[x]

See Where You Rank in Virginia

  1.  
    Originally Posted by userid363 View Post

    pretty sure that the rate of increase in temperatures is unprecedented.

     
    Originally Posted by rcrane082985 View Post

    and pretty sure thats incorrect

    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...:0&tx=69&ty=37

    That chart doesn't address the issue. At all

     
    Originally Posted by rebelfd View Post

    so you're saying this man is not a profiteer? Thanks for setting the record straight. I don't believe we're in imminent danger of self destruction, and I don't care what yut or any other scientist says.

     
    Originally Posted by rcrane082985 View Post

    You guys are ridic trying to act like people who don't eat up MMGW are against science. Despite what al gore tells you, there are two sides to the science! IM sure there are people who do say science be damned. Those people are called morons.

    Hey rebel, rcrane just called you a moron
    Add userid363 to Rail
  2.  
    Originally Posted by rcrane082985 View Post

    You guys are ridic trying to act like people who don't eat up MMGW are against science. Despite what al gore tells you, there are two sides to the science! IM sure there are people who do say science be damned. Those people are called morons.

    Straight from the IPCC itself
    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ed=0CBYQ9QEwAA

    and another...
    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ed=0CB4Q9QEwBA

    just a coincidence that CO2 has pretty much exactly filled the void for less solar output?

    pretty sure my post was in direct response to a person who said "i don't care what byut or any other scientist says". by definition, that guy is against science.

    Also, you;'re the arm chair scientist. you have a degree in google, why don't you tell me the answer?
    Add p00pymcp00perton to Rail
  3.  
    Originally Posted by p00pymcp00perton View Post

    Also, you;'re the arm chair scientist. you have a degree in google, why don't you tell me the answer?

    Oh dear. He may have a degree in Google, but you and UD are the Deans. UD is actually Dean of Wikipedia on 2nd thought.
    Add jetsjets1028 to Rail
  4. So your saying that the warming that co2 is responsible for, doesnt look like the warming that was there before co2? i guess just no comment? This was aimed at whats his face anyway.. err.. userid, he was saying the rate of warming was unprecedented, i was simply using an IPCC graph or 2 to dispel that rumor. U see?
    Edited By: rcrane082985 Nov 23rd, 2010 at 04:17 AM
     
    Add rcrane082985 to Rail
  5.  
    Originally Posted by p00pymcp00perton View Post

    As for your earlier funding comment about people afraid to lose their gov't money. lol. who do you think gets paid more, the gov't grant guy or the private research people who get money from heartland and other private sources? hmmmm.

    does this mean the government funded researchers value their paychecks any less?
    Add ginwilly to Rail
  6.  
    Originally Posted by rcrane082985 View Post

    So your saying that the warming that co2 is responsible for, doesnt look like the warming that was there before co2? i guess just no comment? This was aimed at whats his face anyway.. err.. userid, he was saying the rate of warming was unprecedented, i was simply using an IPCC graph or 2 to dispel that rumor. U see?

    I'm saying that you posted a link to a chart showing only temperatures from the 1900s. No relevance as the argument is the 18??s vs. eons ago
    Add userid363 to Rail
  7. Umm yeah it has perfect relevance, as your IPCC only holds us responsible for warming since the 70's. Now you understand my point?
     
    Add rcrane082985 to Rail
  8.  
    Originally Posted by ginwilly View Post

    does this mean the government funded researchers value their paychecks any less?

    no, but they have greater profit motive to prove global warming a myth than to toe the alleged scientific conspiracy line.

     
    Originally Posted by jetsjets1028 View Post

    Oh dear. He may have a degree in Google, but you and UD are the Deans. UD is actually Dean of Wikipedia on 2nd thought.

    UD and I act like experts in fields we have no experience in based on google searches? Link?
    Add p00pymcp00perton to Rail
  9.  
    Originally Posted by rcrane082985 View Post

    Umm yeah it has perfect relevance, as your IPCC only holds us responsible for warming since the 70's. Now you understand my point?

