Global cooling

[Chrisb3]

Why are we bothering about Global Warming? We are all going to die of SARS, Bird Flu, Iraqi Chemical Missles, Terrorists and Killer Bees before then. Oh and if we survive all that the Y chormozone is dieing off anyway.

By the way, why haven't sea levels risen yet if the artic ice has melted so drasticly? I want my mangled limbs, radioactive balls and flu ridden lungs dry during my painful death please.

[Strifen]

Originally Posted by Aedosen

Here is a good link for those who claim that there isn´t large consensus in the scientific community about global warming being real, and human activities playing significant part in it. Survey sent to 10,257 scientists working in geoscience faculties around the world, 3,146 scientists replied. Of all the replies 82% had human activities as a significant contributer and of those who had listed climate science as their main area of expertise the figure was 96.2%

Of course global warming is real (although there are many conflicting reports about if the earth is even warming now), the Earth cools and warms all the time and has many, many times through-out the centuries. The issue is blaming these natural cycles on C02 in an attempt to pave way for a carbon credit tax. The people peddling global warming as if its a huge problem and we need immediate carbon taxes, well, realize that they have a huge stake in this. Like I said before, Al Gore, head of a carbon credit trading business which will make enormous amounts of money.

The last thing we need right now is a global fart tax on cows.

[Aedosen]

Originally Posted by Strifen

Of course global warming is real (although there are many conflicting reports about if the earth is even warming now), the Earth cools and warms all the time and has many, many times through-out the centuries. The issue is blaming these natural cycles on C02 in an attempt to pave way for a carbon credit tax. The people peddling global warming as if its a huge problem and we need immediate carbon taxes, well, realize that they have a huge stake in this. Like I said before, Al Gore, head of a carbon credit trading business which will make enormous amounts of money.

The last thing we need right now is a global fart tax on cows.

Read what I linked before posting please.

[Itzena]

Originally Posted by Chrisb3

By the way, why haven't sea levels risen yet if the artic ice has melted so drasticly? I want my mangled limbs, radioactive balls and flu ridden lungs dry during my painful death please.

I'm guessing you failed your science GCSEs. Or maybe geography.

Take ice cubes. Fill up a glass with them, then top up with (liquid) water to the brim. Wait for ice to melt. Does the glass overflow?

No, because solid objects in water displace their own mass (See: Archimedes, Euruka, etc). Therefore the level of water remains constant. This is why the artic polar cap won't affect sea level. It'll fuck with all sorts of other stuff (ocean currents & related weather being the most obvious) but won't change the amount of water in the sea.

So...good news then? Well, if all of the ice on the planet was floating in the water already...yes.

Unfortunately, there's all the glaciers, and Greenland (basically one fucking huge glacier) and Antarctica. All of those are on top of land so when they melt (and the first two have already started to), the liquid water they release flows down into the sea...like a frozen tap defrosting and overflowing a bath.

[Frax]

The last thing i read said that if all of the ice on the planet melted sea level might raise around 20 feet. Thats it.

Of course like 75% of the worlds population lives somewhere under 50 feet of sea level or something like that.

[Chrisb3]

So england is covered in snow today. The media makes no mention of 'climate change' yet it does every time we have extreme (slightly hot or sunny) weather in the other direction.

And so the religion of global warming continues.

[Eomer]

Originally Posted by Frax

The last thing i read said that if all of the ice on the planet melted sea level might raise around 20 feet. Thats it.

Of course like 75% of the worlds population lives somewhere under 50 feet of sea level or something like that.

No. If Greenland were to melt entirely, I believe we'd see a couple dozen feet of sea level rise. If Antarctica were to melt, it's in the hundreds of feet.

This shit isn't hard to look up, for fuck's sake: Current sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Originally Posted by Chrisb3

So england is covered in snow today. The media makes no mention of 'climate change' yet it does every time we have extreme (slightly hot or sunny) weather in the other direction.

And so the religion of global warming continues.

Oh my god, snow in winter? UNHEARD OF! 3 whole inches?! PANDALERIUM!

[Churchill]

Originally Posted by Chrisb3

So england is covered in snow today. The media makes no mention of 'climate change' yet it does every time we have extreme (slightly hot or sunny) weather in the other direction.

And so the religion of global warming continues.

You realize that you just used the tactic you claim global warming "alarmists" use, right?

I realize you obviously never got past grade 9 science, but what happens in any given year (or even stretch of years) isn't terribly significant. It's when upper/lower bounds are reached (e.g.: hottest year in 200 years) and when there is an obvious long-term trend that people should start worrying. And guess what, there is an obvious long-term trend and we have started to reach upper bounds for air temperature, ocean temperature, and atmospheric CO2 levels (which, aside from global temperature, affect ocean chemistry).

Scientists aren't trying to pull the wool over your eyes, they're trying to tell you what is going. But go ahead and not listen, that worked well for the cod fishermen, New Orleans, the Gulf of the Mississipi, etc.

[Chrisb3]

Originally Posted by Churchill

You realize that you just used the tactic you claim global warming "alarmists" use, right?

I realize you obviously never got past grade 9 science, but what happens in any given year (or even stretch of years) isn't terribly significant. It's when upper/lower bounds are reached (e.g.: hottest year in 200 years) and when there is an obvious long-term trend that people should start worrying. And guess what, there is an obvious long-term trend and we have started to reach upper bounds for air temperature, ocean temperature, and atmospheric CO2 levels (which, aside from global temperature, affect ocean chemistry).

Scientists aren't trying to pull the wool over your eyes, they're trying to tell you what is going. But go ahead and not listen, that worked well for the cod fishermen, New Orleans, the Gulf of the Mississipi, etc.

Ok. Why don't we fix Global Warming by doing whatever they did in the Medieval Warm period? Seemed to work fine back then.

Who is to say which period of time is significant enough to judge our influence by? You say that me talking about one year isn't terribly significant, but I don't think your 200 year period is significant either compared to FIVE BILLION years of earth history.

It's the same as the retard "omg overpopulation" guys in the rickshaw at the moment, they just extend a curve on a graph upwards until some crazy value is reached.

I agree with everything being done to make our impact less, but the carbon religion is just too much.

Btw I don't know what grade 9 is, and they teach this in Geography class here.

[revolreggin]

Originally Posted by Itzena

Wall of text inc.


That's not a citation. Can I assume that you're just pulling made-up shit out of your arse instead?


Let me google that for you
Hmm...first hit is "The UN IPCC's Artful Bias" by a 'David E. Wojick, Ph.D' - who is a bought and paid for shill for the fossil fuel lobby, who's Ph.D is in areas not even vaguely related to Climatology.

The next one is someone criticising the IPCC for being too conservative in their predictions, then some more fossil fuel puppets, people quoting the puppets, and so on.

Got any, you know. real sources?


The blue line that sinewaves all over the trend line? You do understand what a 'trend line' is, right? Or are you trying to claim that because it's below the trend like right now (as in, in the second half of 2009 which was cooler than the last decade or so for various reasons like the absence of the Azores' High, stronger-than-expected La Nina, and so on) then almost every climatologist in the world is incorrect?

Let's see what that graph does in the next six months, eh?


This I can agree with. Everyone should be moving away from recycling paper and towards using paper made with sustainable forestry, for example.


It's also less under our control than CO2 emissions, and reducing the burning of fossil fuels would also reduce the amount of water we contribute (hydrocarbon + oxygen = CO2 + H20, for pure combustion).

Hi. You must have glossed over my question. Here, I'll ask again:

Also, since you are railing against us for global warming, I was wondering how you managed to use your electricity powered computer to make your post? Don't want to cause co2 emissions? Go live in an eco village, otherwise you're using energy and causing co2 emissions just like the rest of us.

Now explain to me how you're not being a hypocritical douche.

edit: I see that the link about that IPCC debunker was from sourcewatch, as if it was some non-bias source. LOL. SourceWatch is a liberal global warming propaganda machine that slobbers on the collective cocks of Al Gore and the IPCC.

[Aedosen]

Originally Posted by revolreggin

edit: I see that the link about that IPCC debunker was from sourcewatch, as if it was some non-bias source. LOL. SourceWatch is a liberal global warming propaganda machine that slobbers on the collective cocks of Al Gore and the IPCC.

There is a link to his own resume at the bottom of the page you linked.

"I now cover strategic power issues for the Electricity Daily, especially the growing collision between the Megatrends of deregulation and environmentalism."

Also his own resume doesn´t mention him having published a single peer-reviewed article on climate change just as the SourceWatch link you didn´t believe suggests.

[Mario Speedwagon]

Originally Posted by Chrisb3

Who is to say which period of time is significant enough to judge our influence by? You say that me talking about one year isn't terribly significant, but I don't think your 200 year period is significant either compared to FIVE BILLION years of earth history.

Lol this. Everytime someone tells me, "OMG the last 5 years were the hottest in the last 200! We's all gonna die!", I make a swift jacking off motion in the air and tell them to call me when something that matters happens.

[PosterOfStuff]

Originally Posted by Torrid

Uh, no.

Wow perfect example of the general idiot who can only mouth what they deem to be the popular "cool" side of this whole thing.

There is not one person that has qualifications (i.e a Doctor) that does not support the idea of Global Cooling on this planet, you realise thats what your saying. You have obviously done no research into anything involved in this debate whatsoever. Why even post.

[Eomer]

Originally Posted by Mario Speedwagon

Lol this. Everytime someone tells me, "OMG the last 5 years were the hottest in the last 200! We's all gonna die!", I make a swift jacking off motion in the air and tell them to call me when something that matters happens.

We have climate data dating back hundreds of years in very good detail, and data going back tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years that's pretty solid as well from things like ice cores, pollen, lake/ocean sediment and a whole whack of other sources.

All of it points to the warming over the past century and a half being unprecedented in the Earth's recent history.