Silkroad Online Forums

So you come back to me with a record low in the antarctic melt rate (which says nothing for the overall shitty state of things) and Gore canceling his conference.

Nice straw-man.

no offense zen, as i can see where you were trying to go with what you were saying, but it can be and was easily picked apart. just because last year was the lowest of X years doesnt necessarily mean it wasnt still a high amount of melting. i dont know the facts, nor am i supporting anything that he is saying.

carbon emissions has nothing to do with pollution?
el oh el

Also, the taxation is a form of forcing change upon compaines that are negatively contributing to our environment. Like any business would, the taxation would lead to ways of finding better technology. No business wants to be taxed for something they can change. Because of this, the adoption of cleaner technology would be acclimated to their company.

Just saying

Code: Select all
Sorry if already posted, didn't feel like checking through 6 pages of text.

no problem cell
Reise is saying glacial ice caps from the artic are melting and never comming back,

In the Artic south of me the ice see's sun only 6 months of a year, 6 months of that year is pure darkness and tempratures are around -67 degrees, that would mean in the winter global warming would have to be +67 degrees? to continue melting glaciers, in the summer the sea ice does recede and no its not alarming its a yearly cycle, there is 14 million square kilometres of ice
down there, so in the summer when the news media says OH NO the ice is melting at 50 cubic meters per second it sounds frightening doesn't it? it does if you don't know the mass of the land, i hope that at least gives some perspective.

it looks like global warming May be out the window and the fear mongers are trying to ride the wave of the 10 year cooling and are now saying

"Earth could plunge into sudden ice age
No time to React"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34242705/?GT1=43001

We already established that it gets below freezing in the winter, Zen. Overall warmer temperatures contribute to the melting.

The reason people are talking about a small ice age occurring is because of the sudden cooling all of that extra water is going to produce around the world.

From the article you posted:

Perhaps you should revisit it then. I read most of it and the sensationalist thread title and much of the attitude inside counter to what you say. Perhaps tone them down a bit and your point may be clearer.



Fix what? Global warming or the overtly narrow view many have on the subject? I think it will help the former though the latter can only happen with education and real discussion. And BTW calling it "phony global warming" is part of the problem here. It exists. It is real. It has been shown independantly. And the scientists mentioned in the article while bad in no way invalidate all the other data nor even their own per se. You wanna argue that is it not just CO2 fine. I frankly agree. But I don't think what has been happening is bad. Maybe to narrow focused. But it is a step in the right direction.



Where china and india are concerned here it is all about money. They view all these other countries asking them to use modern technology to protect the environment as hypocritical. Europe and the US both used child labor and fouled the environments around them as they industrialized. They feel that unless they are allowed to do the same they will be forever held back. Never mind that what we have today was not avalible back when europe or the US industrialized. It is not cheap for anyone to do this in the short term. We are having to force it on our industry here as well. It is little surprise that they would resist.



Thing is we need both. We can debate all day about where it would be better spent etc and never reach concensus. What good will it do us to have the technology if no one will use or buy it. Taxation creates a market and demand where there was none. Nuff' said

Ah! I was about to post this video.. I bet no one watched it.

^I watched it, but did zen/dlur? :o

Doubt it.

he's the kind of person that only hears what he wants to hear

I've seen it before it was posted by you, but I only watched 2 min, then boredom striked. Now I wasted 10 min of my life, and guess what? Irrelevant. They're pathetic, trying to find a way to be in control again, but too late, too many people have opened their eyes already. I was never fully convinced by Al Gore's stupid drama movie ever since 9th grade, so whatever, nothing new under the sun for me.

you kids are still amazing to me, everyone around me agrees it's a hoax, only the SRF little geniuses think they know science and have made out of global warming some sort of religion.. which is creepy like hell

Go ahead keep drinking the Kool Aide.

I am doing graduate studies in a ecology fish lab, and climate change is pretty real according to annual lake temperature and fish species composition over the last 50 years or so.

common people, you know the media, it takes something really small and over exaggerates. Don't just believe what the media tells you to believe or your friends. There's always another side to an argument.

lol yes the polar ice caps melting is a myth..LOL

Wut? Everyone around me agrees smoking dope and getting wasted every night is OK while they pursue their undergrad degrees. Everyone around me believes all Muslims are the devil. Everyone around me believes their religion is the only way into heaven. Etc Etc Etc... Your logic there sucks.

Kinda like the media is doing by only reporting on a select few excerpts from the emails and then falsely representing them?

Exactly. I mean look at Tiger Woods. All the news is ruining his reputation. But are they reporting the satisfaction that he go out of all of these women he was with? Hell no! It is the stupid media that is ruining everything.

All jokes aside, global warming is around us. You cannot look at PHYSICAL evidence and then claim that we are making it up. That is just silly and ignorant.

But seriously, Tiger, keep it up

my logic makes me wonder what planet you guys are coming from... no, I didn't mean it as in "I think this way because everyone else does", it was just an observation. If they were as brainwashed as the people here, I'd still wouldn't give up my ideas and thoughts. Looks like the bunch of sheep is everyone else here.


I was just saying that I don't see a 100% physical evidence of what they call global warming.. climate change =/= global warming? it's a natural cycle? I wont start the pollution thing again, don't want to repeat myself over and over again..

Climate change does equal global warming. Global warming doesn't only mean that the world is becoming warmer. It means that drastic changes are happening all around the globe in which climate is not the same. Global warming is a form of climate change in which things are not the same as they used to be. In some cases areas can become colder. Global warming also means that weather patterns are changing at a rate that was not once seen before. We are experiencing severe changes in our world, whether that maybe droughts in one area, and downpours in others.

Global warming is not only the warming of the planet, but more of another term to describe climate change.

Also, for your point on it being natural. We are not the only cause of climate change. Don't be mistaken by this. However, we are a factor that has accelerated the rate at which our climate is changing. Our actions have resulted in faster changes in our earth than we would have once projected many many years ago.

I can't imagine anyone that went to college and took a science class past the 2000 level, sophomore standards, and doesn't think Global Warming is real.

Most likely, it's just a bunch of 10-year-olds on this forum or high school dropouts that are stuck thinking it's a hoax. Reading some of the "global warming is BS" posts here is almost as bad as watching that video of the redneck confusing Obama for Osama... ignorance at its best.

As I said before, the thing with global warming is that it fits current models, and it is in our best interest to act ahead of time against it.



If you want 100% physical evidence, you must not have taken many science classes. Most of science is based on calculations or empirical evidence. Fundamentals laws are able to be tested, but the further you go out with more complex systems, it is impossible to gather full empirical data of all the factors involved. If you insist on physical evidence, feel free to jump into a black hole and let me know if you really get a time distortion as you are pulled apart.

Global warming is currently proven via chemistry and climatology. Chemistry proves that the gases we are emitting either have a harmful effect in our atmosphere, last for longer times than normal, or are capable of retaining more longwave radiation (heat). Climatology shows that there has been a rise in temperature, although it is fluctuating. It is harder to show boom here is data that shows we have been increasing in temperature at a steady rate for the past 30 years. The earth's climate is not just based on heat from the sun. We must take into account ocean currents, solar patterns, etc. The earth could be heating up due to greenhouse gases, but it may look like it was cooling down from the temperature due to a colder event such as el nino, a large volcanic eruption, or decreased solar activity. There are too many factors involved, not just our atmosphere + a constant sun emitting constant energy.

Hope that wasn't too hard to read. ~Cheers~

OMFG CANT STOP LAUGHING LOOOOOOOOOOOOL

The debate really is not About Climate Change is it?
Climate Change has been a Naturally occurring process since Forever,
The Debate is or should be is Climate Change anthropogenic?, Meaning are Humans the cause of unnatural changes in climate since the industrial revolution?

The answer i believe is NO, Anthropogenic warming is a fraudulent science in my eyes,
In the years 900–1300 scientists called this period The medieval warming Period
With temperatures Higher than seen in the 21st century, extensively researched by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas in there 2003 Climate Research paper,
We can see from there temp Graph that for 500 years the world was at its warmest point in the last 2k years wich was followed by what is known as *The little Ice Age wich ended in 1850, the term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.

This Research Clearly does not support the theory of Anthropogenic warming does it?
Originally, even the IPCC (Intergovernmental panel of climate change)accepted that pre-20th-century analysis. In fact, the 1990 First Assessment Report used the The Medieval Warming Period
in there Graphs

But it wasn’t until the 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR) that the Medieval Warming Period simply vanished. This multi-proxy reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature anomalies appeared in chapter 2, page 134 of the Working Group 1 (WG1) report.


SO now the IPCC has completely dismissed the Medieval warming and replaced it with what is known as the Hockey stick graph, as quoted from Michael E. Mann, *a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP",
Is the Graph quite self explanatory of what he means by *Contain the medieval warming peroid*?


Has the IPCC been hiding temp data? if so why?

Whats in the Treaty at Copenhagen?
17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:]
(a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees;
What does that mean? Lets use USA as a example,
The Copenhagen Treaty proposes that every advanced country be taxed on its GDP. The tax is to be 0.7%. Such a tax on the U.S. economy with a 2008 GDP of $14.26 trillion would be $99.82 billion,
Who Profits from the Treaty at Copenhagen? Here's one example,
In Europe, power generators have been charging customers for these permits even though they received them for free. This practice has earned some of the heaviest emitters of CO2 billions of extra euros since 2005.
Europe’s power companies are set to receive up to 71 billion euros (or roughly $90 billion) over the next four years, according to Point Carbon and WWF . And because permits still will be given away for free in parts of Eastern Europe after 2012, the windfall profits are set to continue for coal generators there until at least 2020.

