrs.ssippi]

It could probably get a lot hotter.

The hype caused by some on our effect of global warming is extreme. But there is no denying that all of our C02 emmissions must do something.

Climate CO2 is natural, but not to the extent that we have been emitting it. If the world cycles (which would only make logical sense), a glacier being one extreme and a volcano being the other. Volcanic activity produces mass amounts of CO2 by outgassing and the combustion of organic matter. I would think that volcanic activity would be the natural accelerant for a "global warming". So it could only be fair to say that we are contributing unnaturally to greenhouse gases and there effects by emmiting more carbon and the destruction of oxygen emmiting organisms.

But then the question arises, at least in my mind "Is it unnatural?" or "was our emmisions already in the natural plan?" or "All organisms produce CO2 by respiration. Is the world conditioned to make adjustments in temperature, via the carbon emmisions (Carbon being the sixth most abundant element in the known universe) as an instincual self preservation?:D:p:D


buckminsterfullerenes..........:jump: :popcorn:After visiting your house I know the reason for Global Warming.............Ken. Man, his emmisions are a bad deal! :giggling:

[h2co-pilot]

:jump: :jump: :jump: :jump:

[PARAGON]

It could probably get a lot hotter.

The hype caused by some on our effect of global warming is extreme. But there is no denying that all of our C02 emmissions must do something.

Climate CO2 is natural, but not to the extent that we have been emitting it. If the world cycles (which would only make logical sense), a glacier being one extreme and a volcano being the other. Volcanic activity produces mass amounts of CO2 by outgassing and the combustion of organic matter. I would think that volcanic activity would be the natural accelerant for a "global warming". So it could only be fair to say that we are contributing unnaturally to greenhouse gases and there effects by emmiting more carbon and the destruction of oxygen emmiting organisms.

But then the question arises, at least in my mind "Is it unnatural?" or "Are our emmisions already in the natural plan?" or "Mobile organisms produce CO2 by respiration. Is the world conditioned to make adjustments in temperature, via the carbon emmisions (Carbon being the sixth most abundant element in the known universe) as an instincual self preservation?:D:p:D


buckminsterfullerenes..........:jump: :popcorn:

As in life, Moderation is the Key.

The earth is always seeking balance. Whether 20 Volcanos go up or 1, there is a tipping point at which the Earth begins to "clean" itself.

Obviously, becoming warmer as a whole, produces more surface area for plants to grow which are the natural scrubbers.

Arguments could be made that we, as humans, have slowed this recent warming trend, rather than contributed to it, because we have continually disrupted the natural removal of plant life through large uncontained wildfires.:popcorn:

[SnakeH2]

Arguments could be made that we, as humans, have slowed this recent warming trend, rather than contributed to it, because we have continually disrupted the natural removal of plant life through large uncontained wildfires.:popcorn:

:popcorn:
True...But humans have also been known to start some of these fires.;)

[h2co-pilot]

What would start a natural fire other than magma and occasional lightning?

:popcorn:

[SnakeH2]

Fire is hot...don't all these fire make the earth warmer?:D

[BlingBlingWJBoy]

What would start a natural fire other than magma and occasional lightning?

:popcorn:a racoon rubbing 2 sticks together

[PARAGON]

Fire is hot...don't all these fire make the earth warmer?:Djust like a fire in your fireplace, makes the local room warmer for a little while

w/o sunlight, earthy freezy

[PARAGON]

:popcorn:
True...But humans have also been known to start some of these fires.;)so has Godzilla

[h2co-pilot]

just like a fire in your fireplace, makes the local room warmer for a little while

w/o sunlight, earthy freezy

Greenhouse gases = insulation

Godzilla could have been real along time ago.:popcorn:

[PARAGON]

Greenhouse gases = insulation

Godzilla could have been real along time ago.:popcorn:oceans = koi pond

[h2co-pilot]

Koi operating CO2 emmiting machinery might cause a warming effect.

However, Koi flatulation data is not available.

[PARAGON]

Koi operating CO2 emmiting machinery might cause a warming effect.

However, Koi flatulation data is not available.

I think the gubbermint should spend millions of dollars to study just how much Koi farts contribute to overall CO2 emissions.

They may find, this outgassing is really what creates the ocean currents and is responsible for the Bermuda triangle when the huge Koi conventions happen and they all get drunk, eat good steaks and are farting up storms creating CO2 fields in the sea and allowing for less boyancy, thereupon sinking ships.

[KenP]

just like a fire in your fireplace, makes the local room warmer for a little while

w/o sunlight, earthy freezyWe have gas fireplaces and lots of insulation so we don't heat up the outer environment.:popcorn:

[KenP]

After visiting your house I know the reason for Global Warming.............Ken. Man, his emmisions are a bad deal! :giggling: HEY!!!! I told you not to follow me!!!!

[KenP]

...creating CO2 fields in the sea and allowing for less boyancy, thereupon sinking ships.Actually, the CO2 aids bouyancy, thereby causing the ships to list over and get swamped. They also cause planes to suddenly gain altitude leading to failure of cabin pressure and the fuselage to expand and shatter.:popcorn:

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Fuel efficiency and air pollution issues I agree are real. It would be socially irresponsible to deny it. However, Al Gores version of Global Warming is another way to create chaos in the world which is equally socially irresponsible.

It just pisses me off that so many people believe that sh1t.

Fuel efficiency - because there is a finite amount, we need alternatives.

Air Pollution - in metro areas where large cities lie in basins, ie L.A., Portland etc., is real.

BAD SCIENCE BRINGS THE SUCK

BUT FOR PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THAT OUR EMISSIONS ARE GOING TO CAUSE MORE HURRICANES MAKES ME ILL.

rant off.

:iagree:

I hate bad source data. Thanks for posting the article.

[h2co-pilot]

I think the gubbermint should spend millions of dollars to study just how much Koi farts contribute to overall CO2 emissions.

They may find, this outgassing is really what creates the ocean currents and is responsible for the Bermuda triangle when the huge Koi conventions happen and they all get drunk, eat good steaks and are farting up storms creating CO2 fields in the sea and allowing for less boyancy, thereupon sinking ships.

:beerchug:

[GeorgeSSSS]

GLOBAL WARMING = JUNK SCIENCE = DEMOCRATS' HOLY GRAIL

It's package deal; you can't have one without all of them.

[Alan06SUT]

Dont you guys know that HUMMERS are the cause for global warming. All other theories are crap. :D


Of course, the media never presents the overwhelming evidence proving previous warming periods such as the viking settlements that are now under premafrost, chinnese ships that sailed in the arctic circle in areas that would be frozen over now, etc.

[Wisha Haddan H3]

GLOBAL WARMING = JUNK SCIENCE = DEMOCRATS' HOLY GRAIL

It's package deal; you can't have one without all of them.

Not necessarily. Moderate democrats, like moderate republicans both do their research. But the research may be faulty or they may just disagree on their priorities or how to solve an issue. It's not always black and white and no single party has all the best answers. imo, the best way to figure out what to do is to have debate and disagreement between the parties. And hopefully the swing voters making informed decisions do the right thing.

It's the extremists on both sides that scare me. They question nothing, follow blindly and refuse to change their mind regardless of the facts staring them in the face. They take untenable positions and refuse to discuss the issues rationally, compromise or admit if they're wrong.

[h2co-pilot]

Not necessarily. Moderate democrats, like moderate republicans both do their research. But the research may be faulty or they may just disagree on their priorities or how to solve an issue. It's not always black and white and no single party has all the best answers. imo, the best way to figure out what to do is to have debate and disagreement between the parties. And hopefully the swing voters making informed decisions do the right thing.

It's the extremists on both sides that scare me. They question nothing, follow blindly and refuse to change their mind regardless of the facts staring them in the face. They take untenable positions and refuse to discuss the issues rationally, compromise or admit if they're wrong.

Very well said.:beerchug:


(for a democrap ;):giggling:)

[PARAGON]

Even the center is an extreme.:popcorn:

[h2co-pilot]

Like Magma.:popcorn: