yeah global warming is total bullshit those glaciers are just hiding underground

ye sure i will miss them but its not like i will die without them

yes we will :)

if they completly melt half the world is under water :P

That sounds overblown, are you sure we can not just build dams and relocate people as it melts?

i'm speechless up in here yo

according to scientists those glaciers are melting from some time already --> Bioshock ftw !
(yesterday when I checked out my garden, the beach was still there)

2/3 of the world is under water already, so I'm not sure what you mean by that

this:P

wouldn't be too sure about that one actually

Who cares, I'm more concerned with the disgusting air that I have to breath unless I want to in the middle of nowhere.

Russian computer hackers have

Stopped reading.

haha =P look its on wikileaks

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/CRU_emails_reve..._behaviour

So far, there is no evidence I have seen that suggests the fabrication of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. Certainly, scientists at the CRU are not the only scientists working on climate science. These emails do not provide a silver bullet to kill off that theory.

One NASA climatologist whose email was hacked said, "Science doesn't work because we're all nice. Newton may have been an ass, but the theory of gravity still works."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm

if you want to actually do some reading on a skeptic of man-made global warming, read one of Bjorn Lomborgs (sp?) books, they are great! - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist

i agree with klaus on this, its not like we can halt the economy because a polar bear drowns

That view is almost deliberately and obnoxiously stupid in ignoring the real impact, which is far more serious than 'one bear drowning'. The increasing CO2 levels are acidifying the Arctic ocean to the point where mollusc shells will dissolve, having huge consequences for the ecosystem.

co2 doesn't do that.

You have no idea what you're talking about which is frankly typical of the tin-foil hat climate change deniers. Carbon dioxide dissolves in water to form carbonic acid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid

Remind me, what is co2 is made of? Don't hesitate to ask a scientist if it's too complicated.

See edit. Get clue.

You attack my scientific background, and then come at me with a wikipedia entry?

I'm sure glad that water merely absorbs co2 at such a great rate, and doesn't just let it float up into the atmosphere. That acid rain in new york is a bitch. Oh wait.

You can thank SO2 cap and trade for the lack of acid rain.

http://slattern23.files.wordpress.com/2008/01...og_big.jpg

When was the last news report of acid rain in China? but seriously, I'm sure it's a huge deal. I'm also sure that the co2 moved all the way from here to the polar caps, and then managed to come down into the water to make acid.

Did I mention that I'm in the market for a bridge?

You do know that acid rain is caused mostly by SO2 and NO?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091014122054.htm

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/522/acid-r...food-chain


You are a huge dumbass.

Maybe you don't follow. If co2 were to absorb so easily (especially since it's going into the atmosphere, not the ocean), it should be easily merging with common rain. It isn't.

http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what/index.html

Acid rain.

What the hell do you think it is?

Again, you aren't following. Re-read.

No you seem to think CO2 is the main cause of acid rain. You are wrong and an idiot.

No, I said that co2 should be merging with rain to make carbonic acid. Pay attention.

"Carbonic acid even appears as a normal occurrence in rain. As rainwater falls through the air, it absorbs carbon dioxide, producing carbonic acid. Thus, when it reaches the ground, it has a pH of about 5.5. This should not be confused with acid rain which is caused when emissions, such as sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, from burning fossil fuels rises to the air. As it falls, rain absorbs these components, producing acids which can make the pH in rain fall to as little as two."

From ix

Now do what you haven't done the past few replies, and keep reading.

Make a valid point vedic. You never make any sense.

You tried to fork an argument with me over a misunderstanding on YOUR part. If you're done mistaking the acid rain that was being discussed, you can catch up with the replies I have made to ix.

No you just don't understand what acid rain is.

If I did or not has NOTHING to do with the discussion - nobody was talking about acid rain. The discussion was over carbonic acid.

Take a deep breath, remember that you aren't becks, and stop replying.

"I'm sure glad that water merely absorbs co2 at such a great rate, and doesn't just let it float up into the atmosphere. That acid rain in new york is a bitch. Oh wait."

You fail vedic.

How little of this have you read? Is this an alt account for becks?

Just admit your fail vedic.

For the love of the future, please learn to read.

Read what vedic? You didn't how acid rain is formed and I called you on it. You fail. stfu for once.

That might have been pertinent... if we were talking about sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxide... but we weren't. Ever.

Again, for the future, please learn to read.

No you talked about acid rain. So I informed about what causes acid rain. stfu

Cool. Do you want to inform me about any other unrelated subjects, or are you ready to sit down?

How can it be unrelated when you bring it up? Are you retarded or something?

ix brought up carbonic acid, and we were discussing carbonic acid rain. The useless insights into sulfur dioxide/nitrogen oxide acid rain were all you.

Because SO2 and NO are what really make acid rain so acidic. Not CO2. Carbonic acid only has a slight effect.

That was the IRONY. That's the whole point of my argument!

Welcome to 20 posts ago. Population: JUST YOU.

Really because you try make the claim that CO2 causes acid rain in several posts. When I prove you wrong you deflect with some stupid shit. Give up already retard.

Again, no. I pointed out the silliness that there IS no acid rain, most specifically in areas of high co2 concentration.

Because CO2 isn't the cause of acid rain you dumbass. That was my whole point. Fuck me you are stupid.

Tada! My point exactly!

I've never had someone insult me so much while telling me that I'm right.

No that wasn't your point at all. You think CO2 can't go in water without making acid rain. Therefore there is no CO2 in the ocean.

I'm making the argument that CO2 is an insignificant cause of C2H2O3. Even in areas of absurdly high CO2, it's a non-issue.