What about saving the planet?
Scientific evidence now points to global cooling, contrary to U.N. alarmism
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... 55392.html

What about all the Evil Carbon in the atmosphere?
Here is a Pretty Good visual representation of what 15 parts per million of carbon dioxide looks like,It may not be Awsome CGI but this is what copenhagen and al gore are making such a fuss over, This is the visual demonstration for the Carbon footprint of humanity
Code: Select all

This Propaganda of anthropogenic Warming to me looks like a way to exploit the gullible people into accepting a Guilt based taxation on humanity, Climate Change i beleive is Very real, and a very natural phenomena,
Humans Breath out c02 and plants + trees turn c02 into oxygen for us, If copenhagen gets it treaty signed than humans will be taxed literally for breathing, a wet dream of the British empire

holy crap i wrote a ton, if you read all of what i wrote, than thanks for your time

zen and dblur would it harm you to check what points that video made seen it and checked myself it fits

iv also looked into your points some of what you say does have credit shock horror horror but not as much as you think.

im not going to start bring my own points into this but if i can look though both sides points why cant you?

just read though the emails 1 by 1 and post what you find its simple you have been doing it anyways just this time your not letting someone else read them first, iv read about 100 before i got shit bored not much in them to prove or disprove any point but hey im just posting as neither side is really taking into consideration each others points.

btw most scientists argue the effect of what we put into the atmosphere not the quantity keep in mind there a lot of fragile eco systems in the world

Considering all the other things Great Britain bans I wouldn't be surprised.

Regardless, there are real world foundations behind all of these graphs. Unless you believe scientists would willingly lie to our faces when the evidence is still there.

@ Zen

That medieval warming you speak of, was centered across central europe. China and south america experienced cooling during that period. Just FYI. At least that's the data from one of the weather modules my gf did.

heya Goseki

sediment cores have been used with pretty good accuracy recording temperatures in both northern and southern hemispheres during the medieval warming periods, theres alot of great research done with sediment cores for temp readings,
thats my understanding whats your take on sediment cores? does your gf get to use them in her modules also?
http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/sum ... rctica.php

lol i actually use to be a firm believer in Global Warming, Im not ashamed to admit that
and im not afraid to think differently about it now, I can understand that you may think im close minded or one sided on this issue,
Ive personally fallen into many many rabbit holes learning about climate change, Science once was a critical sport and that criticism kept science Honest, But now, man, science is taking steps to becoming a Religion, I came out and criticized the science of Global warming and for that im a conspiracy theorist, a nutter, a ignorant non thinking defiler LOL, I hate to think were science is going to be in 10 years if all this corruption is allowed to continue unquestioned, Ok moving onward,
I did look at the video that john doe posted,
He focuses on 2 emails one of them probably the most well known one being spread on the MSM, ill post it in a spoiler so its easy to reference

in his video potholer54 focuses in on the wording, he searches the word *Trick* *Decline and *Hide* He finds the word Trick in other literature wich satisfies him, now onto the word *decline* he believes the word decline refers to whether or not tree ring data was accurate enough to use for gauging temperatures? and the word hide, Well he makes it all sound very logical and almost apologetic, Nothing interesting here folks just moove along is the message i take from the clip,

How about taking into account not only the words in the email and look at the date it was sent,
Tue, 16 Nov 1999, now how about the title of the email, *Diagram for WMO Statement*

Yeah ok checking that out gives us this,
,
Is there anything significant about the graph? Hey what waaaiiit The Medieval Warming period has Dissapeard, WTF were did it GO? only one way to find out and thats to check out the WMO report,
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/ ... wmo913.pdf
Oh Ok it all makes sence, everything is ok they give one mention of the MWP, They say that the Tempratures back than of Both the MWP and Little ice age are barely recognizable in the few Reconstructions Available,

Oh ok that's totally fine its not like global tempratures 1 thousand years ago that was hotter than temps today could effect peoples judgments on anthropogenic warming could it?
lol and not to mention other scientific bodies around the world who were mystified by not only the dissapearance of the MWP and Little ice age, but also the sudden hockey stick rise in temperature were Not aloud to see the science of all this, Having there Freedom of information requests Denied, rejected, unanswered and called Conspiracy nuts for daring to question the United nations panel on CC,
So you asked for my opinion on the youtube video, and i couldnt agree more that there is nothing going on here, The words Hide, Decline and Trick are totally justifiable, and silly people like myself thought the IPCC maybe was trying to hide something
potholer54 obviously totally debunked the whole of ClimateGate by focusing in on a few words,
What a amazing Mind certianly he should be up for a Nobel Peace Prize over this,

