Results 26 to 43 of 43
-
01-29-2005, 12:02 AM #26Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Location
- FT Worth, TX
- Posts
- 5,096
oooo mr adorno since you seem to have all the answers why do they want us to worry about global warming?
Lets also not rule out cause and effect.Kerry Jones
-
01-29-2005, 04:16 AM #27Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- Seattle, WA
- Posts
- 3,085
Why do they want us to worry about global warming? A lot of reasons. Many people are convinced it is happening, even scientists who should know better. Some people want to make a profit off of it -- either by selling products or services (environmental cleanup, etc), or even those that research (you won't get a grant again if you say there's nothing to study, or that your studies are pointless).
Jim Reardon - jim/amusive.com
-
01-29-2005, 04:22 AM #28Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Location
- FT Worth, TX
- Posts
- 5,096
Its really absurb as the result of proving global warming exists would amount to more enviromental laws costing them money. If you think about it and you were a multi million dollar coal plant and they prove global warming exists it would cost your plant alot of money become compliant. Therefore your going to try your hardest to make sure people think global warming doesn't exist.
Kerry Jones
-
01-29-2005, 04:24 AM #29Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- Seattle, WA
- Posts
- 3,085
That's really what you base your belief in global warming upon? Wow.
Jim Reardon - jim/amusive.com
-
01-29-2005, 04:34 AM #30Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Location
- FT Worth, TX
- Posts
- 5,096
No, my beliefs of global warming go much further than this. I'm just not good at explaining all of it. Now, if it was in person then you would be able to comprend on why I believe global warming exists.
Kerry Jones
-
01-29-2005, 12:02 PM #31Disabled
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Posts
- 2,194
Originally posted by Kerry Jones
No, my beliefs of global warming go much further than this. I'm just not good at explaining all of it. Now, if it was in person then you would be able to comprend on why I believe global warming exists.
You don't have a good argument to explain global warming because there is no real reason, no real research, to explain global warming. Even the people who talk up global warming, politicians, so-called environmentalists, and some researchers, can't give you the exact science for global warming. There is no real science behind global warming. It is mostly junk science.
One of the reasons that global warming still exists as a topic of conversation is politics. A long time ago some politicians realized the worth of embracing a voting block that believed in, first, global cooling, and then, global warming. The voters numbered in the hundreds of thousands if not millions. Embracing global waming by the democrats is not much more than a political attempt to woo those voters to their party and to get their votes. Why do you think it is that it is mostly the democratic party that uses global warming in their political debates? It is the democrats who will demonize anybody, including republican politicians, who don't support their views on global warming. But, the reality is that the democratic politicians don't have a better understanding about global warming than republicans. There is no sincerity about their belief in global warming. They just sincerely want the environmental voting block, period. What the democrats understand is that the believers of global warming are a voting block that they don't want to lose. Even if they have to continue lying about global warming.
Reading and studying up on the subject, with an open mind, should convince most logically thinking people that global warming is mostly a political farce, an environmentalist myth, and a great way for university researcheerss to get funding and grants.
-
01-29-2005, 12:07 PM #32Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 9,851
There is no real or exact science proving how the earth got here is there? And yet the earth is in fact here.
Global warming is in fact here, even though we don't have exact science to explain it.
No one expects you to believe it Adorno. We know you are incapable of believing something until George Bush says it's true on national TV.
-
01-29-2005, 01:05 PM #33Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Location
- FT Worth, TX
- Posts
- 5,096
ok adorno, let me ask you this. how many times have we been proven wrong on things we once did this and that? Its only a matter of time before they realize what is taking effect, but it will be too late.
cause and effect adorno
do you honestly expect to emit gases without having some type of effect on the enviroment? If so, thats the type of arrogance politicans currently have going.Kerry Jones
-
01-29-2005, 01:06 PM #34Disabled
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Posts
- 2,194
Originally posted by blue27
There is no real or exact science proving how the earth got here is there? And yet the earth is in fact here.
Global warming is in fact here,
even though we don't have exact science to explain it.
No one expects you to believe it Adorno.
We know you are incapable of believing something until George Bush says it's true on national TV.
There was a time that even I wondered if there was any truth to global warming. But, when you read and investigate further, you become convinced that the studies were nothing more than junk science and political agendas.
Earlier in this thread I mentioned that there would be articles coming out soon debunking the research that went into producing the global warming theory.
Here's an example of statements that you will read in those articles (and this are real quotes):
"Professor Richard Muller of the University of California at Berkeley examined our work last fall. In an essay published in the MIT Technology Review, he said the findings “hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.”
"Our GRL article showed that the original study erred in only applying one statistical test for significance. If a second standard test had been also applied, it would have shown that the results lack statistical significance and that the other significance test was calculated incorrectly. Because the results lack statistical significance, contrary to previous understanding, the Mann et al. reconstruction is not usable for claims comparing 20th century climate to earlier periods.
If you have no idead what the hockey stick graph is about, look here: You can get a hockey stick shape from random data.
Research is your best friend, personal agendas just make you blind to the truth!
-
01-29-2005, 01:13 PM #35Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 9,851
Originally posted by adorno
Research is your best friend, personal agendas just make you blind to the truth!
Which is exactly why your posts seldom carry any weight. You are so blinded by hate for the liberals and misdirected devotion to the Right, regardless of who may be representing the Right, that your opinions are far to biased to be trusted.
You seem to think that your opinions are based on fact and "research" but I can find 1000 web links to back both sides of almost any story. You choose to only search for ones that back up your side.
-
01-29-2005, 01:28 PM #36Disabled
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Posts
- 2,194
Originally posted by Kerry Jones
ok adorno, let me ask you this. how many times have we been proven wrong on things we once did this and that?
Its only a matter of time before they realize what is taking effect, but it will be too late.
cause and effect adorno
do you honestly expect to emit gases without having some type of effect on the enviroment?
If so, thats the type of arrogance politicans currently have going.
I have a suggestion: instead of repeating what is heard in the news, do some research on your own and examine critically, without politics in mind, what the truth is.
-
01-29-2005, 01:42 PM #37Disabled
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Posts
- 2,194
Originally posted by blue27
Which is exactly why your posts seldom carry any weight. You are so blinded by hate for the liberals and misdirected devotion to the Right, regardless of who may be representing the Right, that your opinions are far to biased to be trusted.
You seem to think that your opinions are based on fact and "research" but I can find 1000 web links to back both sides of almost any story. You choose to only search for ones that back up your side.
but, I know how it is: it's so hard to let go of a theory which so many people believed in.
But then,...
You are attacking my politics instead of addressing the truth. Did you bother to read any of the material I posted?
The truth should be independent of what your politics are.
I'll say it again: do some real research on the subject and don't be blinded by your politics.
Science and research should not be politically based. When politics and personal opinions enter into the science/research arena, the science is blurred and harder to understand and appreciate because of the political agendas.
-
01-29-2005, 01:56 PM #38Disabled
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Posts
- 2,194
In one of my previous posts I wrote the following without including the URL (link). Here goes again:
If you have no idead what the hockey stick graph is about, look here: You can get a hockey stick shape from random data.
-
01-29-2005, 05:23 PM #39Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- Seattle, WA
- Posts
- 3,085
Originally posted by blue27
There is no real or exact science proving how the earth got here is there? And yet the earth is in fact here.
Global warming is in fact here, even though we don't have exact science to explain it.
"Do we know if the Earth is here?" Yes. We live upon it.
"Do we know global warming is happening?" No.
What is global warming?
gradual increase of the temperature of the earth's lower atmosphere as a result of the increase in greenhouse gases
Not only that, any estimation of the future isn't very good. There were estimations of large increases by the year 2000 that never happened. The original model, world3, which predicted the future state of the world and what we need to do to fix everything said the world would be in an irreversable state by now; yet they claim this isn't true anymore. Their best estimate from this model was off by over 300%.
These are some of the "facts" that global warming is happening.
If you don't believe that, grab a copy of vensim and the model, run and look at it yourself.
Science is not based on feelings or what "seems" like it should happen. Science is based on facts. Even those of you that have strong beliefs about global warming read in-depth the next article you see. There aren't facts. There are proclamations. This should anger you too -- if there is proof out there that states global warming is happening, why aren't they discussing that. The best I've ever seen in a news report is crap about how a computer model shows this, or shows that. As previously mentioned, computer models are intrinsically simplistic and through that flawed.