Instead of looking at the other abundant sources of carbon, people are trying to blame the least possible. Even climate scientists that try to argue that CO2 is the cause of such silliness only say that greenhouse gasses are around 2% CO2.

A single volcano puts out more CO2 than all the breathing that humans have done since the dawn of mankind.

This is why I can't take you seriously. You're full of idiotic myths.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-c...e-gas.html

"Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year - about a hundredth of human emissions (pdf document)."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-c...atter.html


C2H2O3 ? Don't you mean H2CO3? That is carbonic acid.

CO2 + H2O=H2CO3

See here.

So if that were true can you point out a scientific article pointing this out? Surely it would debunk all of this.

I'll wait.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_...d&z=11

Still waiting.

If you don't know the basics, I can't have a debate with you. I'll gladly pitch in on the trolling, though.

Still waiting.

Education requires patience.

Still waiting.

This might quell your patience issue!

This for the other issues.

Not what I asked for vedic. Surely you can find something to back up your hypothesis.

Wait, you want me to do something that you've asked, despite not reading a single thing in the thread after countless requests?

Hahaha... That's funny. Come on, you're becks, right?

I've read all your crap vedic. I just want you to back up the stupid shit you claim. Surely you can do that. Although it does seem to me that you are dodging the issue and very badly at that.

I've already backed it up in this thread, not that it needs backing if you know even the basics of chemistry.

Now, come on... Becks? I'm curious now.

No I don't want you to stick your fingers in your ears and say stupid shit to ix. I want to see a scientific article that backs up your claim. Surely you can find one since this is so elementary.

Take a look, it's in a book.

READING RAINBOW

(also, go buy some dry ice - it's fun)

No vedic. You're just evading now. Just find one reliable source for your claims. Otherwise stop replying to me.

I'm not debating the foundation of science with you, especially when you don't understand it.

If you're hoping that you're going to get the last word - I assure you, I'm far more stubborn. I have yet to lose at this.

No it's because you can't do what I'm asking of you. You may always "win" this game but only because you're a complete and utter cretin. Even jamerio has a clue when to fucking give up. You just keep on saying absolutely retarded shit for days.

Days is an insult - I can go longer than that. Even still, the info you want is already in this thread. If you don't know what to do with it, this is a personal problem.

ix was interesting to discuss it with because he's at least somewhat intelligent - you are not. I will happily troll you, but I won't humor you.

No it was you going on about dry ice and him talking about actual science and then calling you a complete idiot.

Surely one of these climate skeptics with degrees can back up your opinion. Especially since this is so basic science as you claim.

Yes, they can. Ask them.

Just post something from them that backs you up. Anything!

I wasn't aware that climate scientists with a PhD would be posting material that belongs in an "idiot's guide" book.

Again, I won't humor you, but I will troll you.

So they possess info that would disprove climate change completely but they simply refuse to discuss it? Makes sense. You're not trolling me vedic. You're simply making a fool of yourself.

You made a fool of yourself here - you've just been paying for it for the past few dozen replies!

To think, if you had just read what was written, you wouldn't be here trying to get the last word in a hope that you somehow look less stupid - even though you've spent hours flailing about.

Save time, see it my way.

We went over why you were wrong vedic. You didn't understand how acid rain is formed. You didn't understand how carbonic acid is formed or its effect. You even posted the wrong formula. You have been wrong about everything in this journal. Your volcano fail was especially telling.

You've been proven wrong on the points that you are wrong, and shown that the rest is just completely unrelated ranting.

Hope you can keep this up, or you're going to get bored mighty fast. Trolling is a art.

Dude you're not trolling. You clearly believe this stupid shit. You're an unhinged alex jones nut. At least you're trying to divert the conversation from the fact you can't back up your claims about CO2. I've seen a lot of denialist crap over the years but I've never seen anyone claim this before.

I'm not trolling over the material, but I am trolling YOU with this constant discussion since you have proven that you aren't capable of a real discussion.

You're either trolling hard, or stupid as hell.

I am the one who has provided links to back up my assertions. You've provided nothing but your usual bullshit and stupidity.

If only your asserted on something that was being discussed...

All this typing isn't making you correct.

get irc to chat or smth

Er... it's just outlining a simple physical process, not any kind of point of view, one you falsely believed to be impossible because you seem to think you know better with your high school science(?). It's basic chemistry that you'll find in plenty of textbooks.

The physical process is not observed in nature.

You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_en...+in+oceans

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/305/5682/367
Science 16 July 2004:
Vol. 305. no. 5682, pp. 367 - 371

The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2
Christopher L. Sabine,1* Richard A. Feely,1 Nicolas Gruber,2 Robert M. Key,3 Kitack Lee,4 John L. Bullister,1 Rik Wanninkhof,5 C. S. Wong,6 Douglas W. R. Wallace,7 Bronte Tilbrook,8 Frank J. Millero,9 Tsung-Hung Peng,5 Alexander Kozyr,10 Tsueno Ono,11 Aida F. Rios12

In answer to your question about acid rain:
"Carbonic acid even appears as a normal occurrence in rain. As rainwater falls through the air, it absorbs carbon dioxide, producing carbonic acid. Thus, when it reaches the ground, it has a pH of about 5.5. This should not be confused with acid rain which is caused when emissions, such as sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, from burning fossil fuels rises to the air. As it falls, rain absorbs these components, producing acids which can make the pH in rain fall to as little as two."

Oh man, so that must prove that it's co2, since that's the only place that you can get carbon. It's not like it's the 4th most common element in the entire universe or anything. It's not like it exists in every organic creature on earth...

edit: in response to your edit,

So, where are the dissolving creatures in New York, California, Washington, or Beijing? When was the last time your rain water tested positive for carbonic acid? How is this co2 getting to the ocean?