Man its so hard for me to see the extent of what has been ignored by the scientific community and accept all this propoganda as factual,
This is what happens when the IPCC gets paranoid, This was in may this year and this climate scientist THE best we had in NZ, Got Fired for talking to the Media about the weather.
And it was his work that helped Al Gore get the nobel peace prize in 2007.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/niwa/news/art ... 320&pnum=1
Sacking of Salinger a step too far

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenh ... edges.html


On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.
"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."
And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."
The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.
As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change "Truth Squad." The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.
At the takeaway pizza end of the spectrum, Copenhagen's clean pavements are starting to fill with slightly less well-scrubbed protesters from all over Europe. In the city's famous anarchist commune of Christiania this morning, among the hash dealers and heavily-graffitied walls, they started their two-week "Climate Bottom Meeting," complete with a "storytelling yurt" and a "funeral of the day" for various corrupt, "heatist" concepts such as "economic growth".
The Danish government is cunningly spending a million kroner (£120,000) to give the protesters KlimaForum, a "parallel conference" in the magnificent DGI-byen sports centre. The hope, officials admit, is that they will work off their youthful energies on the climbing wall, state-of-the-art swimming pools and bowling alley, Just in case, however, Denmark has taken delivery of its first-ever water-cannon – one of the newspapers is running a competition to suggest names for it – plus sweeping new police powers. The authorities have been proudly showing us their new temporary prison, 360 cages in a disused brewery, housing 4,000 detainees.
And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning.
At least the sex will be C02-neutral. According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.
The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus. Many of the participants do not really need to be here. And far from "saving the world," the world's leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent.
Instead of swift and modest reductions in carbon – say, two percent a year, starting next year – for which they could possibly be held accountable, the politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office.
Even if they had agreed anything binding, past experience suggests that the participants would not, in fact, feel bound by it. Most countries – Britain excepted – are on course to break the modest pledges they made at the last major climate summit, in Kyoto.
And as the delegates meet, they do so under a shadow. For the first time, not just the methods but the entire purpose of the climate change agenda is being questioned. Leaked emails showing key scientists conspiring to fix data that undermined their case have boosted the sceptic lobby. Australia has voted down climate change laws. Last week's unusually strident attack by the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, on climate change "saboteurs" reflected real fear in government that momentum is slipping away from the cause.
In Copenhagen there was a humbler note among some delegates. "If we fail, one reason could be our overconfidence," said Simron Jit Singh, of the Institute of Social Ecology. "Because we are here, talking in a group of people who probably agree with each other, we can be blinded to the challenges of the other side. We feel that we are the good guys, the selfless saviours, and they are the bad guys."
As Mr Singh suggests, the interesting question is perhaps not whether the climate changers have got the science right – they probably have – but whether they have got the pitch right. Some campaigners' apocalyptic predictions and religious righteousness – funeral ceremonies for economic growth and the like – can be alienating, and may help explain why the wider public does not seem to share the urgency felt by those in Copenhagen this week.
In a rather perceptive recent comment, Mr Miliband said it was vital to give people a positive vision of a low-carbon future. "If Martin Luther King had come along and said 'I have a nightmare,' people would not have followed him," he said.
Over the next two weeks, that positive vision may come not from the overheated rhetoric in the conference centre, but from Copenhagen itself. Limos apart, it is a city filled entirely with bicycles, stuffed with retrofitted, energy-efficient old buildings, and seems to embody the civilised pleasures of low-carbon living without any of the puritanism so beloved of British greens.
And inside the hall, not everything is looking bad. Even the sudden rush for limos may be a good sign. It means that more top people are coming, which means they scent something could be going right here.
The US, which rejected Kyoto, is on board now, albeit too tentatively for most delegates. President Obama's decision to stay later in Copenhagen may signal some sort of agreement between America and China: a necessity for any real global action, and something that could be presented as a "victory" for the talks.
The hot air this week will be massive, the whole proceedings eminently mockable, but it would be far too early to write off this conference as a failure.

i dont know why i bothered i tried not to add an oppinion that supported neither side but even that you pick appart, what im about to say has **** all to do with the argument on global warming

you can look at pure evidence or atleast something that can support ones argument and deny it, you are that focused on your point that anything else said against it is invalid and wrong, you will not accept anything other then what you have said or those who follow you, honestly you and a few others are arguing against the world for one universitys problems which so far are not as big as you thought, its been disproved not only by youtube tards but by top scientists who have read though the emails, not saying in any way thats your totally wrong but im saying you need to alter your theory to fit in with what is currently known thats how science works

next time im keeping quite was no point posting you skipped over what i said and assumed i was against you where i didnt actually say i was for or against any party