Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/22/07 07:10 PM, Memorize wrote: All living things emit Co2 just in case you didn't know.

I do, and none of them are made of Co2

:May I refer you to the video posted on page 1 which you conveniently skipped. Which states that the temperature rises to a point 800 years before Co2 reaches it. According to them, Co2 follows temperature, not the other way around.

But I guess you just have to skip those things when you have nothing to back yourself up.

Yeah, and if that turns out to be true then I will admit I was wrong, but so far that is just another hypothesis and it still goes against the generally accepted theory of global warming. Of course, its not like you care, you only believe its some sort of liberal conspiracy because you believe whatever the fuck George Bush tells you to.

At 3/22/07 11:01 AM, emmytee wrote:

At 3/21/07 06:59 PM, Memorize wrote:

Thats a hypothesis, but not one that is supported by the majority of the scientific community. the IPCC are THE global authority on these matters, and while there are scientists on both sides,the better ones are on mine which is why the theory I support is the accepted one.

Of course you think the IPCC are THE best scientists out there; you've completely bought into their snake oil campaign (as I once did). I could say the better ones are on mine because every day there is something that challenges the accepted one. And not always by the skeptics, after all IPCC scientists pointed out errors and falsehoods in An Inconvient Truth. Also PEW studies are showing that public support of GW being true is starting to slip as GW is shown to be consistently and fundamentally flawed.

I personally think that it's altogether possible that there are things we just don't understand.

Do we really understand why there was an ice age ? What caused the earth to get so cold back then ? Is it possible that there are other factors out there, that are far more powerful than the ones we are talking about, but we just don't understand.

Could it just be a natural progression of our earth ?

At 3/25/07 10:35 AM, emmytee wrote:

I do, and none of them are made of Co2

What is your body made of?

Yeah, and if that turns out to be true then I will admit I was wrong, but so far that is just another hypothesis and it still goes against the generally accepted theory of global warming. Of course, its not like you care, you only believe its some sort of liberal conspiracy because you believe whatever the fuck George Bush tells you to.

George Bush is more on the side of the people who believe in Global Warming than I am. Anyway, the whole reason why I don't believe you people is because just a few decades ago, you nuts were thinking the world would "end" (quotes) by Global Cooling.

At 3/25/07 11:57 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/25/07 10:35 AM, emmytee wrote:

I do, and none of them are made of Co2

What is your body made of?

Memorize, our bodies are mostly made of H2O...water. CO2 is a gas at the temps that we can live in and therefore we could not be made out of CO2.

At 3/25/07 12:56 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 3/25/07 11:57 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/25/07 10:35 AM, emmytee wrote:

I do, and none of them are made of Co2

What is your body made of?

Memorize, our bodies are mostly made of H2O...water. CO2 is a gas at the temps that we can live in and therefore we could not be made out of CO2.

Yeah, but ALL living things need C02 to grow.

Ok here are a couple things that jump out at me about this.

#1. George Bush (now an ally to the Global Warming campaign), is, well a lot of things, but I don't trust him or like him, not to get into bashing, but I think enough reasons are obvious.

#2.Is Al Gore better? Are democrats better than republicans? ---- I think this is all a load of crap, playing one side against the other is what they want you to do, in reality they are all working towards the same goals TOGETHER.

Ok, so the moral is DON'T trust politicians

#3. 99% of the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen, 0-4% is water vapor (the most important greenhouse gas), >1% Argon is next, then 0.003% (300 parts per million) is Co2...
To think that this MILD greenhouse gas that makes up a TINY portion of the atmosphere contributes HUGELY to global warming is almost ridiculous by itself.

#4. up to 10 times as much Co2 has been in earth's atmosphere in history without the end of the world or life... so the 0.0007% that got added in the 20th century IS NOT A BIG FREAKIN DEAL.

#5. The logic Gore uses don't work. IF Co2 drove temperature, then when there is a lot in the atmosphere it would get significantly warmer, WHEN it gets warmer the oceans heat up and CANNOT hold as much Co2, so they release some into the atmosphere, then there is MORE in the atmosphere and it gets HOTTER yet again, then the oceans get warmer, release more, and it gets EVEN HOTTER.... and this cycle WOULD NEVER STOP...

Well, obviously is does stop because the earth has yet to turn into a flaming ball of fire!

Thus, Co2 DOES NOT DRIVE TEMPERATURE-- significantly anyway, Al Gore is a liar, the theory of his global warming is bunk and makes no rational sense.

Now, let me see if you folks can put 2 and 2 together...

In the past 100 years the earths temperature has risen about 1 degree F...
In the past 100 years the magnetic field of the sun has doubled in strength...

We all know that Bush is too dumb to understand many of the principles of simple addition, this argument is to prove the Al Gore is also a MORON!

There you have it, politics isn't about the left or the right, it's more about stupidity run amuck.

At 3/26/07 08:44 PM, smellmybutt wrote: In the past 100 years the earths temperature has risen about 1 degree F...
In the past 100 years the magnetic field of the sun has doubled in strength...

I don't know if your forgetting this but in the 60s(?) people were afraid of an iceage.
So I wouldn't say 100 years unless your stating it as a generalization of increase in all.

At 3/26/07 09:04 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:

At 3/26/07 08:44 PM, smellmybutt wrote: In the past 100 years the earths temperature has risen about 1 degree F...
In the past 100 years the magnetic field of the sun has doubled in strength...

I don't know if your forgetting this but in the 60s(?) people were afraid of an iceage.
So I wouldn't say 100 years unless your stating it as a generalization of increase in all.

Well, you're right, there was a 'cooldown' period this century (we are after all coming out of the little ice age)..

Most warming took place 1900-1940, 1940-1970 it got cooler, 1970 to present has been warmer again.

Yes I did mean magnetic field overall this century, and there is a lot of evidence to show that climate change is directly linked to the magnetic activity of the sun, specifically 'sun spots', which are magnetic storms on the sun.-- And there was a relatively high number of sun spots throughout the 20th century.

It's really not a radical idea to think the sun causes most of earths climate trends.

When you take into consideration for instance, that the sun contains 99.8% of the mass in our solar system, and that the volume of the earth could fit in the volume of the sun about 1,300,000 times!

Focusing on a tiny amount of Co2 and ignoring the activity of that enormous fiery beast in the sky is a lot like focusing all your energy on getting a firefly out of your house while ignoring the grizzly bear in your kitchen currently ransacking your refrigerator...

I mean, cmon, it's rediculous...

At 3/26/07 08:44 PM, smellmybutt wrote:

A RANT

You know, while I agree with much of what you just said...you did not add anything significantly to this conversation and you only helped to make the position of us GW (stands for Global Warming...not Bush) skeptics more difficult to defend...

At 3/26/07 09:36 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 3/26/07 08:44 PM, smellmybutt wrote:

you only helped to make the position of us GW (stands for Global Warming...not Bush) skeptics more difficult to defend...

And how exactly did I manage that? I was simply pointing out that to a rational, sensible individual, Global Warming as taught by the likes of Al Gore, makes little or no sense.

At 3/26/07 09:43 PM, smellmybutt wrote: And how exactly did I manage that? I was simply pointing out that to a rational, sensible individual, Global Warming as taught by the likes of Al Gore, makes little or no sense.

You ranted and threw in too much personal conjecture against Bush and Gore. I've found that when debating GW believers it is like discrediting someone's religion in terms of the reaction you get. Personal slurrs against the GW icon (Gore) only seem to reinforce their opinion that skeptics are politically motivated automatons...even when we have issues with Bush...

At 3/26/07 09:49 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 3/26/07 09:43 PM, smellmybutt wrote: And how exactly did I manage that? I was simply pointing out that to a rational, sensible individual, Global Warming as taught by the likes of Al Gore, makes little or no sense.

You ranted and threw in too much personal conjecture against Bush and Gore. I've found that when debating GW believers it is like discrediting someone's religion in terms of the reaction you get. Personal slurrs against the GW icon (Gore) only seem to reinforce their opinion that skeptics are politically motivated automatons...even when we have issues with Bush...

