Fox
Monument http://www.fateswa
Posts: 368
|
Post by Fox on Mar 22, 2006 9:04:35 GMT -5
I'm not saying whether it is or isn't happening. I'm saying we don't have enough data.
But if it is happening, who's to say man is responsible? (or more like how much is man responsible, its foolish to think the impact is null)
|
|
Sir Van Talvin
Monument http://www.fateswa
The Barbarian at the Ivory Gate
Posts: 460
|
Post by Sir Van Talvin on Mar 22, 2006 20:18:09 GMT -5
I stand corrected, Fox....I think.
Anyhow, I'm all for global warming! Bring it on! #bringiton# With gas prices the way they are let's keep sending those greenhouse gases up into the atmosphere and warm the whole damn planet so we don't have to spend so much money on our damn heating bills! Kill the planet! Kill the planet! #loldevil# Die, Mother Earth,! Die! Die! Die!!! #viking#
|
|
Shark Black
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
AKA Raiderblack
Posts: 1,352
|
Post by Shark Black on Mar 23, 2006 1:07:11 GMT -5
That's a pretty funny graph.... It said oil consumption kept going up but earthquakes leveled off. Weird. Here's the data according to the USGS for the last 20, pretty stable neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/graphs.html
|
|
Fox
Monument http://www.fateswa
Posts: 368
|
Post by Fox on Mar 23, 2006 9:34:34 GMT -5
I stand corrected, Fox.... I think. Anyhow, I'm all for global warming! Bring it on! #bringiton# With gas prices the way they are let's keep sending those greenhouse gases up into the atmosphere and warm the whole damn planet so we don't have to spend so much money on our damn heating bills! Kill the planet! Kill the planet! #loldevil# Die, Mother Earth,! Die! Die! Die!!! #viking# Ever see "The Last Supper"? I think you would relate well to Jason Alexander (aka George Costanza) character in that movie.
|
|
Fox
Monument http://www.fateswa
Posts: 368
|
Post by Fox on Mar 23, 2006 9:52:09 GMT -5
For grins i decided to do a search on "global cooling" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_coolingI skimmed it, the hilarity: 1. in the 70s people were 'greatly concerned' about the global temperature cooling since the '40s. 2. some data supports that some doesn't, some of the graphs contradict each other or make inaccurate comparisons. I mean one compares a 40 year temperature average to a 9 year temperature average (and non consecuatively - not that its a huge difference) but if that doesn't reek of propaganda I don't know what does. 3. (speculating with logic): If the earth was cooling, and is now warming, I doubt man is the cause of both, eh? Perhaps the warming is simply the earth reaching equilibrium from the cooling? I'd be more curious of a measure of man's impact on the environment, if I took a swag: ~5%, I doubt its any more than 20%, I was reading something a few years ago talking about the amount of air pollution put out by a volcano eruption. It made LA look like a safe haven for clean air. Considering glaciers carved the great lakes, I'm sure you could plot global warming going quite a ways back, but we don't have the data, and over a couple hundred years at any given time since then I'm sure you could find similiar variances to what we see in the last 200. But who knows, I find it just as likely it could've peaked higher several thousand years ago and is meerly returning to it now, or returning to what it was millions of years ago. Does anyone honestly know? no.
|
|
SethFWF
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
"Rattle your God damn head!"
