You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Global warming hoax
- Thread starter james_bond_3rd
- Start date
Quote from Hydroblunt:
Look,
The fact of the matter is that every plant in our solar system is heating up due to moving a little bit closer to the sun. Mars ice cap is melting also.
HOWEVER, to deny that humans have any effect on climate is temperature is pure idiocy. It is completely ignoring the endless environmental disasters we have caused and create.
Go to downtown LA and hang around for a little bit. Then come back and tell us how little effect humans have on the ecology of the planet.
Alternatively, you can visit China and check out their environmental disaster.
yes, and it's been explained that a butterfly flapping its wings can cause hurricanes.
the issue here is not whether or not man has an impact on the planet, it's more a revolution against the power grabbing by insatiable politicians.
OH HELP ME GOVERNMENT, THE RICH GUY DRIVING HIS SUV IS KILLING THE WORLD
Here's the thing, a big meteoriite pummeled the earth and killed all the dinosaurs, i think it can handle man driving their f'ing cars. The truly ironic thing about all this is, the energy companies will ultimately save the day, while Nancy Pelosis attends a faggot parade in San Franscico.
god i despise liberals.
Even if humans are causing global warming why bother worrying about it. Oil and coal are finite resources its not like humans will ever stop consuming what is left before there is nothing left. It simply do not matter if the remaining oil last 150 or 170 years. The amount of CO2 emitted in the end will be the same.
It appears to be the case that humans need something to worry about. Hell doesnt work anymore Global warming do.
Only oil consumption can drive oil prices higher, and only high oil prices can make alternative energy profitable enough. Oil is realy not consumed fast enough. The only important question regarding Global warming is this, who will do the needed oil consumption. Me flying from A to B or the elite flying from A to B with money collected from a global carbon tax.
It appears to be the case that humans need something to worry about. Hell doesnt work anymore Global warming do.
Only oil consumption can drive oil prices higher, and only high oil prices can make alternative energy profitable enough. Oil is realy not consumed fast enough. The only important question regarding Global warming is this, who will do the needed oil consumption. Me flying from A to B or the elite flying from A to B with money collected from a global carbon tax.
Glad to see two more flat-earthers join the fray.
yes, and it's been explained that a butterfly flapping its wings can cause hurricanes.
the issue here is not whether or not man has an impact on the planet, it's more a revolution against the power grabbing by insatiable politicians.
OH HELP ME GOVERNMENT, THE RICH GUY DRIVING HIS SUV IS KILLING THE WORLD
Here's the thing, a big meteoriite pummeled the earth and killed all the dinosaurs, i think it can handle man driving their f'ing cars. The truly ironic thing about all this is, the energy companies will ultimately save the day, while Nancy Pelosis attends a faggot parade in San Franscico.
god i despise todays liberals.
the issue here is not whether or not man has an impact on the planet, it's more a revolution against the power grabbing by insatiable politicians.
OH HELP ME GOVERNMENT, THE RICH GUY DRIVING HIS SUV IS KILLING THE WORLD
Here's the thing, a big meteoriite pummeled the earth and killed all the dinosaurs, i think it can handle man driving their f'ing cars. The truly ironic thing about all this is, the energy companies will ultimately save the day, while Nancy Pelosis attends a faggot parade in San Franscico.
god i despise todays liberals.
Quote from ratboy88:
go back the last 200 yrs... there have been much colder and hotter times than what we are experiencing currently. please watch this.. "global warming swindle"
Exactly.
Why people don't get this astounds me. And the fact that for 30 yrs we were paranoid about another ice age, while CO2 was rising!
This is sooo much bigger than humans, but not PC correct at the moment.
I became a big skeptic after reading Crighton's, "State of Fear". He footnotes every statement of no global warming - CO2 connection with real studies. I looked into half a dozen of these. Result? We have no idea. We can't even predict ROUGHLY the number of hurricanes. Last two years, WAY off.
I believe we should cut emissions for the sake of a clean environment in general, but placing global warming on humans, assuming it is even happening, is ludicrous.
It's complete crap - a fraud.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKL0887458220071108
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKL0887458220071108
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
Since this forum is filled with conspiracy theorists, let's have a little more fun.
The original article has been removed so this is the Google cache
http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cach...+Geoclimatic+Studies&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk
Journal of Geoclimatic Studies (2007) 23:3. 221-222
DOI:152.9967/r755100729-450172-00-3
Editorial
Science, we are led to believe, proceeds by means of open-minded enquiry, motivated by the quest for truth. Any scientific theory is valid only for as long as it resists disproof. Such disproofs, far from being discouraged or resisted, are to be welcomed as the means by which knowledge advances.
