Artic Sea Ice

[xtop]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

LOL. I'll take credible scientific (with peer review) reports as listed above by Rob and Blu-Ray Neo over the ALWAYS factual Wikipedia or all of the left-wing tree-hugging gloom-and-doom websites (including the never-biased mainstream media). Believe what you will, that's your right, but don't use an unproven hypothesis to make policy changes that will cost this country more than you can imagine.

i love how people right off wikipedia right away as if everything posted is 100% false

no citation? dont believe, but come on..

[camper]

Originally Posted by DrinkMore

Oh man, that is downright hilarious! A government conspiracy to keep you down? BWAHAHAHA! Please, don't share that with anyone else. Nobody will take you seriously afterwards.

Out of curiosity, how is that any more rediculous than people who believe the earth has survived billions and billions of years only to be destroyed by the exhaust created from things that have only been around for 90 years at best?

camper

[DrinkMore]

Originally Posted by camper

Out of curiosity, how is that any more rediculous than people who believe the earth has survived billions and billions of years only to be destroyed by the exhaust created from things that have only been around for 90 years at best?

camper

One is plausible and one isn't for starters. Then again, that's just a "hypothesis". :P

We never landed on the moon, 9/11 was a government cover up, now global warming is a government designed planned to keep people "down". Lol. People don't need the government to keep them down - they are doing a damn good job on their own.

[camper]

Originally Posted by xtop

i love how people right off wikipedia right away as if everything posted is 100% false

no citation? dont believe, but come on..

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction

"How can I help? Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold!"

I don't know about you, but it's hard to take something as reliable when ANYONE can edit the information at any given time, without any kind of assurance that the people doing the 'correction' have the education or experience to verify accuracy because you have NO IDEA who they are and their validation process is non-existant.

camper

[camper]

Originally Posted by DrinkMore

One is plausible and one isn't for starters. Then again, that's just a "hypothesis". :P

We never landed on the moon, 9/11 was a government cover up, now global warming is a government designed planned to keep people "down". Lol. People don't need the government to keep them down - they are doing a damn good job on their own.

For the record, I don't believe any of the 3 are government cover-ups but for arguments said the first (faking the moon landing) is certainly far more plausible than global warming.

And while I firmly believe that we need to take care of the environment and be good stewards of it, I don't for a moment believe that we are causing the planet to get warmer and the polar ice-caps are melting because of SUV's, Leer jets, or coal powered cities.

I do believe that global warming is sensationalism that has spread to the scientific community, with many of the proponents hoping to achieve 'rock star' status like Carl Sagan which is why I posted the link to the Crichton essay.

camper

[xtop]

Originally Posted by camper

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction

"How can I help? Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold!"

I don't know about you, but it's hard to take something as reliable when ANYONE can edit the information at any given time, without any kind of assurance that the people doing the 'correction' have the education or experience to verify accuracy because you have NO IDEA who they are and their validation process is non-existant.

camper

like i said..assume everything is 100% false

look for citations!

[DrinkMore]

Originally Posted by camper

For the record, I don't believe any of the 3 are government cover-ups but for arguments said the first (faking the moon landing) is certainly far more plausible than global warming.

And while I firmly believe that we need to take care of the environment and be good stewards of it, I don't for a moment believe that we are causing the planet to get warmer and the polar ice-caps are melting because of SUV's, Leer jets, or coal powered cities.

I do believe that global warming is sensationalism that has spread to the scientific community, with many of the proponents hoping to achieve 'rock star' status like Carl Sagan which is why I posted the link to the Crichton essay.

camper

Ok. All the car exhaust, factory exhaust and all that wonderful coal exhaust spewing into the sky has no effect on anything. None, what so ever.

Continue to live in your own bubble of a world. When it bursts, don't whine.

Lastly, you do remember in school - for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction (sometimes far worse). Right? Or is that just a hypothesis too?

[xtop]

Originally Posted by DrinkMore

Ok. All the car exhaust, factory exhaust and all that wonderful coal exhaust spewing into the sky has no effect on anything. None, what so ever.

Continue to live in your own bubble of a world. When it bursts, don't whine.

Lastly, you do remember in school - for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction (sometimes far worse). Right? Or is that just a hypothesis too?

i dont disagree completely, but how can you prove that one way or another?

[camper]

Originally Posted by DrinkMore

Lastly, you do remember in school - for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction (sometimes far worse).

An equal and opposite reaction will not result in a 'far worse' one. Otherwise, the opposite reaction wouldn't be equal.

camper

[Zvi]

I'm not so sure why would someone give too much credibility to a politician, Al Gore or not about env. and scientific issues. He has/had his own agenda and that movie was part of it.
What a versatile man, invented internet in 90s, now is saving the planet from global warming.
And yes I do give wikipedia a lot more credit than to Gore.

