stephenhawkings Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 so it ain't so, Al Gore couldn't possibly be wrong. "On February 18, we reported that the F15 sensor malfunction started out having a negligible impact on computed ice extent, which gradually increased as the sensor degraded further. At the end of January, the F15 sensor underestimated ice extent by 50,000 square kilometers (19,300 square miles) compared to F13. That is still within the margin of error for daily data. By mid-February, the difference had grown to 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), which is outside of expected error. However, that amount represents less than 4% of Arctic sea ice extent at this time of year." so yes there was an error in a sensor and its readings, and some how we can correlate it with Al Gore(scratching my head). after reading further : "NSIDC stopped displaying the problematic data, and recalculated sea ice extent using data from the DMSP F13 satellite, an older sensor in the same series of satellites. The recalculation changed the January monthly average ice extent by less than the margin of error for the sensor." so once again we haven't created any 'proof' but we have found a small inconsistency in the means or measurements of proof that there is a global warming trend. Perhaps instead of attacks, of less than 4%, against global warming and the supporting studies, those skeptics can come up with a way to prove that global warming doesn't exist, and not a way to discredit, by 4%, an already proven relevant study. But to prove a negative is positively unpossible right trim? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savetheplanet Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Must be a lotta catfish to noodle in a 7500ft community.... Arguments are not credible if the persons making them aren't. You aren't therefore neither are they. As Nick has already said and I'll echo, I recycle, keep my thermostat turned down, keep my vehicles impeccably tuned. However, I do not condemn your points of view unless they're rammed them down the throats of others. You're passionate about your environmental beliefs and I have utmost respect for that believe it or not. If I were to espouse my religious beliefs on this board like you have attempted to do your environmental religion, I'd be condemned, drawn, quartered, and crucified. Thus my comparing you to the Islamic fundamentalists. You're an intolerant, environmental, bigot. In your eyes, you're right, we're wrong and we're all going to environmental hell. Rammed down your throat? I am not getting that one, maybe my bedside manner could use some tweaking but it's just my opinion on a random thread that I did not even start. You come across as a bit sensitive and overly dramatic with the religious comparisons. And I never said we noodle at 7500 ft. You know, as usual, if we were to have met at a bar or wherever and not on the internet, we would probably talk about these issues and get along fine with no insults. Just making an observation Anyway back to the subject, you don't really think that it has been proved that there is no climate crisis do you?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 I wish the honorable Big Al would come to my neighborhood and blow some hot air. The current temp is 13 deg F. Global warming my frozen ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 I wish the honorable Big Al would come to my neighborhood and blow some hot air. The current temp is 13 deg F. Global warming my frozen ass. I agree, high of 2 degrees tonight! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Rammed down your throat? I am not getting that one, maybe my bedside manner could use some tweaking but it's just my opinion on a random thread that I did not even start. You come across as a bit sensitive and overly dramatic with the religious comparisons. And I never said we noodle at 7500 ft. You know, as usual, if we were to have met at a bar or wherever and not on the internet, we would probably talk about these issues and get along fine with no insults. Just making an observation Anyway back to the subject, you don't really think that it has been proved that there is no climate crisis do you?. Crisis? well that's subjective isn't it? and from the looks of it here there are many who do not believe what their eyes won't let their minds see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxcomet Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 (edited) "Anyway back to the subject, you don't really think that it has been proved that there is no climate crisis do you?." I engage in a lot of hyperbole when I write. It gets the point across. :shades: Don't take any of this crap personal, I sure don't. I'd love the chance to go fishing or catish grapling with you and your homeys. But back to your argument, you can't prove a negative. Is the environment changing? Absolutely. It's always been cyclical. The geological record fully supports it. Is it ALL mankind's fault? Not a chance. Why? Well, there were cold and warm spells going on before we came on the scene. There's been cold and warm spells since we came on the scene. Is there a crisis? Pfft. You chicken little's were screaming the earth was gonna freeze back in the 60's & 70's. Now you're screaming, "It's gonna burn. No, wait, it's getting warmer, but it may cause certain areas to get colder." Jeez, y'all are worse than a local television weather forecaster. Like George Carlin once said, "Might rain, might not." Can mankind effectively change the climate to something else on our own? That's one of the most arrogant premises I've ever heard. It's not only arrogant, it's dangerous because it involves people changing their ways of life, destroying industrial infrastructure, and worse, giving up individual liberty, all based on inadequate data and conclusions clouded with political money. It's no different on the conservative side either. It's just the way the political animal operates. Wake up. You're probably a really nice fella, but you've been snookered and you're being used in a big money game where folks like you and I are as expendable as bottle caps. Edited March 3, 2009 by fxcomet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 NASA's Chief Climate Scientist Stirs Controversy With Call for Civil Disobedience Wish there was a way to find out how big and expensive of a house this guy lives in? If it is decorated with Rain Forest Lumber? What kind of cars his family drives? How many miles a year he flies? Etc... There really should be a list of requirements for environmentalists to meet in order to speak as one. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 did you happen to look at who those scientists are and who pays their bills?can you say conflict of interests? this gets tiring after a while. Why do you see conflict of interest and conspiracy when it is a scientist that speaks up against MMGW or if Exxon or other fight it but you have no such concerns (voiced) that I know of regarding the IPCC or other groups??? What does the IPCC stand for? It stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is not about studying if there is MMGW or even GW. It is about studying the 'fact' of MMGW. A simple look at their web page shows that they are all in and 100% about preventing MMGW. Which means they are no longer a vehicle for the study of global warming and what causes it. It means they are 100% about Man Made Global Warming and as such have a target, a path, and a position and it is all about promoting the idea of MMGW. Can you show me all the huge amounts of data that they IPCC collected regarding global warming prior to the word 'man made' and the like? Or did they spring up shortly after the idea originated thus they are no more a valid group than any other. There is no conflict of interest with the IPCC, because when there is the 'conflict' is removed and replaced with someone that fits the 'mission' of the IPCC which is promoting MMGW not studying if it even exists. Its like the word Hypocrite is written on the wall and you are standing in front of it wondering why people are laughing. Or like this - http://www.whackynation.com/wp-content/upl...n-footprint.gif http://www.whackynation.com/wp-content/upl...n-footprint.gif Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 so it ain't so, Al Gore couldn't possibly be wrong. “There is a balance between being as accurate as possible at any given moment and being as consistent as possible through long time-periods,” Odd statement. More concerned with historical data then quality data? Maybe they should switch over to the more accurate satellites since MMGW is such a world ending cataclysmic event, No?! Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 The thread title is "proved:there is no climate crisis" not "STP must defend his lifestyle and his grammar mistakes" But hey, that's what some conservatives do when they can't articulate their case, they make ad hominem attacks or more often than not come up with some BS analogy.I don't mind a little thread drift but. Peoples opinion on ACC and the environment in general comes down to where they stand on culture. It's more of a cultural thing than anything. If you guys were really worried about how much $$ you have to give up then you would be screaming about the $30 billion a year that tax payers pay to farm subsidies each year. You don't really care about the money, it's just a culture thing that you can thrive on. By the way, I don't use a boat to fish, I don't drive one single mile to hunt but when I do drive (seldom) I get 50 miles to the gallon. You see I live in the sierra's at 7,500 ft. in a community. You, one of the more frequent name callers on this board calling out others for the same? That is rich! The difference as you know is that the govt has been ripping us off for this stuff for a long time and perhaps at one time there was much good in these subsidies. But now we have grown complacent about them. And that is what you want. For people to grow complacent and not fight your MMGW agenda. But like farm subsidies that Will NEVER go away, so is your MMGW taxation NEVER going to go away. The farm subsidies dont go away because farmers have tones of money and spend tones of money and they vote every single time. Imagine how it will be with all the MMGW activists once they get their $20 billion per year in funding. Ooops. They already got that. 10x's that! Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 and the debate goes on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted March 3, 2009 Author Share Posted March 3, 2009 did you happen to look at who those scientists are and who pays their bills?can you say conflict of interests? this gets tiring after a while. Follow the money of the others also, where do you end up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cocheese Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 I wish the honorable Big Al would come to my neighborhood and blow some hot air. The current temp is 13 deg F. Global warming my frozen ass. Today Environment Canada has issued their 10th warning of the season for extremely cold temperatures. More then double the seasonal average. Not to mention, starting from November (the month EC says winter starts), we have had on average below normal temperatures, as well as much as 50cm more snow fall then average (not including the snow in October, nor the snow we received this past weekend and any more we may get). Yeah, this Global warming seems real to me....not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Anyway back to the subject, you don't really think that it has been proved that there is no climate crisis do you?. Is the atmosphere warming? Probably. Is man influencing it? Quite likely. Is it a crisis that will doom all mankind? That's where I have to go "meeehhh". I pose the question again that no global warming alarmist can seem to answer: What is earth's ideal average temperature? If you can't tell me that, how can we say that our current average temperature isn't below the "ideal"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 well ideal temperature is not so much of importance, but what may be more important is a run away trend, if we start to warm the planet at say 1 degree in one hundred years, which could enable two degrees in the same period, and the be followed by 4 degrees the following period, and increasing in such a trend after said period, could be problem some. now the problem might not be that severe, or it might be more severe. it is called a feedback loop, either negative or positive depending on your view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 well ideal temperature is not so much of importance, but what may be more important is a run away trend, if we start to warm the planet at say 1 degree in one hundred years, which could enable two degrees in the same period, and the be followed by 4 degrees the following period, and increasing in such a trend after said period, could be problem some. now the problem might not be that severe, or it might be more severe. it is called a feedback loop, either negative or positive depending on your view. But there hasn't been enough research at all to show if such a feedback loop is actually going to occur or not, has there? I'm all for more research on the phenomenon. What I'm against is sweeping legislation that would cripple our economy and way of life just on the hunch that it might change something for the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 But there hasn't been enough research at all to show if such a feedback loop is actually going to occur or not, has there? I'm all for more research on the phenomenon. What I'm against is sweeping legislation that would cripple our economy and way of life just on the hunch that it might change something for the better. well as most science doesn't like to state absolutes, there aren't any relating to global warming yet, but CO2 levels seam to be running rather high compared with historical levels, this may be one thing that is of many to create a crisis, or it might just be a loner runaway entity of our atmosphere, but none the less it is rising at a rather fast pace, and when you add methane to the picture we may be, or our children, or grand children may be in trouble or crisis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 well as most science doesn't like to state absolutes, there aren't any relating to global warming yet, but CO2 levels seam to be running rather high compared with historical levels, this may be one thing that is of many to create a crisis, or it might just be a loner runaway entity of our atmosphere, but none the less it is rising at a rather fast pace, and when you add methane to the picture we may be, or our children, or grand children may be in trouble or crisis. That's all fine and dandy, but instituting some ridiculous policy like carbon credit trading isn't going to help stop any of that from happening. We need more free enterprise, more research, more incentive to create cleaner technologies. Stifling innovation by effectively taxing every worker in America by increasing the costs of the goods we consume isn't going to fix anything. The rest of the world isn't going to embrace clean energy until it can be done profitably. So while we handicap our economy with stupid "clean energy" policies, countries like China, Russia, and India that don't give a crap about such initiatives will destroy us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUCKRACER Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 That's all fine and dandy, but instituting some ridiculous policy like carbon credit trading isn't going to help stop any of that from happening. We need more free enterprise, more research, more incentive to create cleaner technologies. Stifling innovation by effectively taxing every worker in America by increasing the costs of the goods we consume isn't going to fix anything. The rest of the world isn't going to embrace clean energy until it can be done profitably. So while we handicap our economy with stupid "clean energy" policies, countries like China, Russia, and India that don't give a crap about such initiatives will destroy us. Nick, would you run for President, please? I know I'd vote and campaign for you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Nick, would you run for President, please? I know I'd vote and campaign for you! I'll be 35 just in time for the '12 election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxcomet Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 "but CO2 levels seam to be running rather high compared with historical levels" What history? Mankind's? OUR record of cO2 in the past 10 years? World history? I mean. in the scheme of things we've only been around for a few minutes. Hardly enough to gauge anything resembling a pattern. Again, the scientific arrogance about this thing just floors me. "Just take our word for it, we know more than you do. It's gonna cost our country trillions more dollars and keep our economy down for probably decades, but we're pretty sure we're right about this." Sounds like the current administration to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savetheplanet Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 "Anyway back to the subject, you don't really think that it has been proved that there is no climate crisis do you?." Is there a crisis? Pfft. You chicken little's were screaming the earth was gonna freeze back in the 60's & 70's. " Dragging up long-discredited myths about some non-existent scientific consensus about global cooling from the 1970s does no one any good. There now is a solid consensus in the scientific community on ACC, for instance NASSA,NOAA, the meteorological society,the royal society, the acadamy of sciences and many peer reviewed articles on the subject. I am no scientist so I defer to the top scientists. I am still waiting for evedince on how these groups are lining their pockets. They could be wrong but for people to say they are just in it for the money, or they want to destroy society, and move ppl. into caves is disrespectful rhetoric and does nothing to move the debate forward. ( not saying that yuou said these things, just making a point) There might have been a few papers published on global cooling in the 70's, but I bet there were very few peer reviewed articles, and their definitely was not a consensus in the scientific community on global cooling Can mankind effectively change the climate to something else on our own? That's one of the most arrogant premises I've ever heard. I think it's even more arrogant to think that we can't change the climate, maybe we can agree that we disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 (edited) I think it's even more arrogant to think that we can't change the climate, maybe we can agree that we disagree. I wouldn't say either stance is arrogant, simply premature. I mean you're talking about an entire atmosphere here, and we are only one nation. Countries as I mentioned before certainly aren't chomping at the bit to get going on reducing their carbon emissions. We shouldn't be either. Any difference we make over the next few years will be insignificant anyway as long as these other nations are making zero effort whatsoever to reduce their emissions. Instead, we should be spending this time to study the situation more closely, do what we can to spawn research and development of clean, efficient, and profitable new energy technologies that we can then sell to the rest of the world so we can maintain our place in the world -- as a global leader of economics, technology, and freedom. Edited March 3, 2009 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxcomet Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 (edited) "maybe we can agree that we disagree" Sure, I thought we'd already been doing that... The day may come when AFFORDABLE technology makes the issue of greenhouse gasses a moot point. If so, speed the day. However, in the meantime, let's not reinvent the wheel until the roads are ready to drive em on. With that, I have officially beaten this horse to the ground as far as I'm concerned. Edited March 3, 2009 by fxcomet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 With that, I have officially beaten this horse to the ground as far as I'm concerned. So have the rest of us...for some 20 pages now. :beatdeadhorse: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.