Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 150

Thread: global warming is a hoax

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Grey the scientists get jobs and promotions and grant money from the politiicans the politicians get what politicians always want power.


    All governments are eventually if not immediately about the Usurpation of power. It's what they have always done and will always do. The US does not have an efficient government. That is by design. Efficient governments are dangerous governments regarding the rights of their citizens.

    What politicians generally mean when they state they wish to stream line government is that they haven't been able to use the current government sufficiently to liit the prospects of there opposition.

    Sorry Evel. Sarcasm sometimes doesn't come across well in print...

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    4,998

    Default

    Then why did the previous administration in the US go so much against the idea of global warming? Why are smaller nations at the moment angry that their more powerful brothers didn't do more at the Copenhagen summit to set lower emissions targets in stone? Surely they should all be united in the international global warming conspiracy designed to give them lots of mysterious power?
    Platinum Edition ADOMer
    http://gamesofgrey.com - check out my roguelikes!

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    117

    Default

    First off Bush did not go that much against Global warming. And even if he had in this country it would merely mean he'd done a better job of reading the political tea leaves correctly than has his succesor thus far.

    In this country it is damn hard to make major changes to the geopolitical landscape and as much as Yankee country and the West coast would love to ape every damn thing Europe does no matter how foolish, the portion of the country between the Appalacians and Rockies is far more distrustful of the Washington power brokers no matter who is running the country. Bush Like him of not was a big government conservative, spending vastly more on social progams than he did on the War on terror thus he was a best ambiguous regarding Global warming and at worst complicit in the purchase of the hype.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Drakalor Chain
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gut View Post
    > At all Americans here: please stop reading american media

    I'll agree with that, having gotten rid of my TV over 2
    years ago, and not touching newspapers with a 10 foot
    pole. I couldn't be happier.

    > You have to read media

    No I don't, and stop telling me what I have to do. That's
    why I got rid of my TV.

    > 30 or 40 years from now on there won't be any more german glaciers

    30 or 40 years ago, people were scared out of thier gourds
    that the 'global cooling' was going to end us all. Google it.
    They were arguing over the legitimacy of data back then,
    the same as we are now.
    While I am very late to this debate, I may as well put in my input. Global Cooling was not believed my the majority of scientists when the theory was popular. Global Warming is believed by the majority. I do not know whether global warming is real or not. But we can all solve the problem if we are creationests!
    Hard core soft porn.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,008

    Default

    You must have went to the wiki for 'global cooling'. Well, it is the first
    place link, but I consider that something of a farce actually. It presents
    the theory of global cooling as something of a misguided fluke, then
    procedes to chat at length about the dangers and reality of modern day
    global warming

    Anyhoo, here is google's second place link: http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature...ticle10866.htm

    It explains to us that last year's worldwide COLDEST STINKING WINTER
    in decades was not just conjecture or dreams that we mortals might have
    imagined, but has now been verified through ~science~. Wonder how
    much that cost me?

    > I'd love to hear in detail how politicians and scientists profit so greatly from the global warming myth

    Don't know how I let that one slide without a responce! I'll break it down
    into steps for you.

    Step 1. Collect money from the masses (2.1 trillion for USA masses).

    Step 2. Get into a position to allocate it (3.7 trillion for USA ).

    Step 3. Smile as everyone and his kid brother comes to you begging for
    their share (countless billions in USA lobby money per year). Unthinkable
    that $ are allocated with quid pro quo in mind?

    Step 4. Environmental groups/movements/concerns relating to Co2 come
    with sufficient votes, therefore get sufficient funding, as does any other
    special interest. Other concerns, just as real (maybe more important)
    don't come with votes/image incentives, so to the back burner they go.
    I can get lawful fast enough by torturing beggars or drowning Hawkslayer.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    348

    Default

    It explains to us that last year's worldwide COLDEST STINKING WINTER
    in decades was not just conjecture or dreams that we mortals might have
    imagined, but has now been verified through ~science~. Wonder how
    much that cost me?
    Well, funnily to that I was listening to a talk in of some guy who is a critical on global warming, metereologist from... well I can dig out the details soon.

    Anyway, he was showing temperature maps of last years harsh winter, and it turns out that it was one the warmest ones we ever had, if considered worldwide. There has never been so few ice in the arctic as in this winter since observations are done.

    On another note, his main argument critizising the global warming thing (well, not global warming, but the human factor) was that statistically we can well predict the impact of CO_2 (some +X plus minus 1.Y degrees as far as I remember) , but not the effect of Aerosols (that is, we know the mean effect, but it#s possible variance is so big: some +(smaller than X) plus minus 5 degrees or so). So according to him, there is not enough data to support all that.

    But he also said one thing that is quite critical to the whole debate and that separates scientists from the public: weather and climate are different things. Climate can not be observed, but weather can, but the two don't have much to do with each other and are often confused by public and media.

    EDIT: Link to that (or at least a similar picture) that he showed. It matches quite well my memory. The anomaly in Europe and US is quite different in sign as the rest of the world, hence the different perception.

    http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen09_fig5.jpg
    Figure caption: Figure 5. (a) global map of December 2009 anomaly, (b) global map of Jun‐Jul‐Aug 2009 anomaly. #4 and #2 indicate that December 2009 and JJA are the 4th and 2nd warmest globally for those periods.

    The whole page seems to give a lot of info, but I honestly have not read it.
    Last edited by Evil Knievel; 07-04-2010 at 05:47 PM.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,008

    Default

    I can't say my graph is more accurate than yours, but it is
    opposite. Just follow my link above, it is the first graph you
    see, and is supposedly backed by some (surely expensive)
    science. Regardless of which graph you believe, mine or
    yours, it just goes to demonstrate what I've been saying
    all along, 'science' is a very purchasable thing.
    I can get lawful fast enough by torturing beggars or drowning Hawkslayer.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,282

    Default

    Both graphs are correct, but the graph linked by gut has clearly been cherrypicked, with dates chosen to show the most "cooling" that they could find. Why do you think that graph has been cut off exactly at january 2008? Why does it start on the top of a peak in 1988? Why does it only show 20 years, while it is generally agreed upon that the shortest period you need to draw valid conclusions about climatic trends is about 30 years?

    People presenting "science" like that are the ones trying to hoax us. Just have a look at the whole graph of the same data set: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

    There is some real scientific debate on the relative importance of greenhouse gas forcing and other factors, but we are not in a period of "cooling". That's a flat-out lie.
    Last edited by grobblewobble; 07-04-2010 at 09:12 PM.
    You steal a scroll labelled HITME. The orc hits you.

    Robbing BugCave with a banshee.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,008

    Default

    > People presenting "science" like that are the ones trying to
    > hoax us. Just have a look at

    > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

    This is how these things always wind up, because of scientists
    selling their 'professional' opinions. You can't believe anything
    that anybody says. You can discredit any link I find with 'they
    are hoaxing us' and I can discredit your links with 'they are
    fanatics who will say or do anything to further their agenda'.
    Here is a link discrediting your source.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climate-change

    "The new research comes at a difficult time for climate scientists, who have been forced to defend their predictions in the face of an embarrassing mistake in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which included false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035. There has also been heavy criticism over the way climate scientists at the University of East Anglia apparently tried to prevent the release of data requested under Freedom of Information laws."
    I can get lawful fast enough by torturing beggars or drowning Hawkslayer.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Moscow. Russia.
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Oh! A greenish post! I`ll read it from the begining )

Posting Permissions

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