Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Global warming: The Three degrees....
    #5517767 - 04/15/06 12:55 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Not the female singing group unfortunately...

Global temperatures will rise by an average of 3C due to climate change and cause catastrophic damage around the world unless governments take urgent action, according to the UK government's chief scientist.

In a stark warning issued yesterday Sir David King said that a rise of this magnitude would cause famine and drought and threaten millions of lives.

It would also cause a worldwide drop in cereal crops of between 20 and 400m tonnes, put 400 million more people at risk of hunger, and put up to 3 billion people at risk of flooding and without access to fresh water supplies.

Few ecosystems could adapt to such a temperature change, equivalent to a level of carbon dioxide of 550 parts per million in the atmosphere, which would result in the destruction of half the world's nature reserves and a fifth of coastal wetlands
Many of Professor King's predictions come from a report published by the UK's Hadley Centre, a world leader in climate change modelling, called Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change.

Tony Blair wants governments around the world to set a target of a rise of no more than 2C - equivalent to 450ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere - in global temperatures. This has already been agreed as an upper limit by the EU but Prof King said that this agreement would be difficult, given the refusal of the United States to cut emissions and those of China and India rising as those countries develop.

Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said that despondency was not the answer. "George Bush won't be in office forever. When he's gone there will be a change of policy inside the United States.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1754276,00.html


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Alex213]
    #5517806 - 04/15/06 01:09 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

unless bush starts a "nucular" ice-age first...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Alex213]
    #5518080 - 04/15/06 06:04 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

By Bob Carter
(Filed: 09/04/2006)

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.

There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.

On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.

Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?

? Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research

Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main....09/ixworld.html





Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Phred]
    #5518094 - 04/15/06 06:11 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

An op-ed from Bob Carter? Does anyone still take this idiot seriously?

He's comprehensively demolished here:

http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/

Carter offers up the usual misrepresentations of the science: urban heat islands contaminate the surface record (no they don?t), equivocation about the word ?consensus?, the ?hockey stick? is broken (no), ice cores show that warming precedes increases in C02 (only partly), the IPCC summary does not reflect the body of the report (yes it does).



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Alex213]
    #5518095 - 04/15/06 06:11 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.





To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.





Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

Link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220





Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Phred]
    #5518108 - 04/15/06 06:18 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Well that's two infamous global warming deniers you've come up with. Do you have any more?

For anyone who doesn't know, Lindzen charges oil and coal interests $2500 a day for his consulting services, in 1991 Western Fuels paid for his trip to the senate and a speech he wrote denying global warming was underwritten by OPEC.

Take him with the vast amount of salt he deserves.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Alex213]
    #5518116 - 04/15/06 06:24 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

What's your problem? These guys are experts.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Phred]
    #5518121 - 04/15/06 06:25 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

They are shills for the Rovian Oil Empire.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Phred]
    #5518124 - 04/15/06 06:26 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

No, they are very well paid stooges for the oil and fuel industry.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesparks8
general freak
 User Gallery
Registered: 10/22/05
Posts: 443
Loc: Teegeeack
Last seen: 12 years, 25 days
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Alex213]
    #5518283 - 04/15/06 08:43 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

"In the past year, three landmark reports have called into question the Bush Administration's use of science, charging the Administration with regularly censoring, suppressing and distorting scientific analysis from federal agencies and undermining the quality of scientific advisory panels"

http://www.scientistsandengineersforchange.org/integrity.php

"Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him," the story of NASA's top climate change scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Hansen maintained that "officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists."

http://www.pbs.org/now/science/scienceandpolitics.html


--------------------
buy the ticket, take the ride


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: sparks8]
    #5518338 - 04/15/06 09:08 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Global warming cyclical, says climate expert

By Philip Hopkins
June 13, 2005

Carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas and has helped produce the "green" world agricultural revolution, according to an Australian climate expert.

Rob Carter, from James Cook University in Townsville, said the rising level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in recent decades had boosted agricultural crop yields.

"Carbon dioxide is the best aerial fertiliser we know about," he told the Victorian Farmers Federation in Morwell late last week.

Professor Carter, a marine geologist, is research professor in the university's Marine Geophysical Laboratory.

He said the Kyoto Protocol would cost billions, even trillions, of dollars and would have a devastating effect on the economies of countries that signed it. "It will deliver no significant cooling - less than 0.02 degrees Celsius by 2050," he said.

"The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby . . . Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not a scientific body."

To understand climate change, it was necessary to look at the longer record, he said.

Through an examination of material taken from deep below the ocean floor, marine geologists could study layers of earth's history similar to the way a tree's age could be determined by tree rings.

"We are in a relatively warm period today," he said. "But 20,000 years ago, it was as cold as it has ever been - that was the peak of the last glaciation."

