After reading this i tend to believe it's all a big lie...
http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm
Make sure you have a look through the scientific paper.
Any thoughts?
Edit* Just to clarify, this paper suggests that CO2 emmissions is actually good for the environment and that the change in climate like we're seeing is natural and has been happening since before man.
Is Global Warming Real?
Obviously global warming is real.. how it occurs is the point of conjecture.
Considering the ocean creates the majority of co2, followed by vegetation and then animals, with man coming in with a miniscule percentage of green house gasses.. and then considering that green house gasses make up some tiny percentage of the total atmosphere.. you gota wonder.
Check out the documentary "The great global warming swindle". Good viewing.
Considering the ocean creates the majority of co2, followed by vegetation and then animals, with man coming in with a miniscule percentage of green house gasses.. and then considering that green house gasses make up some tiny percentage of the total atmosphere.. you gota wonder.
Check out the documentary "The great global warming swindle". Good viewing.
yes.
myspace / too much! / photos (flickr) / photos (tumblr)
aroes wrote:promising, but lost me at offensive mid range snarl
-
Dark Lord Piddle Bottom
- Posts: 765
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:34 pm
fooishbar wrote:yes.
interesting article in the age today about the great global warming swindle. what a pile of shite it sounds like.
(personal opinion there before i piss anyone off)
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... 87356.html
What pisses me off is that the whole "global warming" thing is hurting the developing nations.
Those countries (especially in africa) who have large amounts of cheap natural energy products such as coal but who aren't allowed to use them.
These countries have no chance. They can't afford expensive solar energy. It's a joke.
Those countries (especially in africa) who have large amounts of cheap natural energy products such as coal but who aren't allowed to use them.
These countries have no chance. They can't afford expensive solar energy. It's a joke.
indeed we cant expect the world to pause just because we dont like ice ages or global warmings... that stoofs been happening forever. we may be helping it but i dont think we can stop it... and it's going to take a while
The rubber plant was surprised. If the rubber plant could have spoken, it wouldn't have said anything. That's how surprised the rubber plant was.
Oh no! If people realise it's not true than the fastest growing industry in the world will lose it's funding.Friday wrote:fooishbar wrote:yes.
interesting article in the age today about the great global warming swindle. what a pile of shite it sounds like.
(personal opinion there before i piss anyone off)
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... 87356.html
That 200 billion dollars a year the US spends on funding global warming research will go to something else.
We can't have that now can we?
-
saintberry
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 2:17 pm
I can't believe this is discussed in this day and age.
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that man is having a massive impact on the rate of climate change.
Global Warming is a miss represented term. If the polar ice caps were to melt the globe would actually go into another ice age. Warming would be a short term effect.
What do scientists have to gain from this big " conspiracy" on mans impact on the climate?
It’s true that the oceans omit a massive amount of C02; however tiny organic particles in the oceans are also the biggest cleanser of the atmosphere. The globe has a respiration system, much like we do. Things breathe in and things breathe out.
Human civilization has managed to emerge in a very stable period of temperature on Earth. There is no doubt about that, and there is no doubt that the temperature would change, with or with out us. However, we are now having such an impact that we are changing the balance of the Globes respiration has been around for a few hundred thousand years.
You can hardly call this phenomenon "un-natural". We are organic beings burning organic matter to release a molecule into the atmosphere. However you want to classify it (to me it is irrelevant and not the issue at hand), we (humans) are having an impact on the climate or this Globe, just as everything does.
Is there anything we can do to stop this process from happening quicker? Yes. Should we endeavour to stop it? Yes. Will we be able to stop it from happening eventually? No.
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that man is having a massive impact on the rate of climate change.
Global Warming is a miss represented term. If the polar ice caps were to melt the globe would actually go into another ice age. Warming would be a short term effect.
What do scientists have to gain from this big " conspiracy" on mans impact on the climate?
It’s true that the oceans omit a massive amount of C02; however tiny organic particles in the oceans are also the biggest cleanser of the atmosphere. The globe has a respiration system, much like we do. Things breathe in and things breathe out.
Human civilization has managed to emerge in a very stable period of temperature on Earth. There is no doubt about that, and there is no doubt that the temperature would change, with or with out us. However, we are now having such an impact that we are changing the balance of the Globes respiration has been around for a few hundred thousand years.
You can hardly call this phenomenon "un-natural". We are organic beings burning organic matter to release a molecule into the atmosphere. However you want to classify it (to me it is irrelevant and not the issue at hand), we (humans) are having an impact on the climate or this Globe, just as everything does.
Is there anything we can do to stop this process from happening quicker? Yes. Should we endeavour to stop it? Yes. Will we be able to stop it from happening eventually? No.
First you get her name. Then you get her number. Then you get some get some in the back seat of a hummer!
They might be frowned upon for using them, but how exactly are they "not allowed" to use coal etc? I don't understand....Stray wrote:What pisses me off is that the whole "global warming" thing is hurting the developing nations.
Those countries (especially in africa) who have large amounts of cheap natural energy products such as coal but who aren't allowed to use them.
These countries have no chance. They can't afford expensive solar energy. It's a joke.
EDIT: besides the fact that I thought the biggest users of "dirty fuel" are developed nations such as USA, China etc etc, aren't they?
Last edited by Direkt on Thu May 24, 2007 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
saintberry
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 2:17 pm
Who is not allowed? Evidence please. There are no developing nations that have been told to stop using carbon emitting energy technologies. China and India included.Stray wrote:What pisses me off is that the whole "global warming" thing is hurting the developing nations.
Those countries (especially in africa) who have large amounts of cheap natural energy products such as coal but who aren't allowed to use them.
These countries have no chance. They can't afford expensive solar energy. It's a joke.
Its the Howard's an Bush's of this world that are trying to put pressure on developing nations by not signing up to Kyoto (which was designed to put the majority of action onto developed nations).
Last edited by saintberry on Thu May 24, 2007 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
First you get her name. Then you get her number. Then you get some get some in the back seat of a hummer!
I'm going to stay out of this discussion.
The reality is that much of the science that these arguments use is based on understanding the interrelatedness of incredibly complex mechanisms of global nutrient cycles, heat flux, albedo and long-term fluctuations in temperature.
These systems are boiled down so that they can be described in simple terms, but there is nothing simple about ecology or predicting climate change or the things that may affect climate.
That is all.
Carry on
The reality is that much of the science that these arguments use is based on understanding the interrelatedness of incredibly complex mechanisms of global nutrient cycles, heat flux, albedo and long-term fluctuations in temperature.
These systems are boiled down so that they can be described in simple terms, but there is nothing simple about ecology or predicting climate change or the things that may affect climate.
That is all.
Carry on
I wanted to be a hero. I wanted to be the center of attention. I wanted the glory, I wanted the fame. I wanted the pretty girls to come up and say, "Hi, I see that you're good at Centipede."
C.I.A: i love how you 'stayed out of this' (2 paragraphs later 
global warming ftl
kyoto protocol ftw
bush and howard are friggen SILLY!!! (yes thats right! i said it!)
global warming ftl
kyoto protocol ftw
bush and howard are friggen SILLY!!! (yes thats right! i said it!)
The rubber plant was surprised. If the rubber plant could have spoken, it wouldn't have said anything. That's how surprised the rubber plant was.
-
saintberry
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 2:17 pm
actually I reckon she did stay out of it.cha_chaos wrote:C.I.A: i love how you 'stayed out of this' (2 paragraphs later
global warming ftl
kyoto protocol ftw
bush and howard are friggen SILLY!!! (yes thats right! i said it!)
she simply observed that the issue is complex from a scientific perspective
she gave no indication of what her opinion actually is. that is synonomous with staying out of it IMO.
He's climbing in your windows, he's snatching your people up.
-
cj the taniwha
- Posts: 1170
- Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 5:20 am
- Location: Melburn
- Contact:
cool instead of climate change lets talk about staying out of arguments.
I think these "climate change is a leftist greenie fable" arguments are so popular because they are what people want to believe.
People want to believe they can continue to drive round in their cars with one person in it and 4 empty seats and a nice big engine, live in their houses with huge empty rooms which they heat and cool, continue to consume food and other goods flown and shipped around the world.
The climate change argument demands change. People dislike change, so they are over eager to believe anything, no matter how farcical, that allows them to not have to worry about what they are doing.
The argument that Howard uses - that taking real steps to reduce the ecological footprint of australia would cost too many jobs is another good one. By ignoring or doing little about these problems now, we are robbing future generations of health, employment and the environment, just so we can continue to "grow" and "prosper".