Atmospheric CO2 is naturally absorbed into water. It's most concentrated at the North Pole because more of it can dissolve in colder water.

My second link is about CO2 as the major source of oceanic carbon.

"When was the last time your rain water tested positive for carbonic acid?"

Did you even read the last passage? Carbonic acid is in all rain.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_pH_of_r...es_it_mean

Just read it rather than mocking the source.

So what you really mean is CO, not CO2.

No, I mean carbon dioxide, why would I mean carbon monoxide?

Carbon dioxide is heavier than air. It doesn't make it to the atmosphere.

Gases don't behave like that. You have some serious flaws in your understanding. Diffusion and entropy mixes gases over time, the denser gas does not remain at a lower level.

I don't know what grade chemistry you are in, but co2, as a gas, does not rise into the atmosphere. It simply doesn't. co2 released into the atmosphere will be there and fall, but it does not rise.

CO is about the same as air, and can work it's way upward, but you were trying to argue co2.

I have a degree in Biochemistry from one of the top universities in the world, that's my grade, how about you? If gases behaved the way you seem to think they do you'd breathe either pure carbon dioxide or pure oxygen and there would be a layer of pure nitrogen some way above you. They don't behave like that, you are painfully incorrect.

Yeah, except, as a gas, oxygen and nitrogen are very close. co2 is more than double the atomic weight. Have you never used dry ice?

Do talk me through the masses.

I'll take your sarcastic response to mean that you've just realized that things don't add up from what you've heard on the news.

No, I want you to tell me the masses of the gas particles because I think you're making another very basic mistake.

If you have to assume that I'm making a mistake in this situation, you can't possibly have a degree in the field.

Tell me the masses. I never claimed to have a degree in climate science. Stop deflecting and answer the question, it's very simple.

You claim to have a degree relating to chemistry, so what? Again, have you never used dry ice?

I'm not quite sure what you want to be talked through, either. If I'm losing you at this point, I'll direct you to education. If you're trying to find some mistake that you think I've made, go ahead and do it by proving that CO2 will rise in air.

I'll come to the other points.

Give the masses of the particles in Nitrogen gas, Oxygen gas and Carbon Dioxide.

If you're just looking for values, I'm sure you'll find yourself at home on wikipedia.

If you want to start proving how CO2 rises in air, I'm still waiting.

If you're going to change your argument to CO, we can start over!

I can look up the values in Wikipedia and they'll be correct. What I was getting at that you are so pathetically avoiding answering is that from your previous comment: "Yeah, except, as a gas, oxygen and nitrogen are very close. co2 is more than double the atomic weight"

You seem to believe that gaseous nitrogen and oxygen are atomic when they are molecular as O2 and N2, neither of which is less than half the mass of CO2. 32, 28 and 44 respectively. You don't have the faintest idea about even really basic concepts yet you're clinging to your incorrect conceptions like a true Republican.

CO2 mixes with the other gases through diffusion, through the entropic energy change associated with mixing and through all the conventional effects you'd expect- thermals, wind etc. Convection currents easily drive CO2 into the troposphere.

The behaviour of dry ice fumes demonstrates exactly what I am talking about- it slowly diffuses to mix with the other gases in the room which is why it gradually fades from view. If it were to behave as you believe it would sit there in a little cloudy puddle.

Did you never ponder how CFCs get into the upper atmosphere? I guess we were just making the ozone hole up. They mass more than CO2.

Just a simple reality check to get through to your tiny brain- if CO2 just pooled at ground level (and yes I know about CO2 poisonings, it takes time to diffuse) why is anyone even talking about it? Has the whole scientific community missed this amazing fact?

Not a Republican - just an independent. I stopped watching the news years ago.

So you agree that CO2 is heavier, but not that it doesn't rise? Sure, some things can kick CO2 particles up into the air a bit, but are you really trying to argue that there has been enough kicked up by the wind in order to cause the volumes that would be required to even make the trip to the polar caps and make it down in rain? Do you even know how high it would have to get before it could even remotely begin to travel?

Arguing the visibility of dry ice is rather confusing, since it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. It seems you are a bit lost as to the reason I brought it up, or you're looking for a way out of having to face the truth.

Like I said on IRC when I offered you a copy of the climategate emails, there's no way I could ever prove anything to you, no matter how much proof I have. If you're unwilling to educate yourself, you might as well call your belief religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_diffusion

The entropy explanation may be a little complex for you.

"Arguing the visibility of dry ice is rather confusing, since it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. It seems you are a bit lost as to the reason I brought it up, or you're looking for a way out of having to face the truth."

You really are braindead. When carbon dioxide is highly concentrated it is visible as the white gas you see coming off dry ice. The reason it ceases to be visible not long after is that it mixes, via diffusion with the other gases in the room, including rising all the way up to the ceiling. The point you were attempting to make was why does it flow along the ground. It does that because it is denser. It doesn't stay there.

OK, done now. Please don't talk to me any more, you're an idiot.

Again, you miss the point. Yeah, the gas disappears - but that's completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the discussion in ANY way. There's no way in hell that you have a degree in any field relating to chemistry. Either that, or a degree in your country is equal to a GED in the US.

You already said you were done once, but you edited it out. Stop pulling a Jamerio and take a breath before responding, that way you don't have to edit it out when you look stupid. Granted, I'm only asking that you enable yourself a more clear way to make you look stupid on the subject at hand, but still.

Honestly I think you're the one lacking education here.

You're making tons of claims without backing it up with any credible source.

U MUST B TROLLIN

I think

This is because you don't know enough about the subject, so you're assuming. You can verify what I have said yourself, or attempt to disprove it yourself, but you can't make an informed decision here.

Then again, I don't claim to know anything about the subject:P

You claim that you think I lack education on the subject, which you couldn't even know without said education. If you *did*, you wouldn't make such a statement.

Well, you're just trying to win the argument by telling other people how stupid they are.

Ah well, that's the internet for ya.

EDIT:

Have a funny image:

http://www.skoftenmedia.com/images/picdump/115/21.jpg

He's worse than an idiot, it's like arguing with a brick wall, except brick walls don't want to get the last word at all cost.

Sure, some things can kick CO2 particles up into the air a bit, but are you really trying to argue that there has been enough kicked up by the wind in order to cause the volumes that would be required to even make the trip to the polar caps and make it down in rain? Do you even know how high it would have to get before it could even remotely begin to travel?

Oooh thank you JEEESUS. I laughed so hard at this I almost voided the warranty on my monitor.

So what if you have a degree from some university? Vedic went to Prisonplanet uni and got a degree in RON PAUL!




RON PAUL!

served

have you ever had carbonated soda?

They don't drown anyway, they swim to Iceland and get shot.

Don't mess with Sauðárkrókur.

is he related to the sardaukar?

lol wut?

Sauðárkrókur is my hometown. Those famous polar bears were shot just short distance from it.

Man I got to read Dune one of these days. I never get these references.

you poor soul never played dune or dune2 either? :(

Nope. Never done anything dune related in my life.

what a wasted life.

Hmm, isnt it like the cooler water is the more CO2 it can store?
If its true then how it comes that the warmer water the more carbon acid?

When the temperature increases more of the dissolved carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. The dissolved carbon dioxide is in equilibrium with carbonic acid in the solution, if the quantity of carbon dioxide falls then the quantity of carbonic acid will also fall.

''The dissolved carbon dioxide is in equilibrium with carbonic acid in the solution, if the quantity of carbon dioxide falls then the quantity of carbonic acid will also fall.''

So, oceans can store less carbon dioxide due to global warming right? Less carbon dioxide - less carbon acid. (temperature increases)

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
I can read: ''Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of -0.075)''

pH decreased - > carbon acid increased in water -> carbon dioxide increased in water -> temperature decreased (????)

So did the temperature fall or have I missed something important during the reading? And what if temperature didnt fall?

Also we should take in consideration that oceans have GREAT impact on CO2 level in the athmosphere.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased so the quantity dissolved in the oceans increased. The oceans are not at their maximum capacity for dissolved CO2 yet so a temperature change isn't necessary for more CO2 to dissolve.

too bad
climate changes never happened before on earth, yet this time it gotta result in the extinction of human race, because media say so

I wonder why these people all use 1998 as a starting point? Why not 1995?

No, it's not bogus. Human activity has increased atmospheric CO2 by around 30%. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, if this is not warming the planet by what magic mechanism is it avoiding doing so?

Where did you find these 30%?

For a skeptic's perspective, see this website for commentary on the latest news on the email scandal...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

I don't think a creationist is the best source for the skeptics.

lol no shit

"I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world... Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."

lol'd

I still waiting for anyone to explain to me how exactly god came into existence.


no replies :[

how exactly did the big bang 'come into existance' (w/e)?

but that's the thing.

Big Bang people say they don't really know.
Creationists claim they have explained it all...

What existed prior to the big bangie is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.

Or believe in god and think that the earth is the center of our universe (actually the center does not exist really) and he created all shit.

my point was that knowing where the origin comes from is one thing, and knowing how it evolved from there is another. don't get me wrong though, I still consider creationism an insult to all scientific and individual progress mankind has made, and I'm baffled anyone with a sane mind can stick to it (actually scratch that sane mind part).

was created by another even greater god, this goes on -> infinite loop :D

The climate emails are damning themselves (you can download them and verify, even), but the entire situation is silly to begin with. Information for any theory of climate change is largely incomplete.

Current ideas of taxing, reducing emissions, etc, are modern day versions of witch hunting. It's like attributing the plague to an act of god. Absurdity.

Reducing emissions is good for all sorts of other reasons though.

Granted, but taxing/forcing this stuff with the excuse of the climate is the wrong way to go about it. Most especially if the climate issue is sun-related, and could potentially be very dangerous.

"Most especially if the climate issue is sun-related"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum

During 2008-2009 NASA scientists noted that the Sun is undergoing a "deep solar minimum," stating: "There were no sunspots observed on 266 of [2008's] 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days: plot. Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008. Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of September 14th, there were no sunspots on 206 of the year's 257 days (80%). It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: "We're experiencing a very deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center.

The Sun is at an extreme low, not a high, when it leaves this cycle we will really start to feel the effects of global warming.

Another news article without knowing the facts. The sun started going inactive 11 years ago, the same year that warming stopped increasing.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/el-ni%C3%B1o...-revisited

A blog, not a scientist. Again, the sun was very active until 1998.

Could pollution increase the problem? Sure, it's possible. Could it be the sun alone? Also possible. Could it be the sun, and unstoppable? Also possible. Most importantly, we don't know enough, and people are trying to take action without that knowledge.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-c...-1998.html

So is an article from somone with a master in athmospheric science good enough for you?

For each scientist you provide who supports it, I can provide another who refutes it.

Let's start with:
David Legates, PhD (Director of the Center for Climatic Research)
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st285/

That's great and all. Have they published any papers to disprove the theory. Does the data back up what they say? I mean there are a lot of creationist scientists as well.

The data is as incomplete as it is for human-related causes, but there are PLENTY of scientists who have published material on this. While they're having trouble funding this kind of research, due to the politicized nature of the situation, they are still progressing.

I'm not saying either side is right or wrong for sure, but that we don't know enough, and the discussion is being stifled.

