If you cared to read the study, your questions would've been answered. I was merely commenting on your sources to make a joke in the sense that none of them are the actual study itself and simply skew the truth. If you are going to try and discredit the science behind the temperatures, why not go straight to the study itself and make your own conclusions instead of going to these blogs and getting your information there and taking their word for it? They simply say, "Hey, why aren't t
When you can't disprove the science, try and discredit it through social networking web 2.0 websites! Awesome! Instead of getting your science from crap social networking sites, why not just read the actual study that those temperatures come from and learn why for yourself? You might learn something. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf
[quote who="elonin" reply="5" id="2514818"]On a similar topic I built the Vassari cannon and fired it before sending my force there. Found that it did nothing. Am I doing something wrong? [/quote] Vasari's is mainly a support cannon in the sense that its best effect is that it disables structures at that planet. It will also halt production. So if it is heavily fortified, then it will make it easier to breakthrough. But, don't expect it to destroy anything.
Well insert which ever theory into those parentheses you want to use to which triggered the end of an ice age. My point of the sentence I was trying to make still is conveyed for whatever theory you want to use.
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1066" id="2514625"]Clonmac: See, there is that disconnect. For some reason, AGW supposes that the heated earth is going to "boil off the water" and it is going to leave the eco system. How? The truth is the net effect is not going to change as the water is not going to leave the planet, just move around (which it has done since the beginning of time). That is what Watt is stating and Arnell never explains. [/quote]
[quote who="psychoak" reply="1063" id="2514462"] You're conveniently leaving out your post inbetween there.[/quote] You mean this one that I made? "Agreed, but my comment was in regards to AGW. We were discussing the morals of our excess emissions and so I was strictly referring to as it pertained to AGW. No doubt nature has put tons of CO2 into the atmosphere via volcanic activity. There has also been huge climate swings due to such activity as well." Ok
[quote who="psychoak" reply="1059" id="2514099"] Congratulations, you've posted absolutely nothing in disagreement with the cold, hard reality. The warming effects from five million years of magma build up eroding away a piece of a continent and expelling more CO2 than mankind will ever produce in a short enough length of time to matter is still unexplainable and conflicts with the lack of effect we have now. Possible lesson learned? Going from one thousand ppm to one t
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1055" id="2514032"] There is a clear distortion of the big picture that is the truth. There is a general portrayal (in that article) that global warming will actually bring more water to the masses that need it and that is simply NOT true. I guess it is in how you read it. Clearly what I got from the reading was that while some areas are going to have less water, other areas are going to have more, so in the end, it is a net wash
[quote who="psychoak" reply="1054" id="2514021"] Way to state the obvious, have you heard of context? Now, prove the warming effect after they go off to validate his previous statement that I was responding to. No, you can't use what he said, it's wrong. I'll tell him why right away. While I appreciate that you're making note of it before posting something pointless, you need to realize your mistake and correct the er
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1050" id="2513964"] So the premise, and the point I was contesting you on, that AGW is going to cause massive world wide droughts (implied although not stated) is false. And I would also point out that Watt is not contending that the whole world is going to be milk and honey, only that the hysteria being generated by the AGW crowd is at best misleading and at worse just another example of scare mongering. That is the lesson to take away from this.
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1045" id="2513823"] This is not actually accurate. While some areas will be stressed, others will benefit greatly. To the point that: As a result, the net global population at risk of water stress might actually be reduced. And, that is precisely what Table 9 from Arnell (2004) shows. [/quote] See this is what bothers me the most! This is the exact definition of a straw man argument. That article skews everyt
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1039" id="2513669"]And by ill informed, I was simply pointing out 2 major errors you stated in your post. clearly CO2 (you did not specify Anthroprogenic) has been higher in the past, and clearly nature dwarfs man's ability to pump Co2 into the atmosphere (when it has a mind to). [/quote] 2 errors, they were? As I mentioned, my discussion was in relation to AGW (as it was a direct reply to a conversation about AGW) and thus comparisons to other natural exhau
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1040" id="2513680"] As soon as a proponent of AGW hears a negative word about their religion, they immediately shoot the messenger and label them a "denier". [/quote] Several pages ago you were adamant about claiming that I was generalizing, and now you go and say that proponents of AGW immediately label people as deniers. Your paragraphs are riddled with other generalizations as well when it comes to always "doom and gloom". I a
[quote who="Star Adder" reply="1035" id="2513531"]Well, at least they're admitting that they screwed up. Facing global outcry, Rajendra Pachauri backed down and apologised today for a disputed IPCC claim that there was a very high chance the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035. The assertion, now discredited, was included in the most recent IPCC report assessing climate change science, published in 2007. Those reports
[quote who="psychoak" reply="1034" id="2513509"] Notice how he blithely puts this out with never a thought towards the problem he's facing. Volcano goes off, world cools. So much for the warming effect from all those green house gases they put out, the particulate bombs the shit out of the temperature. Brilliant job not noting the complete lack of a warming effect from Vocanic eruptions. While you're jizzing yourself o
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1025" id="2513061"] I think Mt. Pinatubo, krackatoa, Minoan and many others would disagree with you. [/quote] Agreed, but my comment was in regards to AGW. We were discussing the morals of our excess emissions and so I was strictly referring to as it pertained to AGW. No doubt nature has put tons of CO2 into the atmosphere via volcanic activity. There has also been huge climate swings due to such activity as well. [quote who="Dr Guy"
[quote who="Timmaigh" reply="1021" id="2512837"] OK, my english is not that good, i am not native speaker. Care to explain the difference between cutting and capping the emissions? As far i understand it, both ways mean reduction which i explained will not be good from the economical point of view. [/quote] Sure, no problem. The term cutting emissions is simply a broad term that means the cut back on the emissions we produce. This term does not differentiate between
[quote who="Timmaigh" reply="1017" id="2512796"] The method is not important here: The point is that if you cap emissions, it means the promotion of green tech, which is more expensive and less efficient, despite respectively thanks its added "green" value. Using these new power sources will mean that energy will become more expensive for the consumers, which will mean that anyone will have less money. In the west for the majority of people it might be just a inconvenience, there will ju
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="1016" id="2512780"] Nature makes no value judgments, only we humans do that. [/quote] But, nature didn't put excess CO2 in the atmosphere. Humans did that. So if we end up causing something to suffer (that may be us suffering too), do we take responsibility for it, or do we just chalk it up to nature being nature? Survival of the fittest does not = acceptable. Just because somethings survive and some don't, doesn't make it acceptable. For ex
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1014" id="2512771"] We also know that CO2 has been much higher in the past [/quote] It hasn't!!!!! All of our data shows that CO2 is way higher than it has ever been going back as far as we can with our data. In over 400,000 years, CO2 levels have never risen about 300ppm, and now we are approaching past the 400ppm mark. This isn't even disputed by anyone. So get your facts straight. Also, your claim about the earth being ar
[quote who="Timmaigh" reply="1012" id="2512727"] And that is where you are wrong . Even if cutting emissions is good for environment (which is not sure until our knowledge about climate is complete), it is not good for economy...therefore it is bad solution. It has to be good for both to be a good solution. [/quote] Explain to me how cutting back on emissions is a bad thing again? How is it bad for the economy? I never mentioned any specific method of doing so. So you
[quote who="just_jim" reply="1009" id="2512608"] Not only did it NOT work, now we have both a Mosquito and Love Bugs infestation here. Incomplete Science... fixing something you DON'T fully understand because your "Intentions" were good... People like that start screwing with the atmosphere and global climate could end up murdering millions..... [/quote] Ya, but your comparison isn't quite correct and I hear that a lot from people skeptic about gl
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1001" id="2511818"] We should, but not roll over to the AGW hysteria. It is only through technology that we will be able to clean up the planet, instead of relegating polution to an unsolveable issue. The body AGW religious would have us remove technology until we can do it clearnly. But it is difficult to invent an efficient solar panel using stone knives and bear skins.[/quote] There are mediums to both extremes. I don't think there
[quote who="just_jim" reply="997" id="2511628"] Woah!!! STOP RIGHT THERE!!!! So because I'm a sceptic of what I see to be flawed data and a hidden agenda behind some of the research... I'm irresponsible and support the oil companies?????? SCREW YOU!!! You have NO IDEA who I am or what I do... but because I disagree with your "philosophy" I'm the bad guy??? No my friend, the truely irresponsible ones are the politicans who are
[quote who="Moosetek13" reply="961" id="2509267"]There is yet another flap about the books being cooked to show higher temperatures: http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/40749822.html [/quote] I'm not debating anything here at all, I just wanted to make a comment before that post got buried. I thought it was pretty funny. I am in the middle of watching one of his videos here: http://www.ku
Sins Forums