Honestly - what is more likely - that we can cut down so many trees, burn so much fossil fuels, put so much carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere and it will have little impact - or that is has a serious impact on the planet and the effects will be terrible and are little known yet.
I think these "climate change is a leftist greenie fable" arguments are so popular because they are what people want to believe.
People want to believe they can continue to drive round in their cars with one person in it and 4 empty seats and a nice big engine, live in their houses with huge empty rooms which they heat and cool, continue to consume food and other goods flown and shipped around the world.
The climate change argument demands change. People dislike change, so they are over eager to believe anything, no matter how farcical, that allows them to not have to worry about what they are doing.
The argument that Howard uses - that taking real steps to reduce the ecological footprint of australia would cost too many jobs is another good one. By ignoring or doing little about these problems now, we are robbing future generations of health, employment and the environment, just so we can continue to "grow" and "prosper".
Honestly - what is more likely - that we can cut down so many trees, burn so much fossil fuels, put so much carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere and it will have little impact - or that is has a serious impact on the planet and the effects will be terrible and are little known yet.
Back from the desert to stir things up a little
-
FoundationStepper
- Posts: 3556
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:55 am
well the paper is from 1998. given the rapid change in knoweldge (and broader opinion) would this infer that the information is out of date and the findings also?
17,000 scientists - what type?
17,000 scientists - what type?
croaking lizard... jungletasticdubcorebadness (brap brap)
surface resonance... sound and vibration arts (buzz hum)
surface resonance... sound and vibration arts (buzz hum)
-
sneaky hands
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:39 pm
this is a couple of thousand km from where i live:
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM7ZF8LURE_index_0.html
http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... _free.html
http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... ening.html
make of that what you will.
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM7ZF8LURE_index_0.html
http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... _free.html
http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... ening.html
make of that what you will.
myspace / too much! / photos (flickr) / photos (tumblr)
aroes wrote:promising, but lost me at offensive mid range snarl
-
NinjaGaijin
- Posts: 514
- Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:52 pm
- Location: Melburns
- Contact:
Re: Is Global Warming Real?
The hugest amounts of CO2 in 600,000 years is not beneficial. We are already seeing hundreds of impacts.Lauer wrote:After reading this i tend to believe it's all a big lie...
http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm
Make sure you have a look through the scientific paper.
Any thoughts?
Edit* Just to clarify, this paper suggests that CO2 emmissions is actually good for the environment and that the change in climate like we're seeing is natural and has been happening since before man.
Look at the melting permafrost..
Geez don't buy into the ANTI global warming conspiracy, they've been working really hard for almost 40 years now...
I've been trying to get people concerned about global warming for at least a decade.
Tell the antarctic species that are in threat of extinction that global warming isn't an impact.
-
saintberry
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 2:17 pm
saintberry wrote:I can't believe this is discussed in this day and age.
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that man is having a massive impact on the rate of climate change.
Global Warming is a miss represented term. If the polar ice caps were to melt the globe would actually go into another ice age. Warming would be a short term effect.
What do scientists have to gain from this big " conspiracy" on mans impact on the climate?
It’s true that the oceans omit a massive amount of C02; however tiny organic particles in the oceans are also the biggest cleanser of the atmosphere. The globe has a respiration system, much like we do. Things breathe in and things breathe out.
Human civilization has managed to emerge in a very stable period of temperature on Earth. There is no doubt about that, and there is no doubt that the temperature would change, with or with out us. However, we are now having such an impact that we are changing the balance of the Globes respiration has been around for a few hundred thousand years.
You can hardly call this phenomenon "un-natural". We are organic beings burning organic matter to release a molecule into the atmosphere. However you want to classify it (to me it is irrelevant and not the issue at hand), we (humans) are having an impact on the climate or this Globe, just as everything does.
Is there anything we can do to stop this process from happening quicker? Yes. Should we endeavour to stop it? Yes. Will we be able to stop it from happening eventually? No.
I teach VCE Geography and my Year 12's do a unit on climate change/global warming. Everything you just said is spot on.
Yes, the world does go through extremely warm periods and vice versa and this has been happening for ages. But humans have now tipped the scales so that the warm periods are just that much warmer and our activities are suffering because of this.
What cracks me up is when people say "we're destroying the planet!" We're not! We're just destroying our ability to live on this planet. It will be here long after we're long forgotten.
Also, looking at the paper I can't see that it has been published in any kind of reputed scientific journal. By going through a journal an editor who is recognised in their field of speciality will have accepted, commented on the article, or rejected the paper after reading critical reports on the research by anonymous scientists.FoundationStepper wrote:well the paper is from 1998. given the rapid change in knoweldge (and broader opinion) would this infer that the information is out of date and the findings also?
17,000 scientists - what type?
These reviewers are chosen by the editor, sometimes on the recommendation of the authors. and are usually people experienced and knowledgeable in the field being written about.
I could write a paper tomorrow on some data, give it to 1 person sitting beside me in my office to read, then publish it on a website and say it has been peer reviewed. Doesn't mean my article would count for shit.
Just because I rock, doesn't mean I'm made of stone.
you just gonna bark all day little doggy... or are you going to bite?fooishbar wrote:maybe we could just nuke perth and then that wouldn't be a problem?quick wrote:of course we're causing global warming... it's because we're smoking all the ice
I kissed a squirrel and I liked it... taste of her acorn chapstick
Re: Is Global Warming Real?
Did you check out the rest of the OISM website? Their specialities are 'science and medicine' ie everything.Lauer wrote:After reading this i tend to believe it's all a big lie...
http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm
Make sure you have a look through the scientific paper.
Any thoughts?
Edit* Just to clarify, this paper suggests that CO2 emmissions is actually good for the environment and that the change in climate like we're seeing is natural and has been happening since before man.
Their primary topics of interest are 'civil defense' and 'home schooling' and developing new 'approaches to the use of urine, blood, and breath for diagnostic and preventive medicine'. Right.
Interesting that the two most recognised members of their faculty are dead. While their both still represented on the website, only in one of their bios is this mentioned.
Another of the faculty lists pushing for 'more free enterprise and less socialism in medicine' as one of her main activities.
Credible source? I don't think.
To be honest, I understand fuck all about the science involved in whether global warming is true or not and have no chance of verifying either side's scientists' claims.
All I can do is look at the motivations and background of the people telling me these things.
What Will said.
If global warming were a conspiracy theory, what would any 'greenie' actually gain from fabricating such a myth?
If global warming were a conspiracy theory, what would any 'greenie' actually gain from fabricating such a myth?
Note that the ABC board features none other than Keith Windschuttle, who has also denied that Aborigines were massacred by white settlers.Friday wrote:interesting article in the age today about the great global warming swindle. what a pile of shite it sounds like.
(personal opinion there before i piss anyone off)
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... 87356.html
-
bobinabottle
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 6:41 pm
I don't think you can say that there is nothing to be gained from perpetuating the myth.Special Hegg wrote:What Will said.
If global warming were a conspiracy theory, what would any 'greenie' actually gain from fabricating such a myth?
Note that the ABC board features none other than Keith Windschuttle, who has also denied that Aborigines were massacred by white settlers.Friday wrote:interesting article in the age today about the great global warming swindle. what a pile of shite it sounds like.
(personal opinion there before i piss anyone off)
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... 87356.html
From a financial perspective, sure, I can see how they really isn't a lot of money to be made from pushing the greenie agenda, or maybe there is but the reality is you can make heaps more money from being a fossil fuel guzzling uberconsumer.
But I would argue that greenies don't want money. They want to live in a healthier environment. Is it not possible that some of them aren't above fabricating a myth or two to achieve this?
I'm not saying that I think Global warming is a myth, I don't think I have the training, knowledge or the inclination to jump into that one.
He's climbing in your windows, he's snatching your people up.
-
saintberry
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 2:17 pm
I thought that was pretty classic. Here is a list of technology I can think of (off the top of my head) that is related to the climate change debate:The global warming hypothesis has failed every relevant experimental test. It lives on only in the dreams of anti-technologists and population reduction advocates. The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.
Carbon sequestration
Geothermal energy
Solur energy
Wind turbines
Hydrogen engines
Hybrid cars
More efficient and powerful internal combustion engines
Safer nuclear power plants (to an extent)
The list goes on and on - hardly low tech to develop.
What I don't get is why people are so scared about the cost associated with acting on climate change. We are moving on from burning fossel fuels to another more sustainable form of energy. If we were as scared as we are now at the dawn of the industrial revolution... there wouldn't have been one.
You can make money of anything there is demand for - so governments, create the demand through legislation (carbon tax) and use market forces to fix the problem for you.
First you get her name. Then you get her number. Then you get some get some in the back seat of a hummer!