Leaderboard

Another Earthquake, Tsunami's expected in over 50 countries.

Of course, global warming/climate change has no impact (that we know of anyway) on tectonic plate movements...


BUT, the casual observation(s) made of anecdotal happenstance extrapolated into "proof" that there is no global warming/climate change occurring shows a dangerous predilection toward logical fallacy rather than empirical scientific fact.

How, do you ask, can we have global warming when I have a record cold/snowfall where I live? That's because global warming is CAUSING those weather patterns as counter-intuitive as that may seem.... If you live in North America, the below should explain:

See the NASA Earth Observatory page below:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=42260

As can be seen temperatures in the Arctic regions are HIGHER than normal. This in turn pushes COLDER temperatures further SOUTH in more active weather patterns as can be seen by the display.

Additionally there is a pretty strong El Nino in progress across the Pacific, exacerbated by higher temperatures nearer the equator:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

Net effect on North American weather is to push the prevailing Jet Stream further south than normal - creating colder than normal temperatures - and loading up more moisture into the atmosphere, net effect more cold and snow further south.


 
Speaking of bloviating, touchy-feely dumbasses with psychological issues, here's one of the biggest:

(WARNING!  This article contains vast amounts of Bored & Boring, Need-A-Purpose-In-Life, Rich-Liberal-White-Man-Feeling-Guilty projected guilt trips... just ignore them)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html

snippet:

We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change

By AL GORE
Published: February 27, 2010

It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.

Of course, we would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil. And we would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy — the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century.

But what a burden would be lifted! We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands. We could instead celebrate the naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made a huge mistake.

bla bla bla...
Click to expand...

I'd have to say, "well, Al buddy ol' pal, you can't just wish away the fact that you can't trust "scientific" data from the pro-Global Warming camp: they've been exposed
for the liars they are!"

 
BUT, the casual observation(s) made of anecdotal happenstance extrapolated into "proof" that there is no global warming/climate change occurring shows a dangerous predilection toward logical fallacy rather than empirical scientific fact.
Click to expand...


Sorry jack, but too much "empirical scientific fact" has turned out to be, at best, incorrect and, at worst, flat out falsified.  This theory has gone from "the earth is warming as whole" to "the climate is changing as a whole" to "the poles are changing and making the world colder".  You'll have to forgive me if I don't have a great deal of trust for the global warming scientists.
 
There really isn't enough evidence to prove that humans are causing or even having an influence on the changes we're seeing, and there isn't enough evidence to prove that we aren't having an effect.  But I can tell you for sure that it is normal for the earth to go through changes because it has been constantly changing for millions of years.  If we aren't causing change, then something else is and will continue to have an impact, and there is very little we can do about it. 

The thing is that people's heads have gotten so freaking big, a lot of people want to believe and want us to believe that humans are a lot more powerful than they actually are.  We want to believe that if we were going to get hit by a comet, or if our sun was going to die, or if our global climate changes, that we can do something about it because that makes us feel more secure.  We want to believe that by driving hybrid cars or whatnot that we are doing something good, since we spend most of our lives taking care of ourselves and making obscene amounts of money compared to the starving masses in less prosperous places. 

The folks that want us to be totally gung ho about climate change being our fault are in a position to make a lot of cash (think about it, green industry is HUGE).  Their story of climate change has changed directions numerous times, their "scientific data" they've been using for over a decade has been proven to be fabricated, and frankly, they have made a lot of statements that have been proven wrong.  Even if you go back as far as the original graph that the Kyoto Protical cited as their main piece of evidence way back in the early 90s, it was proven that the graph was totally incorrect because of a computer glitch (I'm not making that up, there was a big write-up about it in National Geographic a few years ago).  If you go back as far as the 70s, the same crowd was saying we were causing an ice age, then in the 90s it was a heat wave, and now its climate change.  Now we find out they've been faking data... There are a lot of great reasons to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and to live cleaner.  Climate change is just not one of them.  Especially because it gives Al Gore an excuse to produce crappy movies and rave about Manbearpig climate change.  Oh yeah, and sell papal indulgences carbon credits. 
 
hannaugh said:
The folks that want us to be totally gung ho about climate change being our fault are in a position to make a lot of cash (think about it, green industry is HUGE). 

...

Now we find out they've been faking data... There are a lot of great reasons to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and to live cleaner.  Climate change is just not one of them.  Especially because it gives Al Gore an excuse to produce crappy movies and rave about Manbearpig climate change.  Oh yeah, and sell papal indulgences carbon credits.
Click to expand...

Precisely.

original
 
Global Warming is like talking politics, religion, or abortion.  It get's just as heated.  For every PhD that claims it's happening, there's another just as qualified PhD saying the opposite and they both have data to back up their claims.  With those 2 camps, I'm in the 3rd.  It's happening, but isn't caused by man, IMO.  Why do glaciers melt?  Why do glaciers freeze to begin with?  Why are there dinosaur fossils in Antarctica?  Why are there marine fossils atop Mt. Everest?  W/out global warming, Sarah Palin could walk to Russia from her house.

FWIW, techtonic movement is claimed by some to be the cause of global warming, kind of.  The rise in volcanic eruptions, the rise in the amount and severity of earthquakes, these are indicators of this movement.  The Himalyas rise 1" a year but are eroded 3/4" a year.  Monsoon Season rains erode the relatively fresh lava rock releasing CO 2.  Volcanoes ain't exactly pumping out oxygen either.  