P.S. AFAIK in 70s the issue was the opposite, "Global Cooling" was the menace. Interesting to know how many of those who back then supported/believed that theory are proponents of global warming.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by DrinkMore

Sorry bud, but it does not take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Sometimes the reaction is far greater than the action. You can believe whatever you wish. I believe the greed, ignorance and complete disregard for our actions is what landed us here. Have you no heart for the animals that are currently suffering and will be obliterated because we as a species have a need to rape the natural world of all it's resources for our own ends?

Do you think the stuff that makes your life good grows on trees? (no pun intended). Most of it is dug, blown, milled, smelted, mixed, burned, trucked, refined and so on. The energy, time, materials, resources needed to build the simplest of things is taxing. Multiply that by billions or trillions and the problem is evident.

I am not a gun ho tree hugger by any means. I do however think about how I can change things I do everyday to be better and consume less and create less waste. Recycling is a great start. 90% of everything you throw away, is recyclable. We don't put out trash hardly anymore. It's nearly all recycled items. Tons of recycling goes out. Change your automatic dish washing detergent. Change the chemicals you use to clean your house. We use Method. Buy products made of natural fibers. Rugs made of cotton, sisal, sea grass or recycled materials. We have many of these. Wool, cotton, sisal etc etc. Don't buy disposable items. It's a waste.

See what I am getting at? Sure you might pay a little extra - but so what? Do something good with your money. Show people YOU care. Also realize natural things are more durable and last longer and if you do decide to get rid of them, you can bury them and they will decompose with no impact because they are natural. They go back to the earth.

Then again, I guess it's much easier to whip out who is right/wrong lists, blame everyone else but you. When its just as easy to do what is right instead of complaining.

+1 and well said, DrinkMore!

[GaS]

Originally Posted by DrinkMore

Ok. All the car exhaust, factory exhaust and all that wonderful coal exhaust spewing into the sky has no effect on anything. None, what so ever.

It has no more effect than a forest fire burning somwhere on earth or the random volcano eruption etc. Those have been around for millions of years, and yet life still flourishes.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by quirkmanly

I'm guessing that one person flying in a high performance jet alone is less ecologically efficient than 300+ people sharing the emissions between them.

"One person flying in a high performance jet alone?" Do you mean, in addition to owning (or "renting") his own private gas-guzzling jet, that Al Gore is now piloting that jet himself!? I always thought there was an entourage that flew with Mr. Gore on these events. Also, wouldn't a smaller, lighter plane use less fuel that a commercial jumbo jet?

[Marquoz]

Originally Posted by xtop

i love how people right off wikipedia right away as if everything posted is 100% false

no citation? dont believe, but come on..

I take wikipedia as half factual and half somebody screwing around. I've seen first hand evidence of somebody inserting a fake fact into a wikipedia article and that "fact" then spreading into media and other stories using the wikipedia article as a basis for research. The key to implanting fake facts like that is something that sounds very plausible and is readily believable and not easily disprovable.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by camper

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction

"How can I help? Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold!"

I don't know about you, but it's hard to take something as reliable when ANYONE can edit the information at any given time, without any kind of assurance that the people doing the 'correction' have the education or experience to verify accuracy because you have NO IDEA who they are and their validation process is non-existant.

camper

The Wikipedia article listed links to the magazine articles it quoted from, such as Newsweek, as well as listing the dates those articles were published. It would be a simple task to look up the magazine articles in question to see if the Wiki entry is correct or not.

Originally Posted by camper

And while I firmly believe that we need to take care of the environment and be good stewards of it, I don't for a moment believe that we are causing the planet to get warmer and the polar ice-caps are melting because of SUV's, Leer jets, or coal powered cities.

I do believe that global warming is sensationalism that has spread to the scientific community, with many of the proponents hoping to achieve 'rock star' status like Carl Sagan which is why I posted the link to the Crichton essay.

camper

Carl Sagan was at least a real scientist. Michael Crichton wrote fiction. No wonder the latter won a prize from the global warming deniers.

Originally Posted by Zvi

I'm not so sure why would someone give too much credibility to a politician, Al Gore or not about env. and scientific issues. He has/had his own agenda and that movie was part of it.
What a versatile man, invented internet in 90s, now is saving the planet from global warming.
And yes I do give wikipedia a lot more credit than to Gore.

Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. That's an urban legend and debunked HERE at snopes.com.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by Blu-ray Neo

Where is the unbiased, objective scientific evidence for Global Warming?

What are you using as a baseline for your study/theory that Global Warming is occurring? The last 100 years? Hardly enough time or data to prove anything.

While I'm not against lowering emissions and whatnot, I'm not going to accept something as fact without conclusive scientific evidence. Isn't that what science is? The search for truth?

Has anyone ever thought that the Earth may be on a natural cycle like Mr. Coleman's data suggests?

This planet has been through plate-techtonics, hurricanes, tornados, ice ages, etc, etc. Do you really think that we could do all of this damage? See, I do a real taboo thing in the country.....

It's called "THINKING" and using all of the available evidence to educate myself. I don't take everything that Al Gore and a lot of these other scientists say as scripture. Not when you have some of the top INDEPENDENT scientists and others in the field saying that Global Warming is a farce.

Keep in mind, the power of suggestion is a very valuable/powerful tool if used correctly.


This is the US Government's way of regulating private industry, job creation, and control. It's as simple as that......

Except the Global Warming skeptics aren't independent. They receive funding from such titans of industry as ExxonMobile, for instance. (A leaked memo outlined their plans to stall action on Global Warming.)

Read where the money went here at GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS: A PRIMER.

Your assertion of the U.S. government using this to regulate private industry is laughable. The Bush Administration put political pressure on scientists to downplay Global Warming, even editing their reports. Bush, Cheney and Condi Rice all once worked for in the oil industry. In fact, you have it backwards -- industry controls our government, through lobbyists, paybacks, and secret deals.

[quirkmanly]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

"One person flying in a high performance jet alone?" Do you mean, in addition to owning (or "renting") his own private gas-guzzling jet, that Al Gore is now piloting that jet himself!??

I was suggesting that Al Gore travelling on a private jet that has a capacity of 12 people and uses 1 gallon of fuel per mile is less ecologically friendly than travelling on a 747, which uses 5 gallons of fuel/mile and can accommodate 450 passengers.

Of course, I can't confirm the number of cabin crew on these flights, so you'll probably discount it out of hand.

[camper]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

The Wikipedia article listed links to the magazine articles it quoted from, such as Newsweek, as well as listing the dates those articles were published. It would be a simple task to look up the magazine articles in question to see if the Wiki entry is correct or not.

Write a research paper and quote Wikipedia. See where that gets you in academic circles, or at least ones beyond community college or high school. And since the articles in question are where the 'meat' of the wikipedia entry comes from, and it would be 'so easy' to look them up, then it would be just as easy for someone defending their position to quote the known legitimate source (such as newsweek) rather than one that has a reputation of being an online encyclopedia that "anyone can edit".

Carl Sagan was at least a real scientist. Michael Crichton wrote fiction. No wonder the latter won a prize from the global warming deniers.

Read Crichton's bio, and you'll see his extensive credentials. He was also an MD and a biologist, which are both *gasp* withn the realm of science. Applied science, specifically. Sure, he was also a fiction writer but if you're going to discount him due to that then you'll have to diminish Sagan's credentials because he wrote a fiction novel as well.

But the point of his essay being (since you obviously didn't read it) that there is no vetting process with these climate scientists--those who believe in man-made global warming, are the only ones who are verfying the findings and any research that may prove those findings as innacurate are immediately dismissed because they do not agree with the theory of man-made global warming.

You're attitude towards Crichton's opinion sums up theirs perfectly--you're ready to dismiss whatever Crichton said because of of him being writer and not based on the challenges he presented. Which is (again, if you read it you'd know) what the essay is really about.

camper

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

"One person flying in a high performance jet alone?" Do you mean, in addition to owning (or "renting") his own private gas-guzzling jet, that Al Gore is now piloting that jet himself!? I always thought there was an entourage that flew with Mr. Gore on these events. Also, wouldn't a smaller, lighter plane use less fuel that a commercial jumbo jet?

"Private planes, take for instance your typical commercial jet, a Boeing 737, well, it seats a maximum of 189 people, it burns 800 gallons of fuel per hour and emits 16,880 pounds of carbon dioxide per hour in the air. Now take a Gulfstream 400, one of the more common brands of private jet. Well, it seats a maximum of only 19 people, it burns 415 gallons of fuel an hour and emits 8,785 pounds of carbon dioxide per hour. That means per passenger a Boeing 737 emits 89 pounds of carbon dioxide an hour while Gulfstream and similar private jets emit 462 pounds of carbon dioxide per passenger per hour."

Taken from Sean Hannity, so I know it's not true.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

The Wikipedia article listed links to the magazine articles it quoted from, such as Newsweek, as well as listing the dates those articles were published. It would be a simple task to look up the magazine articles in question to see if the Wiki entry is correct or not.

Carl Sagan was at least a real scientist. Michael Crichton wrote fiction. No wonder the latter won a prize from the global warming deniers.

Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. That's an urban legend and debunked HERE at snopes.com.

Originally Posted by Al Gore

I took the initiative in creating the internet.

Invent, create, the man taking credit for something he had little to no influence over is laughable. I guess since congress is going to force standards on car companies the next batch of presidential hopefuls will claim to have designed cars for Detroit.