Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/7/10 01:49 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: It has been in decline. This year. And this year, we had record cold temperatures.

Wait a minute.....

Hey you make a good point man. I've been trying to tell these people that global warming doesn't exist for 30 years now

At 2/7/10 02:07 PM, Musician wrote:

Not all earth scientists are involved in research on climate change.

Then how do they make a living?

Or is that the problem; they're not.

Ah, and they WANT to make a living, yes? Well, they're people, so I assume so. That's what people do. So if they want to stop eating ramen noobles, they should MANUFACTURE A CONTROVERSY SO PEOPLE WILL PAY THEM TO SEE IF IT REALLY EXISTS OR NOT.

Christians say we're all in danger of hell fire so we'll give them money. Scientist say global warming.

So your belief is scientists should never form a hypothesis unless they are 100% certain that it is correct?

No, what I'm saying is you can't trust people, because people are stupid, and failing that, are liars. Between the two, you shouldn't trust anything a human being tells you. Ever.

Science never makes that assumption. Science is simply an unbiased observation of the facts.

When science claims to be scientific, it makes this assumption. The entire scientific method is designed to reduce error for people. However, people ARE error. Therefore, the entire concept of objectivity cannot be applied to any person. Logic works because the forces that control the passage of time, forces we do not understand, seem to work consistently. It requires faith to believe these forces will continue to be consistent without understanding them.

Yes, but in this case evidence for global warming has been confirmed by multiple independent sources. If there were some crucial flaw in the theory on AGW it would have been brought to the attention of the scientific community by now.

Were any of these sources not people?

Funk, you're not even making sense anymore

It's ok. People thought the weather didn't make sense at one time, too. Ends up it did after all, they just didn't have enough understanding to figure it out, and the weather didn't care enough to provide answers.

Which can be attributed to any number of scientific anomalies. one or two years of cooling does not erase an overall trend of warming

Right. Science was, is, and always will be filled with anomalies. These anomalies are called "people."

Although of course the earth has a natural feedback mechanism that counteracts global warming called an ice age, where increased heat creates large clouds of water vapor, big white clouds, in fact, that occlude the sun and reflect it's light into space, resulting in global cooling and massive snowstorms that, ends up, are also white, causing decreased absorption of the sun's rays, and again, lower the mean temperature.

The current melting of the ice caps was caused by large deposits of soot blown into the atmosphere by massive wildfires in the american southwest, wildfires caused, incidentally, by not allowing previous wildfires to burn because of human ignorance of the place of wildfires in forest ecology. Because of this buildup of fuel, the fires were much more wide spread, and the dark layer of soot they created increased the amount of the sun's light the normally white icecaps were absorbing instead of reflecting back out into space.

So in short, our human ignorance DID help cause short term climate change. Sadly, it was ignorantly believing that we understood anything about ecology at all, instead of allowing it to take place as it had millions of years before the first ape ever climbed down from a tree and picked up a rock.

At 2/7/10 11:32 AM, adrshepard wrote:

No scandal except that the guy resigned and the emails were a major news story for a week or two. From your response to b0b3rt you're not willing to go into it, and if you look at what I actually said, the implications of the scandal go far beyond what the actual science says.

First off, the news did a FUCKING TERRIBLE JOB at reporting this, as they usually. Absolutely HORRENDOUS. They jumped on it without reading anything or understanding anything about it and almost none of them invited any experts to talk about it or to explain the emails.

All the explanations are freely available online.

And who resigned? I haven't heard of this. All I know is that the guy STEPPED ASIDE WHILE THE INVESTIGATION IS GOING ON.

That's nothing.

This is just something the denier movement is trying to use to bring those guys down through investigations and red tape. Most likely they will try to drag this out for as LONG as they possibly can and nothing will come out of it except a lot of wasted time and money and a damaged public image for people doing global warming research EVERYWHERE.

So far, no commission HAS FOUND THEM GUILTY OF ANYTHING.

But people like you are now using this to fabricate tons of insane claims that have nothing to do with the emails.

At 2/7/10 01:53 PM, Musician wrote: There are varied ideas of what we should do to slow carbon emissions. I've heard some say that the global crisis could be solved with a 50 euro per ton of carbon emission tax. Anyways, it's not my area of expertise so I won't argue over it.

That's the entire argument; how big of a problem is it, and how much will it take to solve it?

We're not here to discuss popular public opinion, we're here to discuss what is fact.

So your motivation in spending hours posting in this thread has nothing to do with reality and is just an academic exercise?

Yes, and while a theoretical understanding is well and good, it gets you nowhere when the issue is entirely about degrees.

Don't see how. The larger scale is obviously what we need to be looking at and worrying about.

The larger picture doesn't tell us what needs to be done unless we know the mechanics, the probabilities, the definite consequences of inaction. Knowing the theory of how something works isn't enough to determine what is actually the case.

I assume you mean the Urban Heat Island effect, and I don't see how that's relevant since we're looking at global temperatures as a whole. And surface temperatures are also checked against atmosphere temperatures for accuracy.

All of which is completely error free and 100% reliable in its current state.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellit e-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
Of course, I suppose you would say that it wasn't an error until "they" said so. Who knows what they'll say tomorrow.

How about the rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide distribution given certain emissions at points in the world?

Again, not seeing the relevance. I'm sure if you had evidence of CO2 distribution being too slow to make any significant impact on world wide temperatures you would have presented it by now.

I expected more from a man of "logic and science." Could it be that you don't actually know and couldn't even begin to explain it? Don't you see how this whole thread is essentially you just pulling down studies and reports that you assume must be correct because of your faith in the peer-review system?
I'm not disputing global warming at all, nor am I acknowledging it. Whatever controversy and dispute exists lies in an entirely different world from the one laymen like you or me live in. It's like a bunch of second-graders arguing about whose dad would win in a fight. If I were a climate scientist and I pointed out a flaw in the methodology in some study, you would probably not be able to dispute it other than to say "some scientist would have pointed it out by now" or "all these scientists do that same thing." It's a fallacious argument, technically, but practically speaking, it's wise to assume that people who spend their lives studying and researching a subject probably know what they're talking about.
So, returning to what I said in my first post, whatever we believe about global warming as non-scientists has very little to do with actual fact but more with how convincingly each scientist or group of scientists makes their case.

We aren't talking about a little increase in income taxes.

In some scenarios, yes we are

If you can link me to a site that details the economic costs of dealing with various warming scenarios, go ahead.

Yes you can actually, and we have. Scientists have determined that Katrina reached the intensity it did indirectly due to global warming. This is how you do it:
1. Determine what increases storm intensity
2. Determine if global warming can effect the variable that increases storm intensity
3. See if there's evidence that this occured

Are we to believe that category 5 hurricanes did not exist before whenever the hockey stick point in the temp timeline starts?

But in reality we're looking at a massive loss of resources, and all the social issues that come with that: poverty, war over limited resources, etc*

*In Africa

Now you're just being arrogant. Show me the data that says global warming will only cause natural disasters in Africa.

Poverty, famine, and war are not natural disasters. It's okay that you missed that, though; I'm a man of "arts and humanities" myself and we don't fail as much at the reading comprehension.

At 2/7/10 05:25 PM, adrshepard wrote: All of which is completely error free and 100% reliable in its current state.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellit e-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

Nobody is saying that all measurements are 100% reliable. We have to expect errors to appear in data as a matter of fact. But yes, global readings of temperature by NASA overall are considered to be accurate. If they weren't why would they match so well with surface temperatures. Are you trying to suggest that NASA satelites are making the same errors, in the exact same areas at the exact same time in all instances? Because that's the only way both could be flawed beyond use and still be consistent with each other.

So, returning to what I said in my first post, whatever we believe about global warming as non-scientists has very little to do with actual fact but more with how convincingly each scientist or group of scientists makes their case.

See this is where we're different. You openly admit to not understanding the science behind it, I don't. I understand the science behind global warming because I've been actively involved in the scientific community for the last 2 years. I may not understand every little detail behind it, but yeah I understand how it works and I understand the arguments against it, which is why I'm so effectively disarming anyone in this thread who tries to argue with me on a scientific level.

The case you're making is that since I don't know on hand the rate at which carbon emissions spread, I must not have a firm grasp of the theory on climate change. Which is of course fallacious logic. So here's an idea

1. Form a hypothesis (ex. "CO2 cannot be warming because if the dispersal rate in the atmosphere is too slow. I predict the dispersal rate is too slow")
2. Find Solid evidence to support than claim
3. Then come back and maybe you'll have something.

Until then I'm not going to bother doing research on every half-assed idea you manage to pull out of your hat because quite frankly my time is more valuable than that.

If you can link me to a site that details the economic costs of dealing with various warming scenarios, go ahead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_tra de

Those are the two most popular proposed forms of emissions control. Please feel free to find the description in those articles on which countries have already implemented reform and explain to me how exactly they qualify as third world countries.

Are we to believe that category 5 hurricanes did not exist before whenever the hockey stick point in the temp timeline starts?

Hmm, you're being sloppy. Nobody is saying that, what we're saying is that global warming has the potential to increase the frequency of such storms.

Poverty, famine, and war are not natural disasters. It's okay that you missed that, though; I'm a man of "arts and humanities" myself and we don't fail as much at the reading comprehension.

Poverty, famine, and war can be a direct result of natural disasters. You can argue that the US has an infrastructure that would make it more resistant to their effects, and I would agree to an extent, but the US would not be immune as you seem to suggest by saying "*in africa"

At 2/7/10 06:32 PM, Musician wrote: Are you trying to suggest that NASA satelites are making the same errors, in the exact same areas at the exact same time in all instances?

*As surface temperature data

At 2/7/10 06:32 PM, Musician wrote: See this is where we're different. You openly admit to not understanding the science behind it, I don't. I understand the science behind global warming because I've been actively involved in the scientific community for the last 2 years. I may not understand every little detail behind it, but yeah I understand how it works and I understand the arguments against it, which is why I'm so effectively disarming anyone in this thread who tries to argue with me on a scientific level.

Ok, I'm going to explain it to you clearly, since you have no clue what I'm getting at. Here are my assumptions:
1. The scientists who dispute the conventional global warming conclusions are for the most part probably not oil-industry hacks or deliberately trying to deceive people.
2. The points on which these scientists disagree are probably not due to any simple, easily understandable error on their part. More likely they involve differences in measured data, methodology, and interpretation, and not general theory. Put simply, I doubt any one of your arguments, or those found on websites meant for the average public viewer or climate enthusiast, is enough to completely stump them.
3. You are certainly knowledgeable about global warming and climate change (you didn't cut and paste your paragraphs from any website I could find), but you are by no means an expert. If your profile is correct, you are 19 years old and therefore far too young to have a PhD or doctorate in whatever science you study. If I'm wrong, then you are a prodigy, in which case I ask, "Why the hell are you wasting your time on the Newgrounds politics forum?"
My main point:
There is no good reason for making this thread if you are going to argue science. You have said nothing that the sincerely interested climate enthusiast would not have found already on the internet, and you should have known that people who firmly believe in something that lies entirely outside their experience or detailed understanding probably do not do so because it is 100% rational or logical. Your issue should be that people still choose to believe the minority of unorganized, dissenting scientists over the majority of recognized, established scientists. That's a simple proposition that anyone can discuss, and arguing those who dispute it will involve more contemplation and rhetorical skill than simply prattling on about a defined, scientific process.

If you just felt like shutting people down and putting them in their place, then I commend you for it. The world needs more of that. But that's the only real reason to bother with any of this, other than as rhetorical practice for yourself.

At 2/9/10 08:23 PM, adrshepard wrote: You have said nothing that the sincerely interested climate enthusiast would not have found already on the internet.

I'm pretty sure just about any information on the planet can be found on the internet at this point.

Bah all you did was avoid answering his arguments by saying he wasn't enough of an expert to ever convince you. Good job.

At 2/9/10 08:34 PM, poxpower wrote: Bah all you did was avoid answering his arguments by saying he wasn't enough of an expert to ever convince you. Good job.

Convince me of what?

At 2/9/10 11:51 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 2/9/10 08:34 PM, poxpower wrote: Bah all you did was avoid answering his arguments by saying he wasn't enough of an expert to ever convince you. Good job.

Convince me of what?

--"As far as the science goes, you're wasting your time trying to convince people. None of us have any real understanding of the issue, and I doubt you're doing anything more than reciting other people's theories and conclusions. Are we as a people going to voluntarily make huge sacrifices on nothing besides personal assurances? That will only happen if we understand it for ourselves, and that isn't gonna happen."--

The good ole argument from personal incredulity.

At 2/9/10 08:23 PM, adrshepard wrote: If you just felt like shutting people down and putting them in their place, then I commend you for it. The world needs more of that.

Haha yeah well admittedly this was probably it. But I'm going to have disagree with you on some of your points there:

1. The scientists who dispute the conventional global warming conclusions are for the most part probably not oil-industry hacks or deliberately trying to deceive people.

I kind of disagree with this because I really do think the oil-industry has put weight behind the anti-global warming movement. But in the end it doesn't really matter if they are backed by the oil companies, what does matter is that by and large they're putting out bad science.