And yes, warm weather can cause more snow but not in the Death Valley sense but in the Lake Effect sense.  An unfrozen lake can cause it to snow much more than a frozen one.  In the sense, warm does = snow.
 
And I'd like to add that apparently, Al Gore (aka The Goracle) never heard of Rather's Law.

Rather's Law:

(attributed to Dan Rather & his forged documents scandal in '04)

"Any attempt to force misinformation down people's throats via the media, whilst successful in past decades, will ultimately wind up a huge FAILSAUCE stain on your career due to internet exposure."
 
The funny thing is that the greenhouse effect is really good for, well, green things.  People have been going nuts about saving trees and having more plant life around, and added greenhouse effect makes it easier for them to grow. 
 
hannaugh said:
The funny thing is that the greenhouse effect is really good for, well, green things.  People have been going nuts about saving trees and having more plant life around, and added greenhouse effect makes it easier for them to grow. 
Click to expand...

Ya know, yer right.  Excellent observation!~

This climate thing has me so worked up, I think I'm gonna go help things grow out in the back yard.  I'll even take some reading material along!
 
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell
 
hannaugh said:
The funny thing is that the greenhouse effect is really good for, well, green things.  People have been going nuts about saving trees and having more plant life around, and added greenhouse effect makes it easier for them to grow. 
Click to expand...

Even the experts are torn on that.  It may turn crop land into deserts and natural disasters like tornadoes and hurricanes bigger and more frequent.  But, we could thrive in Global Warming compared to an Ice Age.
 
It's funny, I've been following the global warming debate for several years .....

There is no doubt that humans have had an impact.  We've been pumping Co2 into the atmosphere for the last 200 or so years .... since the industrial revolution.  At the same time, we've been systematically eliminating the earth's natural air filters, the forests.

The earth has seen several ice ages, and several dry spells through even recorded history.  There are also more humans on this planet than ever before.  I guess it doesn't matter whether what's happening is natural or man-made, as we now have the technology and ability to do something about it.  That's what's important.
 
There is quite a bit of doubt as to whether or not humans have had any impact.  Additionally, if this is a natural cycle, why would you try to stop it?  And that being the case, do you really believe that man could stop such a cycle on a global scale?
 
Thread officially hi-jacked.  Earthquake to Global Warming, and again it's left to this forum to solve the world's problems.

In the U.S., the air is just as poluted as it was in the dirty 70s when cars didn't have catalytic converters and everyone was driving V8s.  Sure cars are as efficient as they've ever been, but there's more of them on the road.  Every solution only leads to another problem.  A car w/out a catalytic converter polutes with more, but uses less fuel.  A compact fluroescent bulb uses less electricity but the disposal of them has put mercury in the groundwater.  An all electric car that gets power from a fossil fueled plant polutes more than if that car had just done the poluting itself because of the waste converting one form of energy to another and the law of diminishing return.  Sure the car has fewer or no emissions, those emissions are just shifted to the plant that made the power.  I'm convinced nothing is "Green."  It's just someone else has weighed the 2 evils and chosen the lesser of the 2 so we can sleep better at night because we're "Green."  For everyone driving a Prius, there's a Volkwagen that gets better mileage with diesel.  IMO, trash isn't an environmental concern but has been manipulated as such.  Whether an aluminum can and cigarette butt is on the side of the road or in a land fill, there is the same environmental impact but on the side of the road it's an eye sore, therefore an environmental issue.
 
The thing that cracks me up about hybrid cars is that they carry a huge battery in them that eventually becomes a huge amount of toxic waste.  And the mines that are being tapped to get the stuff to go into those batteries aren't so great for the environment either.  So really, they don't do much good, if any. 

It should be interesting to see what happens in the next decade with car technology.  A while ago there was a company that claimed to have designed an honest to god air car, but I guess that has been proven to be less efficient than what they were saying.  They are still working on it though.  Then there's that Doug Pelmear guy who I really hope is legit, because that would mean we could have cars that get 110 mpg within the next few years. 

At least we're finally going to build a new nuclear plant after so many years of idiots who know nothing about nuclear power railing on about how bad it is. 
 
Considering Al Gore, Mr. Global Warming, has a bigger carbon footprint (I f***ing hate that phrase) than most of his followers combined, I find it hilarious when he tries to lecture anybody about what they do.
 
Lucky #007 said:
Considering Al Gore, Mr. Global Warming, has a bigger carbon footprint (I f***ing hate that phrase) than most of his followers combined...
Click to expand...

And there's this for proof:

frozen-gore-alaska.jpg


 
hannaugh said:
At least we're finally going to build a new nuclear plant after so many years of idiots who know nothing about nuclear power railing on about how bad it is. 
Click to expand...

I hope you are right but I don't think the so-called green movement will ever let a nuclear plant to be built without lawsuit after lawsuit blocking its construction.
 
yeah but if the U.S. and other nations switch over to nuclear power then it would put all of the workers at coal and oil plants out of work. Fusion is a much more efficient source of power but it comes down to the same reasoning
and std custom, cigarette butts are considered an environmental issue because they get into the rivers and every so often a fish eats one and it ends up on someone's dinner plate and nobody likes that    :laughing7:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top