For example, this is the most recent CNN article:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science...te.temps.reut/
Computer models based on assumptions. Assumptions that estimate CO2 levels at double that they were before the industrial revolution. Seeing as the increase before regulation was less than 10%... how the hell is it going to double so quickly?
It's not, but saying that the Earth's climate is suddenly going to go up makes a great news story.
I'm not going to buy the computer model estimates. Before I graduated I took a course on global atmospheric modeling. I built the world3 model, I read their book, and I ran through tests to see how the model could change to "save" our world. They come to the estimation the world is in trouble; I come to the conclusion that the world of climatological modeling is troubled.
We can't model the atmosphere 4 days into the future with any accuracy, don't tell me we can do it for 20 years in the future.Jim Reardon - jim/amusive.com
-
01-31-2005, 04:35 PM #40Business Consultant Manager
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Location
- Fort Worth, TX
- Posts
- 2,586
azizny
also...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science....ap/index.html█ www.JGRoboMarketing.com / "Automate. Grow. Repeat"
█ Office: (800) 959-0182 / A KEAP Certified Developer (KCD)
-
01-31-2005, 04:42 PM #41Business Consultant Manager
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Location
- Fort Worth, TX
- Posts
- 2,586
There is no basis for that statement. The global warming theory (myth is more correct), was based on flawed observations and flawed research and flawed statistics and flawed data.
It defintely seems whatever someone else says, you automatically disagree. So instead of you attacking everyone else.. let's call you out.. and explain it.. eh?█ www.JGRoboMarketing.com / "Automate. Grow. Repeat"
█ Office: (800) 959-0182 / A KEAP Certified Developer (KCD)
-
01-31-2005, 05:35 PM #42Cloud Puppet Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Location
- Manchester (UK)
- Posts
- 716
an interesting fact that was on horizon the other day:
We currently have a problem called global dimming. This is the opposite to global warming. This reflects light back out of the earth. Global dimming was the cause of the 1980's Ethiopian Drought.
But if we stop global dimming, global warming goes into overdrive, and in 20 years time, the World will be 10 degrees warmer. Thus destroying the current eco system and turning the UK into a desert. Which is not good.
the futre isnt looking too good for us, is it?
-
02-08-2005, 04:37 PM #43Business Consultant Manager
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Location
- Fort Worth, TX
- Posts
- 2,586
Another interesting article....
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science....ap/index.html
which says:
CHACALTAYA GLACIER, Bolivia (AP) -- Up and down the icy spine of South America, the glaciers are melting, the white mantle of the Andes Mountains washing away at an ever faster rate.
"Look. You can see. Chacaltaya has split in two," scientist Edson Ramirez said as he led a visitor up toward a once-grand ice flow high in the thin air of the Bolivian cordillera.
In the distance below, beneath drifting clouds, sprawled 2-mile-high La Paz, a growing city that survives on the water running off the shoulders of these treeless peaks.
Chacaltaya, a frozen storehouse of such water, will be gone in seven to eight years, said Ramirez, a Bolivian glaciologist, or ice specialist.
"Some small glaciers like this have already disappeared," he said as melting icicles dripped on nearby rock, exposed for the first time in millennia. "In the next 10 years, many more will."
They'll disappear far beyond Bolivia. From Alaska in the north, to Montana's Glacier National Park, to the great ice fields of wild Patagonia at this continent's southern tip, the "rivers of ice" that have marked landscapes from prehistory are liquefying, shrinking, retreating.
In east Africa, the storied snows of Mount Kilimanjaro are vanishing. In the icebound Alps and Himalayas of Europe and Asia, the change has been stunning. From South America to south Asia, new glacial lakes threaten to overflow and drown villages below.
In the past few years, space satellites have helped measure the global trend, but scientists such as Rajendra K. Pachauri, a native of north India, have long seen what was happening on the ground.
"I know from observation," Pachauri told a reporter at an international climate conference in Argentina. "If you go to the Himalayan peaks, the rate at which the glaciers are retreating is alarming. And this is not an isolated example. I've seen photographs of Mount Kilimanjaro 50 years ago and now. The evidence is visible."
"Ample" evidence indicates that global warming is causing glaciers to retreat worldwide, reports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-sponsored network of climate scientists led by Pachauri.
