Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 150

Thread: global warming is a hoax

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Okay lets get soemthing straight.

    The facts are these:

    The antarctic reveresed a 3000 year long warming trend somewhere in the mid 1980's according to at least 3 different peer reviewed scientific studies.

    A computer glitch caused us to underestimate the size of the arctric ice sheet 2 summers ago by several thousand square miles. So no Polar bears aren't threatened by global warming.

    All glaciers aren't melting, Kilamanjaro in fact is slowly evaporating because it wasn't fed by rain nealry so much as by water vapor from the forests below that largely no longer exists. there are over 160k glaciers in the world we have good long term data on less than 5% of them. It is therefore impossible to say what 95% of them are doing and for how long they've been doing it making projections nearly impossible.

    East Anglia where the Data was compiled has made it quite clear that they engaged not in science but fraud and strong arm tactics.

    The Medieval Warm period appears to have been considerably warmer than it is now and seems to have been pretty much a golden age for man kind so the scare stories about possible harm caused by warming seems a bit far fetched. I f you wish to believe other wise get back to me when Grapes are growing wild in North Germany and Nova Scotia.

    In short there is a hell of a lot of science out there on the subject now and enough of it runs counter to what the AGW crowd are putting out to make any sane person question all the fear mongering they're doing even if there own e-mails didn't strongly indicate that they were creating this crap out of whole cloth.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,008

    Default

    > That's crazy talk gut. It is clearly the emissions from the
    > bulldozers that are killing all the frogs, not the bulldozing
    > of the swamps to put up a super mall.

    That gave me a good laugh : )


    > gut dude, honestly, should no one get paid for anything?

    Getting paid is part of life. Selling your integrity isn't.

    > You really think all science is bunk?

    Nope. I'm a 'follow the money' kind of a guy. If something
    smells fishy, I wanna see the money trail. It isn't limited
    to science. There are many fields that are 'holy', meaning
    that it is almost an offense to ask to see a money trail.
    I believe it's these areas that are the worst for corruption.
    Compared to some churches and political groups, environmental
    scientists are a fairly ethical bunch.

    > Just climate science?

    No, in particular I'm much more cynical of the food and
    drug industry. One never reads about a powerful lobby being
    successful in it's efforts to raise standards in food
    production. Instead, they are allowed to continually suck
    more and more nutrients out of foods, and replace them
    with antibiotics, steroids and other drugs. If one looks
    at the money trail, it's obvious that something is never
    exchanged for nothing.

    > All environmental science?

    Misguided environmental science is irritating, and can
    often be replaced by common sense. The kind that is
    carefully and intelligently targeted to make a real
    difference is invaluable.

    > Even stuff which leads to concrete developments in engineering?

    In my eyes, those are possibly the ones with the least
    amount of inherant corruption, or maybe just hypocricy.
    Those scientists seem to be honest about the fact that
    they are persuing money.

    > Going back how far?

    I think there is a time/corruption curve, and it gets
    a bit steeper every year.

    > We have some lovely canals here in Serbia which as a scientist,
    > I believe to have been badly polluted by man,

    You should see the Kentucky river. I have a septic tank
    installed, but most don't. I'd like to see it change,
    but it's hard to make people pay for something that they
    honestly can't afford.

    > anyone who doubts the sincerity of the people I work with
    > (ha ha, cos we get these massive kick backs from all over

    Your data doesn't smell fishy, so I'd see no reason to
    request a money trail. It's entirely believable that
    Serbian canals are poluted and should be cleaned. I suspect
    though, that the Serbian people are in a similar position
    as the Kentuckians where money is concerned.

    > welcome to come swim in them, bathe their children there,
    > drink freely of the waters,

    They do that in India, not Indiana (or Kentucky).

    > my apparently worthless professional opinion, it might
    > be dangerous to your health.

    Convince your countrymen, somehow, to install septic tanks.
    Don't ask me how, as I've yet to convince any of my own
    countrymen to do the same.

    > climate change debates is because they just serve to
    > completely bypass debate about other environmental issues
    > which are also important.

    I would view the 'other' ones as more important, as they
    have a lower corruption factor, in my opinion. In Kentucky,
    there have been many successful environmental efforts in
    regards to re-introducing wildlife to the region that had
    been previously severly depleted or extinct. We now have
    surprisingly large populations of black bear, and I've
    recently even had the chance to see one personally.
    Whatever tax money they spent to research, plan, and
    implement those projects was money well spent IMO, and I
    wouldn't begrudge a bit more. Perhaps the Co2 fanatics
    could learn a bit here...
    I can get lawful fast enough by torturing beggars or drowning Hawkslayer.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,649

    Default

    i hate considering science as in relation with money. can't say you're wrong. can't say you're not going to die on the 5th january 2027 from a heart attack. Iff what you can't say as wrong is true, then we're doomed.
    Haven't won with : Druid, Priest, Elementalist, Weaponsmith, Ranger, Merchants, farmers, Necromancer,Thief
    Currently trying : Entertaining girlfriend. Very, Very, VERY hard.

    Just a silly online game

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    4,998

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gut View Post
    > my apparently worthless professional opinion, it might
    > be dangerous to your health.

    Convince your countrymen, somehow, to install septic tanks.
    Don't ask me how, as I've yet to convince any of my own
    countrymen to do the same.
    How do we know you're not just in the pay of the septic tank corporations?
    Platinum Edition ADOMer
    http://gamesofgrey.com - check out my roguelikes!