2. The points on which these scientists disagree are probably not due to any simple, easily understandable error on their part. More likely they involve differences in measured data, methodology, and interpretation, and not general theory. Put simply, I doubt any one of your arguments, or those found on websites meant for the average public viewer or climate enthusiast, is enough to completely stump them.

In some cases yes, in others no. The junk science is easy to stump, the actual skeptics are hard to fully disprove due to the factors you mentioned. One example of this is the sunspot data. There's still a small group of scientists who believe the warming trend may be attributed to sunspots. While the current data says sunspots are in decline others insist that there may be some misinterpretation or error in the data and that more studies need to be conducted. They're a small group of people though, as mentioned earlier in this thread.

At 2/7/10 06:05 AM, WolvenBear wrote: This is nonsense. The earth would've boiled over if that was the case. Warming would've lead to more ice melting which would've lead to more warming, which would've lead to more ice melting...yadda yadda yadda.By this silly theory, once warming starts, it is irreversible. Of course, the fact that such warming reversed in the past proves this wrong.

Please to take a course on the mathematics of dynamic systems.

Allow me to give a brief explanation: The effect of warming is amplified by GHGs released by melting ice, but that doesn't create an unstable system, it just creates one with a higher temperature equilibrium. It's not like the Earth will soak up heat forever and never ever radiate any back out into space. The higher the average temperature, the more heat is radiated, so it would balance out with the effect of GHGs at a new point. Once solar activity drops, that means less heat input, which means ice reformation and a reversal of the trend we were just discussing.

The problem we're having currently is that we're taking carbon that was stored in long-term geological deposits and pumping it right into the atmosphere, which is very different from melting ice.

At 2/7/10 01:25 PM, Musician wrote: As I've already shown, polling indicates that approximately 82% of all scientists believe in significant AGW, and that percentage gets even higher when a scientist specializes in climate science. I'm sorry but posting these petitions here is just disingenous, 30,000 people? out of how many? This information means nothing to the debate.

No, sorry. Fail. Your sources use numbers to prove the opposition wrong. As soon as someone uses the tactic back you cry foul. Next?

The first study you linked to was criticized because it included people in the "consensus" who felt the world was warming, but didn't believe man was the cause,. They would be in the implicit category.

You're going to need to provide a citation for this one. I've never heard of Orestes being criticised for this before. If you're going to be the first I suggest you provide some examples of when she misinterpreted support for the consensus within a paper.

No I DON'T need to provide anything for this. The study says that people believe that warming is happening AND/OR it is caused by humans. By the study's own criteria it is bunk.

It does discredit them if a general "consensus" said cooling, after a consensus said warming before, and is now saying coling again.

Science doesn't work like that. Everything starts with competing hypothesis and as more evidence shows up the hypotheses that explain the evidence better get moved forwared. Back in the 1970s we didn't have the data on rising global temperatures that we did now, so it makes sense that there would be competing hypothesis. The fact that there wasn't a consensus in the 1970s doesn't show weakness in the scientific community, because starting without a consensus is a staple of the scientific community.

Gotcha. Consensus then is irrelevant because consensus now is more informed. Yawn.

Exaggerations and Alarmism? No, what it shows is that scientific hypothesis are not always correct. Which is actually the mechanism by which the scientific community works. Multiple hypothesis are formed and the bad ones are weeded out.

Gotcha. So a large degree of scientists believing something doesn't make it true,

Please tell me you're a parody.

Making observations like that are short sighted. Sure, someone in the world may be having a cold winter, but another part of the world may be experiencing the hottest summer in it's history. That's why climate scientists look at temperatures of the world as a whole.

No, they're not. If CO2 heats the world, and every yeat sees an increase in CO2 than the world temp should increase every year. Otherwize the theory is wrong.

See, no it doesn't. I never said anything about constant down activity. I said that sunspot activity has been dropping since the 1980's, that is sunspot activity as a whole. If you'll look back at my argument you'll even see I posted a graph showing that there was not constant down activity. And even if I was wrong, sunspot data still does not correlate with the current warming trend now does it?

But it hasn't. You're wrong.

Until of course the earth is put through an ice age due to changes in the planets orbit relative to the sun.

Then this years winter should be less than last years, or you're wrong.

If what I'm saying is wrong go ahead and prove me wrong. If you're right you should be able to prove me wrong on a scientific level, correct?

which I'll pass on given your bad record.