    Now you're getting closer to those people that say "it's cold out, lol@ global warming." If you look at a much, much larger sample size, the warming trend is unprecedented.
    Add userid363 to Rail
  10. Really? UD acts like less of an expert than i do? Didnt think that i came off so arrogant, my bad.
    Guess i cant get it right, i use Heartland citing, im told that they arent credible. I use IPCC graphs, they arent good enough either. Oy
    Edited By: rcrane082985 Nov 23rd, 2010 at 04:43 AM
     
    Add rcrane082985 to Rail
  11.  
    Originally Posted by userid363 View Post

    That chart doesn't address the issue. At all

    Hey rebel, rcrane just called you a moron

    Check my previous posts on the subject, if we're anywhere close to IPCC/Al Gore predictions shouldn't we already be dead? Isn't there a point of no return as well? Why care if it's all written in scientific stone, we're gonna die, so let's get some hookers and blow, screw the planet.
    Add rebelfd to Rail
  12.  
    Originally Posted by p00pymcp00perton View Post

    UD and I act like experts in fields we have no experience in based on google searches? Link?

    My internet is broken, remember.
    Add jetsjets1028 to Rail
  13. I didn't read any part of this thread, but OP did start this thread to give Gore credit for being the only professional liar to admit to being a professional liar, right?

    Didn't think so.
    Edited By: Autolobotomist Nov 23rd, 2010 at 04:45 AM
    Add Autolobotomist to Rail
  14.  
    Originally Posted by jetsjets1028 View Post

    My internet is broken, remember.

    lol you are on a fucking roll tonight.
    Add p00pymcp00perton to Rail
  15. J E T S

    Jets Jets Jets!!!!!!!
    Add jetsjets1028 to Rail
  16.  
    Originally Posted by rcrane082985 View Post

    Really? UD acts like less of an expert than i do? Didnt think that i came off so arrogant, my bad.
    Guess i cant get it right, i use Heartland citing, im told that they arent credible. I use IPCC graphs, they arent good enough either. Oy

    Hey, man, I'm trying to have an equal-footed debate with you, and look at all the evidence you put forth. I know the comment wasn't aimed at me, but you know better than to let a few offhand comments in OT get to you.

    As for your IPCC charts, you are comparing some decades in the 1900s to others in the 1900s and you know that forecasts can't be that accurate. We are talking about sweeping changes that take decades, which is why people won't take the issue as serious. They need an immediate cataclysmic effect to mobilize. Anyway, I've posted the graph before, and will here again, and you will say gg credibility b/c it lacks the MWP, but many other scientific peer-reviewed papers hold that this graph is accurate:

    Add userid363 to Rail
  17. Has anyone seen my hockey stick?????
    Add jetsjets1028 to Rail
  18.  
    Originally Posted by rcrane082985 View Post

    Why dont u say anything about what i said about IPCC funding? Im not sure ive ever really defended the heartland institute. Just was citing them, because they had an article in which they quoted ACTUAL scientists.

    IPCC papers are written by VOLUNTEERS. IPCC is simply a giant literature review and compilation of current research (mostly conducted by universities).

    I just got back from the gym, trying to read thread, respond, and make dinner. Will do my best
    Add Hoooo to Rail
  19.  
    Originally Posted by brianyut View Post

    IPCC papers are written by VOLUNTEERS. IPCC is simply a giant literature review and compilation of current research (mostly conducted by universities).

    uh-oh, Rcrane bout to go "doesn't matter anyway, if it's true, we're doomed"
    Add userid363 to Rail
  20.  
    Originally Posted by rcrane082985 View Post

    You guys are ridic trying to act like people who don't eat up MMGW are against science. Despite what al gore tells you, there are two sides to the science! IM sure there are people who do say science be damned. Those people are called morons.

    Straight from the IPCC itself
    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ed=0CBYQ9QEwAA

    ummmm.... from the website that this picture is hosted on:

     

    The bad news is that our goose is already cooking, and the longer-term consequences of our environmental predicament seem dire and inevitable. It as if we have dialed up the oven and have no way to dial it back down. Whatever we do today, the heat will linger and the bird will continue to roast. Like it or not, the heat is on. This is a challenge whose solution requires that we think and act in new ways across unfamiliar time frames, borders, languages, and cultures. Forget short-term solutions. Any hope for improvement calls for immediate and dramatic changes that, at best, will yield only gradual and ambiguous results. Improvements will be measured not in years or even decades but in lifetimes.