This, anyhow, is the story we tell ourselves, at every level of every scientific discipline. Sadly, however, it no longer seems to apply in the field of climate science. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the lead paper published in this edition of our journal. It threatens to overturn the theory to which almost all climate scientists subscribe: that positive radiative forcing (global warming) is largely driven by emissions of carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels. The paper, by Daniel Klein and colleagues, appears to demonstrate that this is not the case: the process causing global warming is in fact a natural one, which is likely to peak - returning average temperatures to background levels - by the middle of this century.
In any other field a revelation of this importance would be greeted with tremendous interest by scientific colleagues. If corroborated by further investigation it is likely to have been rewarded with the highest scientific honours: it is no exaggeration to state that this is Nobel Prize material. Instead, attempts to publish this paper have been met with fear, hostility and a closing of ranks. Before approaching this journal, Daniel Klein and colleagues sent their paper to 43 peer-reviewed learned publications. All 43 rejected it. In no case could they provide a scientific justification for their decision. The editor of one very eminent journal told Klein and his colleagues that they were "criminally irresponsible" in seeking to have this material published. This is not, we believe, language appropriate to the advance of scientific understanding.
Much as we would like to exaggerate the significance of our own journal, we cannot claim that it ranks alongside the great names that rejected this paper. Though we have always strived to maintain the most rigorous scientific standards, we recognise that Klein and colleagues came to us when better options had failed. Delighted as we are to provide a home for it, we deeply regret that they were unable to publish their paper in a better-known journal.
Nor would it be accurate to claim that we leapt at the chance to publish it. Though we immediately recognised the importance of these findings, we were also aware of the possible consequences of their publication. Ours is a small journal with minimal resources, whose existence has on several occasions been endangered by budgetary crises. We realised that if we were to publish this paper we would be confronting a powerful and hostile scientific establishment, which has the means, if it so chooses, to close us down. But such is the importance of what Klein and colleagues have discovered that this is a risk we are prepared to take.
This being said, we proceeded with the utmost care before deciding to publish. We subjected it to the most rigorous process of peer-review any paper published in this journal has ever undergone. Though several of them evinced profound concerns about the political implications of publishing this paper, none of our peer reviewers could fault it on scientific grounds. We decided that it is better to be published and be damned by other scientists than not to publish and be damned in our own minds for cowardice.
We have also taken the unprecedented step of making the paper freely available on our website: something we have been reluctant to do in the past because of our severe budgetary constraints. We hope that even if the paper is dismissed and ignored by those who subscribe to the "consensus" position on climate change, the truth will eventually seep out. We accept that this is not the best route for scientific discourse to take, but none better appears to be available. We publish in trepidation, but in the knowledge that it is the right thing to do.
Debating whether global warming is man-made or not is pointless. Whats important is that we become more efficient as a species and that means using re-newable, clean energy to power our needs.
We have 2 paths;
1) we conclude that global warming could well and truly not be man made therefore we should sit still and not worry because there is nothing we can do to stop this natural process anyway
or
2) we conclude that global warming could be man made and therefore we take the path of least regret and move towards cleaner sources of energy and a more environmental biased economy migating the risk that we are wrong in the above conclusion whilst becoming more efficient in our ways.
As a elitetrader I see the risk/reward being in conclusion # 2 -> the path of least regret.
Peace.
We have 2 paths;
1) we conclude that global warming could well and truly not be man made therefore we should sit still and not worry because there is nothing we can do to stop this natural process anyway
or
2) we conclude that global warming could be man made and therefore we take the path of least regret and move towards cleaner sources of energy and a more environmental biased economy migating the risk that we are wrong in the above conclusion whilst becoming more efficient in our ways.
As a elitetrader I see the risk/reward being in conclusion # 2 -> the path of least regret.
Peace.
Quote from jonnysharp:
Debating whether global warming is man-made or not is pointless. Whats important is that we become more efficient as a species and that means using re-newable, clean energy to power our needs.
its not pointless... the same people that funded al gore's junk science movie are the same ones that will be collecting the global carbon tax!!!
don't you people get it yet? this is a 3 card monty. they also are the ones that suppress clean cheap alternative energy!!!
WAKE UP *see... i can be green too.
Quote from dcraig:
It's complete crap - a fraud.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKL0887458220071108
You blew my cover. I wanted to wait for the other flat-earthers to jump in. So far we only proved that ratboy, pattersb, voodoo and jayford, are the flat-earthers and don't have any ability for critical thinking. They cannot spot a hoax even when the so-called "evidence" obviously doesn't make any sense.
Next time they jump up and down against science, you just need to point to this thread...
BTW, for those of you flat-earthers, if you still don't get it, ask nicely and I may tell you how to spot this as a hoax without the help of Reuter's report - you shouldn't believe MSM anyway. Oh, and you don't need to know any biology or geophysics to see this.