Ad Hominem, lovely.

There's no if, bud. I've put forward real challenges to your record. You simply said they don't matter. You're not a scientist and you dob't even play one on TV.

At 2/10/10 11:50 AM, Elfer wrote: Please to take a course on the mathematics of dynamic systems.

Allow me to give a brief explanation: The effect of warming is amplified by GHGs released by melting ice, but that doesn't create an unstable system, it just creates one with a higher temperature equilibrium. It's not like the Earth will soak up heat forever and never ever radiate any back out into space. The higher the average temperature, the more heat is radiated, so it would balance out with the effect of GHGs at a new point. Once solar activity drops, that means less heat input, which means ice reformation and a reversal of the trend we were just discussing.

The problem we're having currently is that we're taking carbon that was stored in long-term geological deposits and pumping it right into the atmosphere, which is very different from melting ice.

So in other words, we keep pumping out the GHG, which keeps melting the ice which...

HOLY SHIT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

Except in simpler terms.

In short, it's unmitigates horsecrap. Heating leads to more stuff melting which releases more CO2, which leads to more heating, which leads to...we get it by now right.

So are we done pretending to be smart now?

At 2/11/10 04:59 AM, WolvenBear wrote: So in other words, we keep pumping out the GHG, which keeps melting the ice which...

HOLY SHIT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

No, you said that a system with two codependent variables that are positively related in necessarily unstable (I am paraphrasing here). I told you that that was wrong.

Allow me to quote you exactly:

At 2/7/10 06:05 AM, WolvenBear wrote: This is nonsense. The earth would've boiled over if that was the case. Warming would've lead to more ice melting which would've lead to more warming, which would've lead to more ice melting...yadda yadda yadda.By this silly theory, once warming starts, it is irreversible. Of course, the fact that such warming reversed in the past proves this wrong.

Since you were talking about something that happened in "the past" (presumably on a geological scale, considering the context), you're talking about a situation in which humans were not artificially adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

You're saying that if greenhouse gases increased temperature, and temperature increased the rate of release of greenhouse gases, they Earth would "boil over." My point is that this relies on the assumption that the rate of elimination of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is independent of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is a super bullshit assumption.

Get my point now?

At 2/6/10 09:02 PM, jeeshwa123 wrote: Global Warming is a theory. Bottom line.

Of course it is, you ignoramus! So is gravity! So is relativity! Does that mean it's not true? Of course not!

At 2/6/10 09:02 PM, jeeshwa123 wrote:

:They've had statistics n' crap, but they can't come to a conclusion.
Wow. You have no idea what you're talking about. Statistics are what they get the theory from. If the statistics say that the Earth is warming, then it is. Because statistics say what is going on.

At 2/6/10 09:02 PM, jeeshwa123 wrote:

:I believe in the theory that the earth's temperature rises and falls over time, it's actually been happening for centuries.
That isn't a theory. It's fact. A theory is a scientific explanation of why something is happening.

At 2/6/10 09:02 PM, jeeshwa123 wrote:

:It's like the swine flu. The government just hypes things up when they shouldn't be all hyped up.
No. It's not. Any reputable scientist would tell you that global warming is a real problem.

I feel like Elfer is the only one here who seriously knows his science.

At 2/11/10 05:31 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: I feel like Elfer is the only one here who seriously knows his science.

Sure you do.

At 2/11/10 05:49 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/11/10 05:31 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: I feel like Elfer is the only one here who seriously knows his science.

Sure you do.

It's because he's taking the time to bother to explain his arguments and the science behind them, which illustrates a certain understanding.

I'd bet money he could out-science your ass any day, and probably mine as well, despite spending my freshmen year of college essentially majoring in chemistry.

At 2/11/10 04:52 AM, WolvenBear wrote:
No, sorry. Fail. Your sources use numbers to prove the opposition wrong. As soon as someone uses the tactic back you cry foul. Next?

What are you talking about. My numbers are a statistical analysis, yours are just... well numbers. Saying 30,000 people disagree doesn't prove anything on it's own. If we're talking about 30,000 out of 40,000 people, then yes it may be significant. If we're talking about 30,000 people out of 300,000 people, then it's much less relevant. The Doran Zimmer study puts things in a statistical context, making them a valid measurement of the consensus, your source does not.

No I DON'T need to provide anything for this. The study says that people believe that warming is happening AND/OR it is caused by humans. By the study's own criteria it is bunk.