    The IPCC’s science-based conclusions and the visibly dramatic weather-related anomalies of the last few years are the sort of thing that are finally getting through to the public and undermining the credibility of doubt-mongerers. But why has it taken so long to get this far? How has it happened that we humans have been for so long obliviously turning up the heat in our own oven? And why aren’t we taking dramatic steps to begin addressing the causes of this planet-altering and species-threatening tragedy?

    We humans think we see clearly all relevant causal factors, though many are all but invisible to us. We have a difficult time identifying, much less monitoring, much less understanding slow and non-salient changes in our environments. We have an aversion for complexity and unanswered questions. We have trouble connecting bad outcomes with benign intentions. We are motivated to deny the existence of threats to our system or to alter our behavior from that to which we have grown accustomed. Those motivations and others are easily exploited by wealthy powerful industries that have made it their business to criticize, mock, and otherwise raise doubts about the emerging scientific consensus.

    Further, the author uses that graph to point out increasing temperatures, which it shows. So... what?

     
    Originally Posted by rcrane082985 View Post

    and another...
    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ed=0CB4Q9QEwBA

    just a coincidence that CO2 has pretty much exactly filled the void for less solar output?

    This is the picture you linked:



    Go on?

     
    Originally Posted by rebelfd View Post

    so you're saying this man is not a profiteer? Thanks for setting the record straight. I don't believe we're in imminent danger of self destruction, and I don't care what yut or any other scientist says.

    and this is exactly the problem. closed mind.

    But, i'll just keep in mind there's no point responding to your claims then. Keep linking heartland to your... wait for it.... heart's content.
    Edited By: Hoooo Nov 23rd, 2010 at 05:05 AM
    Add Hoooo to Rail
  21. ? global temperature changes from early 1900's to 1940's are same rate as 1980's till 2000 no?

    Am i mistaken? are those graphs not from IPCC report? I say IPCC a lot because it means "international panel on climate change". As in, they are the UN's leading authority no?

    Am i mistaken that the IPCC claims we are only responsible for last 30ish years of warming? My whole reasoning for pointing out these graphs is that the latest warming period is not unprecedented.
    Edited By: rcrane082985 Nov 23rd, 2010 at 05:14 AM
     
    Add rcrane082985 to Rail
  22.  
    Originally Posted by rcrane082985 View Post


    Am i mistaken that the IPCC claims we are only responsible for last 30ish years of warming?

    Where did you get that info? I'm actually curious.

     
    Originally Posted by rcrane082985 View Post


    My whole reasoning for pointing out these graphs is that the latest warming period is not unprecedented.

    Why would I post a broad-view hockey-stick graph to show only the last 30 yrs? I though we were waaaaay beyond where you appear to be
    Edited By: userid363 Nov 23rd, 2010 at 05:17 AM
    Add userid363 to Rail
  23. Sure. You'll also notice that the 8 hottest years of direct recordable history occur after 2001. Go on.

     
    Originally Posted by rcrane082985 View Post

    Am i mistaken that the IPCC claims we are only responsible for last 30ish years of warming? My whole reasoning for pointing out these graphs is that the latest warming period is not unprecedented.

    Yes, you are mistaken.

    So, I think I've had an epiphany when it comes to your view point. For you to be convinced that humans are responsible, you'd need to see a straight increasing line since industrial revolution, is this correct?
    Edited By: Hoooo Nov 23rd, 2010 at 05:19 AM
    Add Hoooo to Rail
  24. HUH? The IPCC says that we can only be responsible for the last 30 years of warming, someone in this thread was saying that the warming casued by us 1970's and on is unprecedented. It is not, as warming not caused by us, 1900-1940's is very similar to current, or what used to be, current trends.
    I dont think i really have to say anything with regards to any graph that leaves out medieval warm period.

    This is a graph of co2 and temperature over hundreds of thousands of years....
    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...=1185&bih=1041

    clearly, the current warming is not unprecedented lol
    Edited By: rcrane082985 Nov 23rd, 2010 at 05:29 AM
     
    Add rcrane082985 to Rail
  25.  
    Originally Posted by rcrane082985 View Post

    HUH? The IPCC says that we can only be responsible for the last 30 years of warming, someone in this thread was saying that the warming casued by us 1970's and on is unprecedented. It is not, as warming not caused by us, 1900-1940's is very similar to current, or what used to be, current trends.
    I dont think i really have to say anything with regards to any graph that leaves out medieval warm period.

    um, no, I said that the warming we had recently (by scientific standards, you know, large sample) which somehow you took to mean since the 70s. weird

    To back up even further, are you sure you know what years "medieval" refers to?
    Add userid363 to Rail
  26. Userid, we arent responsible for warming before the 70's according to UN scientists. Warming from the last few decades is not unprecedented.
    Edited By: rcrane082985 Nov 23rd, 2010 at 05:33 AM
     
    Add rcrane082985 to Rail
  27.  
    Originally Posted by rcrane082985 View Post

    Userid, we arent responsible for warming before the 70's according to UN scientists

    for future reference
    Add userid363 to Rail
  28.  
    Originally Posted by brianyut View Post

    and this is exactly the problem. closed mind.

    But, i'll just keep in mind there's no point responding to your claims then. Keep linking heartland to your... wait for it.... heart's content.

    Here's an inconvenient truth, it's nowhere as dire as you or the other liberals would have us believe, and I'm sure deep down you know it as well. Governing and mandating by fear works for liberals, ends justify the means blah blah blah. Could we benefit from preserving natural resources, yes, could we benefit from a cleaner, less polluted planet, yes. Do we really have to scare humanity into believing that unless we change our ways it's calamity for us all, no. You may be the majority in the Scientific world, but nowhere near the majority for all of humanity. I'll say it again if you want to change habits, reward the desired state, don't punish, and don't fear monger.
    Edited By: rebelfd Nov 23rd, 2010 at 05:36 AM
    Add rebelfd to Rail
  29.  
    Originally Posted by rcrane082985 View Post

    HUH? The IPCC says that we can only be responsible for the last 30 years of warming, someone in this thread was saying that the warming casued by us 1970's and on is unprecedented. It is not, as warming not caused by us, 1900-1940's is very similar to current, or what used to be, current trends.

    You're backtracking, so let's get to the point. What would the chart have to look like for your intuition (because that's what you're using, not science -- you said 'that chart and IPCC say we only are responsible for 30 years of warming') to say that the warming was caused by man.

    So, clearly there has to be a chart type that would convince you, or make you think that we're responsible for more than 30 years of warming (basic logical observation from your stated position). What would it look like? I'm not trying to pull an AH-HA question btw. I'm trying to get to the fundamentals of why you believe what you believe, because you're all over the place with links and stuff. Let's just get to the point and talk about it.

     
    Originally Posted by rebelfd View Post

    Here's an inconvenient truth, it's nowhere as dire as you or the other liberals would have us believe, and I'm sure deep down you know it as well. Governing and mandating by fear works for liberals, ends justify the means blah blah blah. Could we benefit from preserving natural resources, yes, could we benefit from a cleaner, less polluted planet, yes. Do we really have to scare humanity into believing that unless we change our ways it's calamity for us all, no. You may be the majority in the Scientific world, but nowhere near the majority for all of humanity. I'll say it again if you want change habits reward the desired state don't punish, and don't fear monger.

    (1) I don't classify myself as liberal. Just technical, is all.
    (2) I'm not advocating any policy mechanism.
    (3) If "calamity" is the objective, scientifically determined future, then I suppose the public should know about it. Truth and scientific consensus aren't fear mongering.
    (4) Not sure what you mean by majority of scientists vs majority of public. One of those populations carries more weight than others w/ regard to science...
    Edited By: Hoooo Nov 23rd, 2010 at 05:39 AM
    Add Hoooo to Rail
  30. First off, was only bringing those graphs to light to show that the warming isnt unprecedented k? They arent fundamental to my arguments. If the graph were to show steeper rising of temperatures than in the past 800k years, i would certainly be more concerned. And please dont show me the hockey stick graph again . As most scientists on the other side say that it is bogus, and it certainly is having neglected MWP, which was likely warmer than today. There is a lot of evidence to support that theory. greenland had little ice, europe, asia, central america, india, all showed signs of great warmth.

    Anyone saying something along the lines of, the 10 hottest years have been in the last 20 or something to that effect, must understand that this argument is null, as we have been warming since temperature couldve been taken so mathematically, i hope that is the case.
    Edited By: rcrane082985 Nov 23rd, 2010 at 05:47 AM
     
    Add rcrane082985 to Rail