Err they get plenty of funding from the oil industry. Also you really think they couldn't have gotten funding for this from the Bush administration? How are they stifled exactly?

Compared with the funding and publicity of the man-made agenda, it's nothing.

Really? How much funding is there?

I wish I knew specifically so I could be more angry about it, but you'll have to ask the EU.

So you don't know but you're still outraged. Good to know.

The climate scandal just goes to show that people are being paid, being labeled scientists, and are essentially spreading religion. I'm outraged at plenty of things that money is being wasted on.

Sure it does.

The "deniers" I'd say have always come across as whack jobs with certain agendas to me.

It's the same way that the Republicans are hijacking the truth movement right now, in order to make it look like they're on the same side. In the situation of climate change, we merely have the creationists hijacking it. =/

The truth movement has always been full of whackjobs from all sides. GOP seems to be mostly full of birthers.

I hate the climate argument, it's become totally about carbon and generally just misses the point of not damaging the environment and being efficient.

Now people just think wanting to protect the environment is about fuel and carbon neutral.

Current ideas of taxing, reducing emissions, etc, are modern day versions of witch hunting.

Agreed. Whether it's real or not, it's an excuse to tax. Governments love that.

Its bullshit, any time the governments solution to a problem is taxes you know its bullshit

As almost everything is taxed...

How so?

In a capitalistic system the governments powers are quite limited.

The strongest are certainly laws that ban this and that, or make filters mandatory. But they are somehwat comparable to the big hammer. You get the job done, but you usually damage something else. In this case probably the economy, because there will be companies that can adapt to the regulations in a sustainable way and therefore might go bancrupt. It's important to realize that this will hit struggling companies harder than those that are well off. It is less dependend on the actual amount of emissions.
An example is the ban on Carbonhydrate emissions here in Germany.

Taxes in this case are a better option because almost all emissions are already connected to cashflows.
So with taxes it becomes an economical decision until which point it is feasible to reduce emissions and then pay taxes for the rest. Depending on how well the government chose that point, through the amount of taxation, yoiu can reach the same amount of emission reduction, as a ban or regulations.
However, it hits those industries the most that have the most emissions (and admittedly also those that are struggling) while companies with low emissions have to pay less. Additionally it gives the government some money to work with.

money to work with, for buying new mount blanc pencils ? :D

Waiting for becks's, super inteligent comments..

P.S. The issue isn't really if global warming exists, but if its caused by man or by nature (in particular by the sun). The earth has always been cooling or warming. There was a time several centuries ago when there were vineyards in England (because of how warm it was). Then after that there was a time when seas would freeze over. Just some examples of the last millennium.

There are vineyards in England now dipshit.

no need, ix did that :)

So let me get this straight.

The earth has been around for millions of years, survived meteors, tidle waves, ice age, and all of a sudden in the last 100 years we fucked it?

Do you haveany idea how fucking retarded that tangent would look on the grand scale of things?

Please.

Its called evolution, whatever the changes are we'll have to deal with it, you can definitely look at the human race as locusts and the earth as a leaf with which they'll eventually nibble to death, but even the dude that wrote the bible knew that.

The only thing that's changed is media and the internet, it means everyone can have an opinion and most of them do not have the first clue what they're talking about. This is a society that 's filled with leaders who belive in fake gods and worse still modern society is built on that notion and they wonder why its fucked?
Nothing like reality/ truth vs misconception on a grandscale = MAJOR PROBLEM.

So the North South Pole are melting?

And?
The whole world was covered in ice not so long back, has anyone ever thought that melting of these areas will in fact create new land? New areas to explore.

The effects are not always bad, a volcanic eruption is perceived as bad, until a few millions years later when it became Hawaii.
Still think that Volcano was a bad thing while your on the beach sipping margeritas? I think not. Jsut because the changes might be bad for our timeline, it does not mean they will be bad on the grand scale of things.

The smarter people become the more useless the GVT look.

Its all bullshit. So it would not surprise me in the slightest if this stuff was being blown out of proportion because the GVT needs something that society cannot control or object over.
So do the media.

This also applies to academics, there will always be a certain part of society that need to be seen as the leaders.

It will always be in their interest to justify their existence and I dare say many of them will gladly convince themselves of things in order to create a role for themselves and their peers.

The genius knows without reflection.

Do you haveany idea how fucking retarded that tangent would look on the grand scale of things?

stopped here B<

So let me get this straight.

The earth has been around for millions of years, survived meteors, tidle waves, ice age, and all of a sudden in the last 100 years we fucked it?

Do you haveany idea how fucking retarded that tangent would look on the grand scale of things?

Of course we didn't fuck it up.

But I guess we can always trust on you for bringing up the dumbest arguments that even vedic stays away from...

Noone with half a brain ever said we a literally destroying THE world. We are only destroying OUR world, as in the place us humans live in.
As you might know Homo sapiens hasn't been around for millions of years. Which is the first thing that makes your argument invalid.
Then archaeology teaches us that humans have been living in very different places in the past say 3000 - 20000 years. This has been among other factors been due to climate changes.

So, where does that leave us?

Exactly, if the climate keeps changing at this range, we will have to adapt, give up places we are living in now and move to other places. The price we have to pay now for reducing emissions now is ridiculously low, compared to what that will cost.

Amazing how anal you are, you draw so many conclusions and unsurprisingly they all assume the worse case scenario with what I touched upon (because that's the only way you can reply) and thne harp on like I'm in the wrong.

THE WORLD OUR WORLD. God what a sad life you live.
What the fuck did you think I meant?

"Its called evolution, whatever the changes are we'll have to deal with it, you can definitely look at the human race as locusts and the earth as a leaf with which they'll eventually nibble to death, but even the dude that wrote the bible knew that."

The sad thing is you said nothing that I didn't, the only difference is you were anal and literal with it and assuming that when I said destroying the world I meant blowing it up into tiny pieces.
is that why I said

Of course I was talking about more subtlities, that's why I said we will have to adapt. The bottom line is, whether we change things now it will only delay the inevitable, the world isn't gong to go backwards, in fact its going to get worse as Asia become more industrial, so its pretty futile to think that we're goign to change anything. If we do, we buy time and nothing else.

Sort your life out you desperate little nerd, you're the one looking like an idiot.

You've said nothing new, you've just shown that you're typically German.

"THE WORLD OUR WORLD."

Since you are apprarantly too dense or Welsh or whatever to understand that.

"THE WORLD" refers to this planet, which will do just fine without any humans around. Well, it might take a bit of a dent if we all went out with a nuclear war.

"OUR WORLD" refers to the things and way humans interact with. Our sest countries, our economy, our customs, our cities, our houses. All that will be influenced and to some degree detroyed by a substantila global warming.


get it?

You're not really doing yourself any favours, just demonstrating to the world how opportunistic, desperate and anal you are.

And you wonder why Germans have a reputation for being anal and not very popular.

You think you're something special but you're so typically German you can't even see it.

Do try coming back with one SINGLE VALID POINT which doesn't revolve around the fact that you want to disagree because its me.

You won't because you've said nothign I have not, only done everything in your power to try and twist my words or definition of them.

fgs, stop pretending.

You wrote "The earth", not "the world" or "our world".
It's quite clear that you did not say the same thing as me.

But it's good for you that you see how your statement was wrong.

So you fail to realize it's not about destroying the earth but the mankind (what becks called you on it) and once again you call yourself smart and a genius.

Unbelieavable.

Haha, you're so incredibly dim, why don't you try reading what I said without your despearte "OMG its Jamerio I feel the need to disagree and look for any little thing to pick upon becaue I wan't a piece of the pie"

The sad thing is some of you sit there are cast judgement and the points you're using to counter me on are things I have not even said.

You're just looking for any opportunity to disagree when there isn't anything to disagree with.

I really sorry for some of you sad fucks. I must have owned you so hardi nprevious threads to be able to produce the same few sorry accounts looking for every opportunity.

When you come back with an actual point, and not the fake one you've convinced yourself of I'll be happy to humour you, until then, keep trying.

oh please, noone feels the need to agree with you... ;)

The earth has been around for millions of years, survived meteors, tidle waves, ice age, and all of a sudden in the last 100 years we fucked it?

Idiot.

The genius knows without reflection.

I lol'd

- insert bullshit text here about nerds on a gaming forum knowing better than leading scientists, politicians, governing bodies etc.. -

Global warming is surely not a hoax. We can't really fix the global warming issue (hi China and the rest of Asia) but we can create solutions to live with the problems that come with global warming.
Even scientist don't know if it's man made or not, let alone people on esreality.Not that scientist know everything anyway. (but with 6 billion on this planet this could be very well true.) That doesn't really matter because we still have to deal with the shit it creates.
It's already too late to reduce co2 and shit because the populations grows and they want a luxury living too (more co2).
Like Jamerio said we have to deal with the changes and find solution. It's called adaption. Don't put huge amounts of money and media hypes and shit but people like Al Gore he just tries to make himself more populair with this bullshit. http://gedmaheux.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/al_gore.jpg (pic speaks for itself hhahahhaha).
There are two options.
-listen more to Jamerio
-listen more to Lord Joney (http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1782750) He always hits the nail on the head. :)
So money wasted with anti global warming advice (hahahha) and we haven't moved one inch further.
/sorry this half drunk post, don't try to insult me.

more condoms for niggers

maxpackets 30
rate 1500

less internet traffic great for your environment.

best post on esr

I'm neutral about climate change just because I've heard convincing arguments from all sides. Plus, I'm a computer scientist, not an earth scientist/biochemist so I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert in something I'm not.

I do know that global warming/climate change is extremely politicized. There probably is climate change due to human industrialization, but the extent and severity of these changes are what compromises most of the bullshit subjective hear-say that people throw around thinking they know what they're talking about.

Of course, money and political power are huge incentives for this, and that's what bothers me. Global warming is just the new Catholicism. Now companies exploit what I call "green guilt" by charging more money for using shitty "biodegradable" materials or producing fake "organic" food. It's win/win.

lala

Organic food has nothing to do with climate change and never has.

Biodegradable materials just makes sense unless you have some secret way to get rid of all the worlds rubbish...

Yeah but ~green revolutionaries~ still think they're making a difference by paying out the ass for organic berries that come from the same farm as the non-organic ones.

It is reasonable but that's not the reason companies get such hard-ons over the "green movement." It is like a religion, regardless of whether climate change is "real" or not, and people like to exploit that.

Maybe organic food can come from the same farm in America but it's certainly not the case in the EU where the land has to be free from chemicals for several years.

Organic food is better for the environment as by not using chemicals it doesn't damage the the local ecosystems outside of the farms.

The reason they get "hard-ons" is because they know if they don't do something about then governments will intervene since it's the public sector which has to pay the price of non-biodegradable materials. It's just better to put a positive spin on the situation and win over the consumers (And of course, individuals in companies over do care too, just like consumers).

Well, that's one of the reasons I want to move to Europe.

They did a study in the US and found that no matter how strict the certifications are on the fertilizer that goes into organic farming, the produce still has contaminants because of wind carrying over pesticides from nearby non-organic farms, not to mention that the nearby water supplies are also polluted.

"Organic" is just a label farms invest in so they can charge an arm and a leg for a pint of berries. In November of 2007 (I remember this because I was so raged) they actually passed a law to change the definition of "organic" to include a few more chemicals (so more companies can call their stuff organic and charge accordingly). Soon, "organic" isn't going to mean shit.

governments will intervene since it's the public sector which has to pay the price of non-biodegradable materials. It's just better to put a positive spin on the situation and win over the consumers

Kinda hope you're right, but regardless of good intentions and validity, propaganda is still propaganda.

"I'm neutral about climate change just because I've heard convincing arguments from all sides."

What? What on earth could be a convincing argument against global warming? This is like claiming to be neutral about this whole evolution thing.

Today it's been raining, windy and cold. I don't see any global warming mate...

This is how the mainstream thinks.. the weather conditions only get extremer so more rain for you. Well, here in the Netherlands it's been raining nonstop for week too btw :(

"This is like claiming to be neutral about this whole evolution thing."

Perhaps it's easier to question evolution after meeting a Republican?

List of People Conspiring Against the GOP, and therefor, America
(LOPCATGOPATA for short):
Liberals
Democrats
Socialists
Geologists
Biologists
Meteorologists
Atheists
Muslims
Jews
ABC
NBC
CNN
CBS
PBS
All of cable except FNC
The New York Times
The LA Times
The Washington Post
The Associated Press
Reuters
BBC
The Guardian
Black People
Mexicans
Human Rights Activists
SCOTUS
Europe
Movie Industry
Television Industry
Environmentalists
ACLU
The United Nations
Labor Unions
Colleges
Teachers
Professors
ACORN
National Endowment for the Arts
Gays
Judges
NPR
Paleontologists
Astrophysicists
Museums (*except Creationism Museum)
WHO
WTO
Inflated tires
The Honolulu Advertiser
The Star Bulletin
Teletubbies
Sponge Bob and Patrick
Nobel Prize Committee
US Census Bureau
NOAA
Sesame Street
Comic Books
Dogs

More groups will be added as they and their nefarious schemes are exposed.

My sister-in-law's father is a staunch opponent to climate change and gives talks around the country about it. I asked my sister-in-law about it briefly at a family gathering and she gave a few examples of scientists fucking with data because of threats/political pressure (so basically conspiracy theories). I don't remember any specifics, but I remember leaving a little more skeptical of climate change.

The fact that it's just so politically polluted makes me skeptical of any extremes people around me try to push me to believe.

Oh yeah, and Al Gore flies around on private jets to do his "anti climate change" work.

What does ANY of this has to do with global warming?

I don't know, probably the part where I said she said something about scientists fucking with data.

Chillax and read harder.

Scientists fucking up has nothing to do with the best of what the whole of science has accomplished.

Um if you're basing your certainty about global warming on the "irrefutable data" scientists may or may not have fucked with, then it is kinda important to establish whether it has been altered or not.

Good point. It hasn't.

My sister-in-law's father is a staunch opponent to evolution and gives talks around the country about it. I asked my sister-in-law about it briefly at a family gathering and she gave a few examples of scientists fucking with data because of threats/political pressure (so basically conspiracy theories AND HITLER). I don't remember any specifics, but I remember leaving a little more skeptical of evolution.

The fact that it's just so politically polluted makes me skeptical of any extremes people around me try to push me to believe.

Oh yeah, and Richard Dawkings flies around on private jets to do his "anti religion" work.

Are you hot?

It's kdawg. So no.

Learn how to make analogies.

Evolution is only a political issue in backwards Alabama Baptist communities. They are irrelevant to the world. Richard Dawkins flying on jets is irrelevant to atheism.

It's like Texas doesn't exist!

Night Halli!

???

Night Drew.

I'm not making an analogy. I'm making fun of the post done in the best style of Backwards Southern Alabama. I'm glad you agree that your sister-in-law's father is irrelevant to the world, and Al Gore flying on a jet is irrelevant to science. Global Warming(tm) is an established set of theories with tons of irrefutable data behind it. If you have any relevant information that invalidates all that data, or corrections to scientists understanding of the processes, I would gladly educate myself about these revolutionary findings.

Cool story bro.

My point was that you shouldn't believe every little thing you hear, and unless you recorded the data yourself, you really don't know that they haven't been altered. You of all people should know how politics strongly influence any area where there is money and power.

I reiterate, there probably is global warming, but we don't know of the true extent or severity of it since it's basically turned into another religion (as seen by your attitude).

My point with Al Gore was that if he really believed in his own cause, he wouldn't be utilizing private jets to give his conferences. Unless it's all just a political stunt to get him back in the public view as Someone Who Matters.

Cool story bro yourself.

"My point was that you shouldn't believe every little thing you hear, and unless you recorded the data yourself, you really don't know that they haven't been altered."

Absolute fucking lunatic nonsense. I don't "hear" anything. Thousands of people, organizations, universities, governments, around the world have/are/will be recording temperature, barometric pressure, etc, with extreme precision. Hurricanes are predicted, crop irrigation for maximum yield is calculated, and so on, and so on. Yeah, if anything you can be sure of in this world is that everyone has been recording temperature, and you can cross check something that comes from satellites with thermometers to your hearts content if you want to show how something is faked. And thousands of idiots try to, but come up with nothing. You might not know any of this because you must live in an alternate idiotic lunatic reality, but I do, largely because I'm not nuts. You can't fake all the data in the world.

"You of all people should know how politics strongly influence any area where there is money and power."

What? How do does money and power influence observed reality? You would think there is money and power in figuring out how to keep your citizens from drawing ??

"I reiterate, there probably is global warming, but we don't know of the true extent or severity of it since it's basically turned into another religion (as seen by your attitude)."