Global temperatures rose about 1 degree Fahrenheit (approximately 1/2 degree Celsius) in the 20th century. French glaciologists working with Ramirez and other scientists at La Paz's San Andres University estimate that the Bolivian Andes are warming even faster.
The warming will continue as long as "greenhouse gases," primarily carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, accumulate in the atmosphere, say the U.N. panel and other authoritative scientific organizations.
The Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement, mandates cutbacks in such emissions, but the reductions are small and the United States, the biggest emitter, is not a party, arguing that the mandates will set back the U.S. economy.
As that pact takes effect February 16, the impact of climate change is already apparent.
An international study concluded in November that winter temperatures have risen as much as 7 degrees Fahrenheit (approximately 4 degrees Celsius) over 50 years in the Arctic, where permafrost is thawing and sea ice is shrinking. Pacific islands are losing land to encroaching seas, oceans expanding as they warm and as they receive runoff from the Greenland ice cap and other sources.
Those sources include at least one gushing new river of meltwater in western China, where thousands of Himalayan and other glaciers are shrinking. In the Italian Alps, 10 percent of the ice melted away in the European heat wave of 2003 and experts fear all will be gone in 20 to 30 years.
Such rapid runoff would do more than feed rising seas. It would end centuries of reliable flows through populated lands, jeopardizing water supplies for human consumption, agriculture and electricity.
In Peru, endowed with vast Andean ice caps and glaciers, 70 percent of the power comes from hydroelectric dams catching runoff, but officials fear much of it could be gone within a decade. Meanwhile, new mountainside lakes are bulging from the melt, threatening to break their banks and devastate nearby towns.
Here in impoverished Bolivia, the government has barely begun to plan for climate change.
Tomas Quisbert, a hydrological engineer with the water company serving the 2 million people of the La Paz region, said 95 percent of its supplies come from the mountains, either rain runoff or glacier melt. "But we can't say precisely how much comes from the glaciers," he said.
Ramirez and fellow scientists are seeking government support to do a complete assessment of water in the La Paz basin, linked to computer modeling of future regional climate and its impact.
They'll soon move on from 17,500-foot-high Chacaltaya ("Cold Road" in the native Aymara language) as it shrinks toward oblivion. But in 13 years of intense study of the glacier, the scientists have gathered a rich lode of data representative of countless small glaciers across the region.
A rugged hour's drive up from La Paz, with a simple mountain lodge beside it, Chacaltaya was once the world's highest ski slope. But no one has skied down its tongue of snow-coated ice since 1998. The melt has exposed rock right across its midsection, splitting the glacier in two.
It covers an area of less than 15 acres, with ice less than 26 feet thick. Ramirez said it lost two-thirds of its mass in the 1990s alone, and is now probably a mere 2 percent the size it once was.
Chacaltaya and other Andean glaciers had been retreating since the 18th century, when the "Little Ice Age" ended locally, but the rate has picked up dramatically in recent decades, melting three times faster since the 1980s than in the mid-20th century.
Although rising temperatures are an underlying factor, glaciologists find a complex cycle at work: A warming Pacific Ocean has created disruptive El Nino climate periods more frequently and powerfully, reducing precipitation, including snows to replenish glaciers. Less snow also means glaciers that are less white, more gray, absorbing more heat. Newly exposed rock walls then act like an oven to further speed melting.
Whatever the regional wrinkles, "it's a global view," said Lonnie Thompson, one of the world's foremost glaciologists.
"What we see in the Andes is happening in Kilimanjaro and in the Himalayas. We've just been in southeast Alaska, and 1,987 out of 2,000 glaciers are retreating there," the Ohio State University scientist said in a telephone interview from Columbus.
"It's a very compelling story," he said. The glaciers -- "water towers of the world" -- are the most visible indicators that we are now in the first phase of global warming, Thompson said.
Note: An increase of 1 degree Celsius = 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. An increase of 4 degrees Celsius would be the equivalent of about 7 degrees Fahrenheit. An increase of 1/2 (0.5) a degree Celsius would be the equivalent of about 1 degree Fahrenheit.█ www.JGRoboMarketing.com / "Automate. Grow. Repeat"
█ Office: (800) 959-0182 / A KEAP Certified Developer (KCD)