Professor Carter said that over 2.5 million years there had been 50 glacial and interglacial periods. Of the past 400,000 years, the earth had been colder for 90 per cent of the time, with briefer warmer periods of about 10,000 years.

He said the earth was now at the end of a warmer period, and reputable climate-change scientists agreed that the climate was going to get colder. The debate was whether it would take tens, hundreds or even thousands of years to occur.

On a shorter time scale, Professor Carter said the earth had broadly got warmer in the modern period, from 1860 to 2000, although it had also been warmer in Roman and medieval times. There had also been a Little Ice Age between 1550 and the 19th century, when the Thames used to freeze over.

A cooling trend took place between 1940 and 1970, when temperatures began to rise again, reaching a peak in 1998. "This coincided with the biggest El Nino in the 20th century," he said.

However, research by the climate research unit at East Anglia University in Britain had shown that the average global temperature had declined since 1998.

Professor Carter said greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide were not causing the earth to warm up. On both annual and geological (up to 100,000-year) time scales, changes in temperature preceded changes in carbon dioxide, he said. This was true even in the famous 1960-1991 graph showing rising amounts of carbon dioxide.

Professor Carter said that without the natural greenhouse effect, the average earth temperature would be minus 18 degrees Celsius, compared with the average of plus 15 Celsius that had nurtured the development of life and civilisation.

Water vapour made up about 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect.

Carbon dioxide was a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for 3.6 per cent of the total greenhouse effect, he said. Of this, only 0.12 per cent, or 0.036 degrees Celsius, could be attributed to human activity.

Climate had always changed and "always will", he said. "The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it."

http://theage.com.au/news/Science/Global...8514924793.html


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Luddite]
    #5518659 - 04/15/06 11:12 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Phred already posted this once. Bob Carter is a notorious global warming denier.

Incidentally he isn't a "climate change expert", he is a marine geologist with a side interest in climate change.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Alex213]
    #5518941 - 04/15/06 12:33 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Everybody who denies global warming is a "global warming denier" and thus not credible in Alex's dogma.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5518998 - 04/15/06 12:48 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Especially the ones being paid by the oil industry.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegregorio
Too Damn Old
Male

Registered: 09/08/05
Posts: 2,831
Loc: Classified
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Alex213]
    #5519711 - 04/15/06 10:52 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I believe that global warming is taking place, or should I say, there does seem to be some kind of global climate change taking place.

But I think it has more to do with the sun burning warmer and the increase in the intensity of solar storms than anything else.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Alex213]
    #5521040 - 04/16/06 01:39 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
Well that's two infamous global warming deniers you've come up with. Do you have any more?

For anyone who doesn't know, Lindzen charges oil and coal interests $2500 a day for his consulting services, in 1991 Western Fuels paid for his trip to the senate and a speech he wrote denying global warming was underwritten by OPEC.

Take him with the vast amount of salt he deserves.




Can you please show me your degree from MIT?


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #5521055 - 04/16/06 01:44 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

If you want to believe a guy being paid by the oil industry then that's your decision.

Just don't expect others to believe it too.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Alex213]
    #5521282 - 04/16/06 02:46 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Which guy is that?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5523260 - 04/17/06 01:12 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Read the thread.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Global warming: The Three degrees.... [Re: Alex213]
    #5523569 - 04/17/06 06:28 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

> If you want to believe a guy being paid by the oil industry then that's your decision.

So instead, I should believe a guy being paid by the environmental groups? Seems to be a double standard here.

I have a pretty simple system for calibrating my bullshit meter. I don't pay attention to pro or con viewpoint. I don't even pay attention to who payed for the study. Instead, I look for a few key words... "global climate change" versus "global warming" for example. Nobody knows what the climate is doing any more than anybody knows what Iran is planning with respect to their uranium enrichment program. We aren't even certain that the climate is changing, though it does seem to be. When I see somebody use "global climate change," I know that this person is keeping an open mind rather than being led by a preconception.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Global Warming: The Final Proof?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
GazzBut 8,770 91 03/12/05 01:27 PM
by Psychoactive1984
* Britain bakes as global warming kicks in
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Alex213 5,972 73 07/26/06 08:20 AM
by Seuss
* Good article on global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
luvdemshrooms 4,997 86 06/10/03 04:56 AM
by Innvertigo
* Global warming nothing but pretend communist conspiracy
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
question_for_joo 10,911 112 08/31/04 07:48 PM
by Gijith
* Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 5,177 75 05/04/03 08:07 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* A look at global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
luvdemshrooms 13,994 119 02/27/04 01:07 AM
by EchoVortex
* Global Warming May Have More Current Affects than Previously Thought Ravus 656 4 01/16/05 09:53 AM
by greensnake316
* human activities responsible global warming 1stimer 418 0 06/22/06 10:50 AM
by 1stimer

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,212 topic views. 3 members, 11 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.023 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.