No, there is global warming. It's a fact. Yes, we know the true extent of and severity of it, because religion has nothing to do with it. We don't know what hasn't happened yet, and so the models are probabilistic, but this has fuck all to do with what has been ESTABLISHED IN HARD DATA. As seen by my attitude? My attitude is that you're a Backwards Alabama Retard about this. It's the same for all retards, and has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

"My point with Al Gore was that if he really believed in his own cause, he wouldn't be utilizing private jets to give his conferences."

Your point doesn't have a point. Al Gore has fuck all to do with the fact that global warming is an established fact in the weather records. But even if it were relevant, it would still be wrong, because the question is not whether Al Gore has a CAUSE to which is he totally dedicated, but whether he thinks what he's saying is true. And Al Gore believed what he was saying he wouldn't necessarily give a fuck about it enough not to fly around on his awesome jets.

You're either trolling or beyond help on this one. Good luck.

...the nearly universal experience among scientists is that when someone claims that a particular theory is “settled science”, it is always for a political purpose and to discourage independent investigation.

http://volokh.com/2009/11/27/data-sharing-and...nge-issue/

Suspicious indeed. We don't see people withholding data about evolution.

Theory of evolution is a tad older than global warming, so comparing today's reception of both make no sense
Back in the nineteenth century, however, Darwin did not include every detail of his travels on the Beagle in his first book. Nor did he dare to complete break with the idea of god's creation.
Additionally, his theories were not received any better than the theory of global warming today.

If everyone was white then we'd reflect more light and cool the earth more and global warming wouldn't be an issue.



Fucking niggers.

yes, but our white skin would burn more easily from the fiery sun! aaah!

Or just fuck it all

1. Paint a pole
Difficulty: Hard
Needed: A big amount of dirt

Find a way to blacken the ice of one of the poles (the South pole is best). Cover it with dirt, soot or charcoal. Tainting it black with ordinary paint might take a little longer. A black pole doesn’t reflect sunlight but absorbs warmth -- and melts. The result: climate change, sea level rise, inundations and much annoyment for your enemies.

you got it wrong. reflection is the reason for glasshouse effect. we need to absorb more, so obviously we need to grow more niggers.

hello reply function

I was randomly picking some regions in Europe and was watching for recordings of the temperatures of every year, starting with 1900, and I did find a 1 °C difference between now and the beginning of the last century; some would say that this is relevant enough that earth is warming up, on the other hand next century could very well be 1 °C colder than this century. I was just using a statistical procedure, nothing as vast as putting all the data into calculation.

You should check 1700-1800 1800-1900, I bet you would find much bigger differences.

1700-1800 -not enough accurate* data for the time

bankrupt nation people just sit around on dole and flame my threads!?

No

next thread

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

comments: tl;dr

Climate change obviously is not bogus.

The reason why the climate is changing, however, is the big question.

Every1 keeps blaming polution and other man related causes, while the history has proven already that global warming & cooldown is a standard way in which the world progresses. (Tiny) Ice ages, etc...

Undoubtedly a big industry revolves around the whole global warming drama in which pockets are being filled. Huge opportunism. etc.

historic climate changes have always been over a larger timespan.


The lobby for allowing emissions is way richer and powerful than the global warming group.
Maybe you have heard of the war in Iraq.


The arguments have been talked over for years...

polar bears aren't white at all - they r yellow

is it piss????????????

Never eat yellow Polar Bears.

Dreamed I was an Eskimo
Frozen wind began to blow
Under my boots and around my toes
The frost that bit the ground below
It was a hundred degrees below zero...

And my mama cried
And my mama cried
Nanook, a-no-no
Nanook, a-no-no
Don't be a naughty Eskimo
Save your money, don't go to the show

Well I turned around and I said "Oh, oh" Oh
Well I turned around and I said "Oh, oh" Oh
Well I turned around and I said "Ho, Ho"
And the northern lights commenced to glow
And she said, with a tear in her eye
"Watch out where the huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow"
"Watch out where the huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow"

huskies <- jameiro just got excited

jamerio will now show up with videos of his huskies.

This thread is crap.

what a dramatic turn of events.

This time jam watches a dog take a dump.

Zappa rules :D

as it turns out, they're just normal polar bears dipped in beer. awesome times

POLAR BEER BEARS

They have black skin!!!

Sobering reading for all the spam warriors in this thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revenge_of_Gaia

how can ppl still argue with vedic?!

Arguing is fun. Its a game in itself.

Can someone who knows whats actually going on tell if this is legit? Too much noise to give a fuck on researching.

met my mother's cousin this weekend, she works for the Germany's developement aid program. At the moment she is working on a project in Ukraine where they want to renovate building for a better energy efficiency and through that reduce both use of oil/gas and carbon dioxide emissions.

Anyway, Í talked a bit about this with her and she did participate in the climate conference in Buenos Aires years ago.

She said that pretty much noone there truly doubted that climate change. The reason those arguments are brought up and scientists are paid to find any small flaws is simple: money.

Basically, all the coutries' representatives there are measured by that. For the devepoling countries how much they can get, for the industrial countries to pay as low a sum as possible.
Some absurd shit going on. While people in African countries actually starve, the Arab countries are demanding(!) the the west pays for restructuring the industry their. Because if we rely more and more on alternative energy sources we won't buy their oil any more.

She said the mentality is pretty much: We all have to do something, but it shouldn't be our country that pays for it. So in the end not much gets done.

That why she she was very happy some else took the mandate to go to Copenhagen this year, because it would just frustrate her.

Global warming is a hoax to implement carbon taxes, while adding another reason to terrorize people into believing that the world is about to end, so theyre easier to control.

Average global temps have been, in fact, declining for nearly ten years. But TV never lies, huh?