  5. #45
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,534

    Default

    Definitely sounds that way

    Sadly, we have a shortage of political will born out two things: an disconcerting absence of public concern regarding the environment (honestly, a massive increase in NIMBY would actually help matters for once) partially brought about by the fact that 10-15 years ago, this region had altogether more pressing problems, and the fact that the political situation here remains so unstable, that no one in power ever plans to still be in power beyond the next election, and instead just tries to skim off as much wealth as possible in the short time they have (with possibly some exceptions maybe).

    In many respects, the money issue is moot - if any sort of political consensus could be reached, money from the EU would flow into the country, to ensure we have enough drinkable water, to ensure we don't excessively pollute the poor Danube, etc. Consensus here is hard to find though, as up until recently, lots of infrastructure stuff was owned by the state, and every time the government changed (often), all the people in charge of the infra were changed as well - the electric, drinking water, wastewater, the oil industry, the transportation industry, agriculture, etc. all had new management willing to follow the party line.

    If it takes 5 years to investigate the best possible method (efficacy and efficiency) for treating a town's drinking water (not unreasonable for the design and testing of a water treatment pilot plant), and the people whose responsibility it is to commision (and indeed fund) those investigations change every 3 years in a horrendously partisan manner, then decisions get, err, postponed. Indefinitely.

    As time goes by, less stuff is owned by the state, and that which is owned by the state becomes slightly less unstable, but its all so slow, and meanwhile, even the industries are still pumping out their untreated waste, let alone private individuals not fortunate enough to be connected to the sewer system (many of whom do have septic tanks , some of whom just empty them on nearby fields when they get full ). Throw in the damaged and neglected state of the municipal wastewater treatment plants, and its a story of doom and gloom right enough.

    Small steps, public awareness raising, increased dialogue with industrial polluters, research into absolutely the most cost-effective treatment methods, increased dialogue with water authorities to try and ensure our nascent pollution regulations are actually enforced at some point, more public awareness raising, hope survives.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,008

    Default

    > How do we know you're not just in the pay of the septic tank corporations?

    I would have spammed you before now : )

    Up until just now, I never actually realized that there were such
    things as septic tank corperations, but I suppose there are.
    I can get lawful fast enough by torturing beggars or drowning Hawkslayer.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Evel my lad the fossil fuels aren't the problem where we are getting them from is. Consider the following:

    Those hydrogen powered cars they keep saying are just around the bend? We have two sources of easily extractable hydrogen water which by the takes more energy to obtain thatn the retireved hydrogen produces and fossil fuels There is a reason we call the things hydrocarbons...

    2nd neither solar or wind can ever be more than 20 or 25% of the power grid due to reliability issues. The sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. That leaves Nuclear which the same crowd that hates fossil fuels also hate with a mad burning passion.

    3rd if you thing the politicians are there to make sure the scientist find the truth you are sadly out of touch with reality. The only thing politicians give a damn about is power and if a convenient lie assures them of power why then they will opt for the convenient lie...

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    4,998

    Default

    I'd love to hear in detail how politicians and scientists profit so greatly from the global warming myth, as opposed to the rather more renowned profit-greedy oil corporations.
    Platinum Edition ADOMer
    http://gamesofgrey.com - check out my roguelikes!

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    Well, that's taking things to extremes a little. As has been said, the earth has been warmer in its past, and I don't think man-made global warming will cause so terrible a cycle as to result in a Venus-like Earth. The problem is more just that it's going to make the planet rather uncomfortable for us and many other mammals.
    This is what I was thinking, until recently. But James Hansen (director of the NASA institute), claims that a Venus-like earth is a real long-term threat. Long-term, because the ice sheets would have to melt first, which would take a couple of centuries. He also doesn't claim that it can happen in moderate scenario's, but only when all coal and other carbon sources would be exhaustively burned. Here's a video where he explains his opinion.

    http://bigthink.com/jameshansen/the-...al-catastrophe

    Maybe he's holding a minority opinion here, though - I'm not sure.
    You steal a scroll labelled HITME. The orc hits you.

    Robbing BugCave with a banshee.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by garyd View Post
    Evel my lad the fossil fuels aren't the problem where we are getting them from is. Consider the following:

    Those hydrogen powered cars they keep saying are just around the bend? We have two sources of easily extractable hydrogen water which by the takes more energy to obtain thatn the retireved hydrogen produces and fossil fuels There is a reason we call the things hydrocarbons...
    So hydrogen cars are not the solution, agreed. Still will they be necessary to bring any kind of alternative energy on the road.

    Quote Originally Posted by garyd View Post
    2nd neither solar or wind can ever be more than 20 or 25% of the power grid due to reliability issues. The sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. That leaves Nuclear which the same crowd that hates fossil fuels also hate with a mad burning passion.
    I don't know, still it doesn't help, we have to do more on that side, not less. It's bad that it is difficult, but that's not a good reason to give up. The less we do the worse will it get (it will get unpleasant anyway, you are right).
    Second: I have another opinion, I think the sun does always shine and the wind does always blow, and I think there is a lot more energy in those ressources than mankind can use up ever. Look at that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec
    Of course, it might never work, but it is better than not to try. Same goes for nuclear fusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by garyd View Post
    3rd if you thing the politicians are there to make sure the scientist find the truth you are sadly out of touch with reality. The only thing politicians give a damn about is power and if a convenient lie assures them of power why then they will opt for the convenient lie...
    The statement I was referring to was a bit ironic, so I agree with you once more.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •