Intersting News Regarding the Global Warming Debate

I don't even know where to start with this madness. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :wave::wave:

 

Respectfully, the above is not illustrative of anything. Even an article carried by msnbc notes that scientists are not necessarily attributing icebergs such as this to global warming.

"But scientists have been reluctant to blame gobal warming.

'We’ve been monitoring these things for such a short time, it’s impossible to see. To say this is unusual and related to global warming is just not possible,' Paul Augustinus, an Auckland University glacier expert, told the New Zealand Herald earlier this month.
'It’s a fairly frequent occurrence; it’s just unusual for such large bergs to get so far north,' he added."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15765149/ (from 2006)

More recently, msnbc reported:

"It is rare for whole icebergs to drift so far north before melting, but a cold snap around southern New Zealand and favorable ocean currents have again combined to push the towering visitors to the region intact...

[An Australian glaciologist] said that having the icebergs end up near New Zealand is not necessarily linked to global warming, but said that the rate of icebergs breaking off the Antarctic ice shelf in recent years may have increased due to dramatically rising temperatures on the continent over the past 60 years." (Emphasis added).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34128605/ns/world_news-world_environment/

 

honestly, i think you guys are on to something that just might be the...wait for it...tip of the iceberg.

what about those alleged moon landings? have you ever actually seen a "moon" rock? or drank tang? those darned scientists are pulling the wool over our eyes again. it's time for a little payback time. let's see how their big brains help them when they're stuck on the end of a pitchfork.

 

The Mythbusters already debunked the theories about the lunar missions being faked.

 

nice try. i checked snopes and it turns out that mythbusters are just a bunch of--you guessed it--scientists.

 

Have your ever thought of making an actual argument- or is association through hyperbole your only trick?

 

Of course the moon landing was faked. In recent news, hackers hacked into NASA's computers and found photographic evidence of the fake moon landing.

 

chuckie- many people on the other side don't trust facts, so it seems like a waste of time (insert sense of humor).

but, seriously: no. i'm a one-trick pony.

anytime you want to actually meet, have a beer, and debate it- let me know. pub discussions are doomed to dissolve into tar pits of reason.

 

This is going off on a tangent but you seriously believe the lunar landings were faked? Not that there is anything wrong with that, people are entitled to what ever they believe. I worked with a guy earlier this year that is convinced the 2012 mayan prediction is going happen.

 

I don't think that is a fair statement. I think it would be more accurate to say that "people on the other side dispute the facts." I can accept that reasonable minds differ on issues such as this. I don't dismiss anyone simply because they don't agree with me (I'm not saying that you necessarily do).

And, as for having beers, only if the first round is on me.

 

^^^ point taken. should have said "many" people.

as for the lunar landings being faked, dgaspar was kind enough to provide the evidence. you can't fake pictures.

:cheers:

 

Wonder why the AP picked the "past 12 years"? Because temperatures peaked in 1998. So they can whine about the average while including the hottest years in the average. Just another way of "hiding the decline" (see the hacked emails).

I trust facts not statistics and so do the people who tried to get the raw data through the FOI and were stonewalled.

--

--

about your sarcasm. Mythbusters are wrong on at least one point. I was standing by my car when a soda can inside exploded (and stained the lining). Mythbusters said (proved?) it couldn't happen.

 

While we sit here and passionately debate this subject because we care about our planet, some of the biggest carbon footprint offenders on this planet are the same people that try shame us into submission.
Topping the list on the political side is Mr. Al Gore, while on the celebrity side is John Travolta, etc., etc.

Posted by honestclimate in Carbon Trading.
Tags: carbon offsets, climate change, global warming
trackback
The Rich and Famous and Carbon Offsets
From Hawaii Reporter, January 22, 2009


"Al Gore, academy award winner and Nobel Peace Prize recipient, has to be high up on the list. Bruce Nussbaum notes, “Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy. Gore’s mansion, (20-rooms, eight-bathrooms) located in Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES). The average household in American consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average. Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.”
Like a good citizen, Gore buys carbon offsets to assuage his high energy lifestyle, and this is good. But here’s the rub. He buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management, a company he co-founded and serves as chairman. Through this company, he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe. As co-founder and chairman of the firm, Gore presumably draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he ‘buys’ his ‘carbon offsets’ from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself.
Madonna, who was the main attraction at the London Live Earth concert owns a collection of fuel-guzzling cars, including a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, Audi A8s and a Mini Cooper S. She flies everywhere in her private jet and her Confessions tour produced 440 tons of carbon dioxide in four months last year. This was just the flights between the countries, not taking into account the truckloads of equipment needed, the power to stage such a show and the transport of all the thousands of fans getting to the gigs."
http://www.glamorati.com/celebrity/2008/10-biggest-celebrity-green-offenders/

 

And it doesn't stop there. Anyone remember when he pulled this stunt?

 

could be just me but I thing madonna's b00bies are nicer albeit smaller than al snores.

 

Here's a better picture of man bear pig.

 

Comedy!

Gore's position lost a lot of credibility because he took way too many jabs at Conservative politicians and then didn't really propose a solution like any good argument should.

Add in the fact that climate scientists still can't agree on the net effect of clouds (natural or sulfate) and that current computer modeling is largely inaccurate in the long run and I don't believe the doomsday predictions that most climate scientists promote.

However...

I can't dismiss the Keeling curve and the correlation to increases in global mean temperature nor can I ignore that the vibrational frequencies of CO2 match exactly with that of IR released from the Earth's surface. Lastly, the apparent increase in the release of methane from pelagic clathrates couped with the IR resonance fequency of methane being within the IR region of energy normally radiated to space certainly gives one pause.

So I'm convinced humans have an effect on CO2 levels and the global mean temperature AND that we should do as much as we can to minimize our impact on the environment.Neverthless, I'm skeptical about how much of an impact we're having, how much the GMT will increase in the next half century etc.

I think the answer lies with energy sources other than fossil fuels (Nuclear, wind, solar, fuel cell vehicles if they can fix the fuel-energy disparity) and in a DRASTIC change in human behavior with regards to energy and food consumption and procreation rates (don't get me started on that one!).

Bottom line (finally!):
-Ride more (WOOT!)
-Drive less
-Re-think your food sources (takes a LOT of energy and water to grow a cow, consider stuff that doesn't get shipped from very far away)
-Conserve energy (electricity, natural gas)
-Educate yourself and form your OWN opinion.

Zippy out...
:bang:

 

Gore's problem is that he is a politician pretending to be intelligent.

A few million degress here and there and pretty soon we're talking about real temperatures.

 

but we digress...

can everyone step forward who has never misspoke on national tv.

and gore's not a scientist, unlike these folks:


A poll (2009) performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[83]

maybe we could let this thread just fade away--or at least take a holiday break. this subject seems a lot like creationism, the death penalty, or abortion. people's beliefs are firmly entrenched; the facts don't really matter that much.

:cheers: