Proof Global Warming Exists!!!!

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So what you are saying is that it's better to trust a website when you have no idea who wrote it or where they are getting their information from? I see. I shall debate you no further.



Yes, I do dismiss it. By the very nature of how it was written. Note the areas I put in bold, I don't think much else needs to be stated.

Trying to concentrate on the link in the Nasa article does nothing for your attempt to defend the poorly written agenda-laden Bob Ellis article.

It is a common practice however, to try and redirect people when you can't defend your original point.

haha the pot calling the kettle black or something like that. You trust UN supported scientists, but I don't. That youtube video has more truth in it's little pinky finger than UN scientists do in all their pat-on-the-head grants combined.

Well I'll see your 1300 UN scientists and raise you 32000+ American scientists:
http://www.petitionproject.org/

[guineapig]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

haha the pot calling the kettle black or something like that. You trust UN supported scientists, but I don't. That youtube video has more truth in it's little pinky finger than UN scientists do in all their pat-on-the-head grants combined.

Well I'll see your 1300 UN scientists and raise you 32000+ American scientists:
http://www.petitionproject.org/

Again you are redirecting the conversation on to some link on the NASA website. That's all well and good. Did you even read a single page of it?

Also, very nice bullshit link: http://www.petitionproject.org/ Seems super duper legit.
According to the site itself all you need to sign the petition is a Bachelor's degree.
Are you simply trolling now?

(EDIT: I did some fact finding on that link and came up with the following:

Registrant Name:Arthur Robinson
Also runs the following sites:
http://oism.org/
http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/ate/index.htm
http://www.nutritionandcancer.org/vi...r/s99p1074.htm)




Now how about we talk about my rebuttal to your post? Remember the article you posted that was supposed to contain some shred of damning evidence to support your argument?

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ummm NASA? http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/n...lanet-warming/

So first you are trying to use a site that claims that NASA supports your argument. Then you claim that NASA itself is posting false information on its website.


You know what, let me answer my own question: You are trolling.

[Overcast]

Oh - did I mention I used to work as a government contractor at the EPA? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
My 'opinion' isn't perfect of course - it's purely subjective.

One of the big jokes there was the whole 'freon hurts the ozone' - bullcrap people bought into.
Sure, Freon might hurt the Ozone - only problem is, it's too heavy to get much further than a foot off the ground.

But I digress - I'm not much of a partisan, I'm horribly cynical of politics at all. I just think both sides making all the noise about it, are mostly doing it for profit and not the environment.

Rush is gotta go on about it for ratings, others get big government grants, etc.

[guineapig]

I'm all for questioning government and politicians, but is that really what this thread is about?

Does every government on the planet have something to gain out of tricking the entire world into believing that there is an issue here when really there is none?

It all starts to sound like a reverse Illuminati after a while.

[Overcast]

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Does every government on the planet have something to gain out of tricking the entire world into believing that there is an issue here when really there is none?

If someone's making a buck off of it, or getting more power and control over people and business - indeed they do have a LOT to gain. No one can honestly say Al Gore hasn't made any 'gains' from it. I'd be much more apt to believe someone who isn't flying a private jet everywhere, leaving his limos idling for hours to keep them cool and buying 9 million dollars mansions, lol.

So yeah - I'm horribly cynical and if there's a core reason I'm cynical - look above at those links [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]


And **Especially** - when corporations and government seem to go ON AND ON about something Ad nauseam and there seems to be a 'push' to make it 'trendy'.

Two other things REALLY bring out the cynicism in me: Government and 'Trends'.

Still - I think we most certainly have a responsibility to our environment and I certainly think we need to develop cleaner and more efficient energy - which brings me to the - maybe core reason I don't buy the hype... I really think cars could be 500 times more efficient than they are now.

Assume - just for the sake of debate - that a technology exists that would allow a standard V8 to get 200 Miles per gallon. Would the oil companies allow that?

So - science aside. I might really be inclined to believe the science in and of itself - it's the 'politics' and such surrounding it, that make me cynical.

[guineapig]

Originally Posted by Overcast [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If someone's making a buck off of it, or getting more power and control over people and business - indeed they do have a LOT to gain. No one can honestly say Al Gore hasn't made any 'gains' from it. I'd be much more apt to believe someone who isn't flying a private jet everywhere, leaving his limos idling for hours to keep them cool and buying 9 million dollars mansions, lol.

So yeah - I'm horribly cynical and if there's a core reason I'm cynical - look above at those links [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]


And **Especially** - when corporations and government seem to go ON AND ON about something Ad nauseam and there seems to be a 'push' to make it 'trendy'.

Two other things REALLY bring out the cynicism in me: Government and 'Trends'.

Still - I think we most certainly have a responsibility to our environment and I certainly think we need to develop cleaner and more efficient energy - which brings me to the - maybe core reason I don't buy the hype... I really think cars could be 500 times more efficient than they are now.

Assume - just for the sake of debate - that a technology exists that would allow a standard V8 to get 200 Miles per gallon. Would the oil companies allow that?

So - science aside. I might really be inclined to believe the science in and of itself - it's the 'politics' and such surrounding it, that make me cynical.

See, I can totally respect this opinion and your viewpoint.

[BeelzeBob]

Some topical reading today...
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by http://www.universetoday.com/2010/07/19/2010-had-warmest-global-june-on-record/

Was last month warm where you live? If so, you weren't alone. According to measurements taken by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) June 2010 was the hottest June on record worldwide. But this is not a new trend, at least for this year. March, April, and May 2010 were also the warmest on record. This was also the 304th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last month with below-average temperature was February 1985.

[Stickyfingers]

Originally Posted by BeelzeBob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Some topical reading today...
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's unfortunate. They fail to recognize the fact that El Nino is occuring this year, causing the temperature of the oceans to rise and thus causing very warm temperatures this summer. Of course though, they couldn't say something NATURAL was causing it, now could they.



Also, I am very skeptical about Global Warming. Especially when the information used in the studies is drawn from only 2 different sources. There has also been issue in the past, most recently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...il_controversy


Basically some people hacked some climate study email accounts and found that in many of the emails LEAD scientists for Global Warming were discussing ways to cover up and make it seem as though the numbers were conducive to global warming.

There was also an incident a few years ago, where NASA "accidently" used the same temperature data set for October that they recorded in September for a large region of Russia, causing the temperatures to report higher than they were. Of course some kind citizens I believe cracked the database and found the anomaly. They called NASA out on it and NASA basically said, "Oh, our bad, that was a mistake". SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUREEEEEE.

[BeelzeBob]

“We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it,” says the Oxburgh report. “Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention” -An independent panel of 11 led by the University of Oxford’s Lord Oxburgh

Michael Mann in his own words on the stolen CRU emails

[mitic]

there is no manmade global warming

welcome back to the 16th century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Ice_Age