Oh, I see what you mean, the reason I went after Gore AND Bush was to try to demonstrate that it is not a one sided debate. Many people assume that the anti-global warming debate is the 'republican' side of things or the 'conservaitive' as opposed to liberal side. I was pointing out that they are both bad in an attempt to move past partisanship, and emphasised all the actual scientific data to move beyond political arguments.

The problem is, the Global Warming bandwagon really has got a lot of alternative agendas, power, money, politics, spotlight, anti-capitalism, anti-America, anti-industry, anti-Africa/developing world-- you name it, there's a lot of dirty baggage that comes along with it -- and it has been fed to people via propaganda in the guise of, 'doing the right thing', 'saving the environment', 'being moral', 'preserving the future for our children', 'preventing enormous catastrophes' etc... (even though that's not what is ACTUALLY at stake, and it is NOT what the issue is REALLY about at all)... unfortunately, these are powerful messages, and due to all of this 'slide of hand' you cannot completely dismiss it all during debates.

So that's partly why I approached it in the way that I did, it wasn't pure ranting.

Let me make it totally clear however.

The issue IS NOT about politics. It is about FACTS, being cool and rational, and cold hard SCIENCE---

At 3/21/07 04:27 PM, TheMason wrote: The reason, whe study phenomenon that involve many variables that cannot be controlled for and change from region to region and country to country. Just like the climate.

Please, I will likely have to describe myself as one of those one day but they are not science. The only reason anyone would claim as such would to make their claims look more legitimate than they are, considering the total impossibility of mapping human behavior. And thgese "soft scientists" are even less suited to study the weather than a biologist since they have NO background in science.

We get it Mason, you are impressed with yourself. But to claim people like you would have a better grasp on the enviroment than scientists? Cmon, gimme a break, lay off the ego pills there bud. Stop pretending to have a grasp on the situation you do not have. You understand the climate no better than the scientist you are disparaging yet you persist on making hard claims like global warming is not true. How about just leave it at "We dont got a fucking clue" because it would be thousands of times closer to the truth than your egomania.

At 3/18/07 10:54 AM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: It definately exists, but I don't think global "warming" is the right term. I think it's of global weather destablization.

For example, here is the US we some really crazy weather. TEXAS got snow while up here in western Mass, we didn't get any snow untill Febuary. That's not supposed to happen!!

What we need to do to stop this is to stop poluting the oceans and stop cutting down all of the trees. That's the biggest harm to the planet. People don't seem to realize how important the oceans are and we need to stop destroying them. How else do you think carborn dioxide is recicled into oxygen?

And that's my opinion on global warming.

We call it Global Warming Its too DAMN BIG!!! DEstableiztion....it sounds liek Afucking DISEASE! Now listen here Jiimmy when you grt Global Destableization, it dosen't mean you bad, it just means your not connected to the world!

Impressive, the impact that "The Great Global Warming Swindle" has had on you people. Seriously - before you were all "well it's only a 0.6 celsius change in temperature" and "it's only environmental sensationalism" and now all your arguments are carefully rehearsed from that program. Have any of you ever considered consulting more than one source to base your arguments on? And seriously, it was a goddamn British program, haven't any of you anything more convincing in the States since that's where most GW scepticism originates?

I watched it, and really didn't find it to be that convincing. It was all going fine and I was about to reconsider my stance on GW until they started whining about its advocates being anti-US. Come to think of it, that was probably why the program had a greater impact on the Americans than it did on the Brits.

I personally fail to see how pumping shitloads of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere isn't going to have an effect on the environment...but whatever, climatology is such a damned complex science that even if GW turns out to be true to the extent that mainstream science says it'll be then we'll still have no idea what's going to happen.

Also, about the sun spots thing - I'm pretty sure New Scientist debunked that hypothesis about 6 or 7 years ago. I'll have to dig out the issue.

I can tell you that the only reason I am starting to doubt global warming is the completly one sided coverage it has been receiving in the media. Global warming is constatly talked about as fact with little discussion of the other opinions on the issue and little is discussed about the past mistakes and claims of climatologists. It just seems so dishonest to me to preface all the claims as fact and not discuss the myriad problems associated with making these claims. I mean, I still get the fact most scientists believe its true but there was also a point in time when most scientists thought God fixed the species on Earth as they are now and that the Earth was only a few thousand years old. These claims are among other huge past scientific mistakes that have been assumed as truth among the scientific community.

Frankly, I still believe global warming is true and that humans are having an effect on it but I will go no farther than that. There is not a single model or scientist I would trust on the issue farther than that which is why I dont necessarily care overly much about the frightening claims the global warming proponents introduce. Its all a load of bull.

At 3/27/07 01:34 AM, Demosthenez wrote: Please, I will likely have to describe myself as one of those one day but they are not science. The only reason anyone would claim as such would to make their claims look more legitimate than they are, considering the total impossibility of mapping human behavior. And thgese "soft scientists" are even less suited to study the weather than a biologist since they have NO background in science.

What is science?
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Furthermore, there is the scientific method which prescribes how science is to be conducted. Guess what? In Poly Sci, Sociology, Anthropology and Psychology all use the scientific method. However, there is a problem in that these disciplines cannot use it as rigorously as those in Physics, Chemistry or Biology. But we still use it. NO background in science? Absolutely false...our background is just in something popular opinion does not generally classify as a science. But we use the scientific method to analyze complex phenomenon that cannot be reduced into a few easily observable variables...kindof like...I dunno...the climate?

We get it Mason, you are impressed with yourself. But to claim people like you would have a better grasp on the enviroment than scientists? Cmon, gimme a break, lay off the ego pills there bud. Stop pretending to have a grasp on the situation you do not have. You understand the climate no better than the scientist you are disparaging yet you persist on making hard claims like global warming is not true. How about just leave it at "We dont got a fucking clue" because it would be thousands of times closer to the truth than your egomania.

The reason I have introduced this logic is not to impress or feed my ego. My reason for presenting it is the idea that if you do not hold what are popularly considered to be scientific credentials, then you are not qualified to interpret the data. This is what I'm taking to task is that people like Physicists and Chemists are not particularly well-suited to comment because of the reductionist nature of their research. However, considering that it is impossible to map out the effects of a single variable on the climate...does it not make sense that people who are skilled at analyzing other complex systems (such as human behavior) would be better able to evaluate the evidence than people who have a reductionist world view.

I would also suggest that you re-evaluate what I've been saying and not read into it your perception of my egomania. My main point has been that even climatologists will by and large admit that we really have no clue what is going on with the climate, how it works, if it is warming or cooling, if these trends are natural or man-made, and what the long term effects are.

In short, we do not have a fucking clue. All I know is that over the past 100 years climatologists and environmentalists have made apocalyptic statements about the climate and offered desperate "do or die" measures...and have been consistently wrong. I do not make the hard statement that GW is not true...there are simply too many variables for anyone to make a hard statement one way or another. I'll leave that for people like Al Gore to make...the true egomaniacs.

At 3/27/07 11:40 AM, Peter-II wrote: Impressive, the impact that "The Great Global Warming Swindle" has had on you people. Seriously - before you were all "well it's only a 0.6 celsius change in temperature" and "it's only environmental sensationalism" and now all your arguments are carefully rehearsed from that program. Have any of you ever considered consulting more than one source to base your arguments on? ...

Actually, I'm have some problems with my video player so I haven't been able to open that video...so any opinion of mine comes from readings from various different sources.

I personally fail to see how pumping shitloads of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere isn't going to have an effect on the environment...but whatever, climatology is such a damned complex science that even if GW turns out to be true to the extent that mainstream science says it'll be then we'll still have no idea what's going to happen.

Hey, I agree with you that it would be absolutely bat-shit insane to claim that pollution will have NO effect on the environment. But to make the hard core claims that people like Al Gore are making...may be a little far-fetched and manipulative...

We simply have no fucking clue...(for you Demo!)

Also, about the sun spots thing - I'm pretty sure New Scientist debunked that hypothesis about 6 or 7 years ago. I'll have to dig out the issue.

Again...complex system...can we ever truly debunk anything when it comes to the climate?