This is just false. The study was looking for people who endorsed the consensus position that global warming is being caused by human activity. there was no and/or factor involved.

Gotcha. Consensus then is irrelevant because consensus now is more informed. Yawn.

There was no consensus on Global Cooling, this is just a lie. There were in fact, more papers being written about the possibility of Global Warming than about the possibility of Global Cooling. There was no consensus on climate change (at least in this area) back in the 1970s, the community was much more fractured.

Exaggerations and Alarmism? No, what it shows is that scientific hypothesis are not always correct. Which is actually the mechanism by which the scientific community works. Multiple hypothesis are formed and the bad ones are weeded out.

Gotcha. So a large degree of scientists believing something doesn't make it true,

How is this at all a proper response to what I said above? Of course it doesn't make something true, I never implied that it did.

No, they're not. If CO2 heats the world, and every yeat sees an increase in CO2 than the world temp should increase every year. Otherwize the theory is wrong.

This once again assumes that CO2 is the only factor influencing climate change. There are all sorts of environmental factors that can cause different weather patterns in different parts of the globe. Do some research on the el nino/la nina cycle for a specific example of this.

But it hasn't. You're wrong.

Yes it has, look at the data you yourself linked to. Sunspot activity as a whole has been in decline since the 1980s. And as I said before even if I was wrong, sunspot data still wouldn't correlate with the current increase in temperature so the point is moot.

Then this years winter should be less than last years, or you're wrong.

There's a third possibility: Namely that you have grasp whatsoever of the argument the scientific community is making. GHG are not the only thing effecting global temperature. Nobody has been saying that. So stop making arguments based on this assumption.

If what I'm saying is wrong go ahead and prove me wrong. If you're right you should be able to prove me wrong on a scientific level, correct?

There's no if, bud. I've put forward real challenges to your record. You simply said they don't matter. You're not a scientist and you dob't even play one on TV.

Your challenges are irrelevant because saying that because I'm not a scientist I must be wrong is an ad hominem fallacy.

At 2/11/10 05:49 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/11/10 05:31 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: I feel like Elfer is the only one here who seriously knows his science.

Sure you do.

Sorry, I don't follow. Could you be a bit less specific?

At 2/11/10 05:53 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote:

I'd bet money he could out-science your ass any day, and probably mine as well, despite spending my freshmen year of college essentially majoring in chemistry.

I like how you gave yourself a thumbs up there in your last sentence as if it was worth a damn.

At 2/11/10 05:53 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: despite spending my freshmen year of college essentially majoring in chemistry.

What!? someone in the middle of a chemical engineering degree could "out-science" someone who did a bit of chemistry in their first year of college? NO WAY!

I have a Master's in drop-kicks and am currently completing my Piledriver certification.

So believe me when I say that global warming is going to increase the total amount of kung-fu in the atmosphere by at least 10%.

At 2/12/10 03:25 AM, poxpower wrote: I have a Master's in drop-kicks and am currently completing my Piledriver certification.

So believe me when I say that global warming is going to increase the total amount of kung-fu in the atmosphere by at least 10%.

Actually, I'd say it's more like 13% or even 14% due to amplification from the Roundhouse Effect (not to be confused with the Roadhouse Effect).

At 2/12/10 08:12 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 2/12/10 03:25 AM, poxpower wrote: I have a Master's in drop-kicks and am currently completing my Piledriver certification.

So believe me when I say that global warming is going to increase the total amount of kung-fu in the atmosphere by at least 10%.

Actually, I'd say it's more like 13% or even 14% due to amplification from the Roundhouse Effect (not to be confused with the Roadhouse Effect).

But what about the natural Uppercut emissions? Man made Uppercuts account for a mere fraction of the Uppercut total, this is scientific fact.

Uppercuts are the main cause of the heating we observe, though man is NOT the main cause of atmospheric Uppercuts - Thus man can not be the cause of the recent warming period, it is simply a natural process whether we like it or not.

So much for the "Anthropogenic" part...

(pic related: natural Uppercut emissions)

I am glad we are aware of things like this, even though I am now aware of the big snowstorm that is going through the Northeast. As I might have expected, there were lots of people who said this was a good way to debunk global warming, while I don't recall Al Gore ever saying that it would never snow heavily again.

I stopped believing in Global Warming for several reasons, my main reason is that whenever I saw a graph of the last 100 years it shows a rise, focusing mainly on the small picture. But if we look at a graph with that stretches beyond that time frame it shows the temp going up and down showing, for the past one or two thousand years.