Posts: 1,405
|
Post by SethFWF on Mar 23, 2006 16:37:09 GMT -5
That's a pretty funny graph.... It said oil consumption kept going up but earthquakes leveled off. Weird. Here's the data according to the USGS for the last 20, pretty stable neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/graphs.html I didn't notice any leveling off of the earthquakes on that graph, has only gone up...but I know like the quotes Fox put up that every chart(and person who makes them) has an agenda to push, so it's certainly not law. Obviously earthquakes have been around forever, but the overall chemistry of the earth is changing and not for the better. At least not for humans, maybe this is just the beginning of another cycle of the earth...but I still maintain it's naive to think humans aren't really having that much of an affect on the planet and environment. That 20% quote is low-balling for sure, I mean we deplete resources and fill the planet(at least the habitable areas)...how are we not having a bigger affect than that? That's like someone saying, 'I live in my apartment alone, but I have very little affect and take no responsibility for how messy it is'... Seth
|
|
Virtual Scott
Monument http://www.fateswa
At Derek Zoolander School for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Want to Learn to do Other Stuff Good Too
Posts: 291
|
Post by Virtual Scott on Mar 27, 2006 6:44:21 GMT -5
The evidence is overWELMING. UNless you want houses falling on your head... well, that's happening too, just not near you, not yet. Hmmm... I suppose it IS easier to trust your elected officials than the academics and scientists who post the facts daily. The general consensus in the science community is it's unarguable. But hey, this ain't no Chicken Little scenario. I suppose if the sky was falling, that's so immediate you'd have to appreciate the timeliness as proof. But that the evidence of global warming is a more long-term affair... though the speeding up of melting glaciers and flooding in lowland area's is indicitive of the situation.
Another unarguable fact is the influence of human activity on the environment.
Topics for another lifetime, I suppose.
Blinders back on.
|
|
Fox
Monument http://www.fateswa
Posts: 368
|
Post by Fox on Mar 27, 2006 8:03:30 GMT -5
Scott, congratulations, you missed the point entirely.
20-30 years ago 'global cooling' was all the rage, by the same scientific community.
The only new data we have is the last 20 or 30 years. That's it period. The previous few hundred years the data is (drumroll) EXACTLY THE SAME!!!.
We've added a SATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT set to the PRE-EXISTING DATA.
If the previous data said 'global cooling' and you add something that relatively meaningless in the grand scheme you cannot switch the conclusion to global warming, that's assinine. Because you just proved how forking stupid you are, that's it. You're saying 'oops I don't know how to analyze data, so I'm just gonna make another brash decision instead.' When I get 10 more years of worthless data I'll brashly switch my story again.
People who go on and on about global _______ (warming or cooling) are being nothing more than INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.
I can tell you whats wrong with those graphs and evidence, there is some good statistical data out there, but its far too short to make an real claims on.
|
|
Virtual Scott
Monument http://www.fateswa
At Derek Zoolander School for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Want to Learn to do Other Stuff Good Too
Posts: 291
|
Post by Virtual Scott on Mar 28, 2006 8:28:26 GMT -5
Thanks. I hope I atleast can avoid the Naysayer award. I prefer something emblazened in a neon green glow.
I think you are missing the point, though. GW is a continuous phenomena, but not to this degree and how do you argue with science? The overall consensus in the scientific community is that it is occuring at an alarming rate, right now, right here. You would prefer to listen to news pundits and politicians and naysayers over the climatologists, biologists, meteologists and most of the scientific community? They can pretty much pre-date global climate phenomena, from what I've read, as far back as 600,000 years now, and that gives a pretty good idea of what we are up against.
The real evidence is already out there, and there's tons of information to back it up. This isn't speculation, unless you are Cheney or Michael Crichton.
I didn't think I was missing something. It's also unarguable the negative impact humans have on the environment, including the greenhouse effect.
So, what, indeed, is the course of action? Disregard most of the most knowledgeable persons in the field of science on personal speculation? Like I said, the days of the Chicken Little sydrome being equated with GW are long gone.
|
|
Virtual Scott
Monument http://www.fateswa
At Derek Zoolander School for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Want to Learn to do Other Stuff Good Too
Posts: 291
|
Post by Virtual Scott on Apr 3, 2006 16:33:13 GMT -5
Incidentally, the new issue of TIME is almost entirely devoted to the Global Warming phenomenon, and, just in the interest of public disclosure, I did NOT lobby them or bombard them with letters, nor did I write any of the editorials or articles contained within.
|
|