General discussion

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2853607

      Not entirely a lie

      by nexs ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      Our actions (ie: substances that degrade the atmosphere — ‘Ozone Hole’ type of thing) have done damage and in-turn will eventually cause it.

      That’s not to say humans are the only contributor.

      • #2852298

        Max knows that

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Not entirely a lie

        he just likes to take an old debate and make it relevant, or try to anyway.

        I think it is fairly common, global knowledge that man did not CAUSE a proven phenomenon that dates back before the existence of human kind.

        As for the ozone hole, NASA and Antarctic expeditions have actually found it has begun reducing in size, and began doing so as man has reduced the carbon footprint.

        • #2852290

          ‘The Footprint’

          by nexs ·

          In reply to Max knows that

          Is of a a very strangely shaped foot, I’d imagine.
          though, as for being before humankind… Does that mean we get to blame the dinosaurs? Damn them and their carbon emitting rockets and vehicles!

          One benefit of less ozone hole is that hot aussie days aren’t going to be as dangerous. Woot.

        • #2852272

          Now try and come up with a logical reply instead

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to ‘The Footprint’

          I didn’t say man caused global warming, thus why would I place blame on dinosaurs or any organism that may have existed billions of years ago.

        • #2852269

          Look on the light side

          by nexs ·

          In reply to Now try and come up with a logical reply instead

          My friend, have a chuckle at an obvious joke, don’t take the world so seriously.

          Of course the Dinosaurs didn’t cause the ozone hole. But what existed before us? That would be dinosaurs….

          Jeez, it’s not much of a joke if i have to explain it…

        • #2852267

          To Oz

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Look on the light side

          One must explain all, joke that he is.

        • #2852261

          True

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Look on the light side

          It was definitely not much of a joke at all

        • #2852258

          Shocked, I tell you

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to True

          Since when does what I have to say matter a whit?

          Matters that you chime in?

        • #2852257

          I will show you

          by nexs ·

          In reply to True

          One of these days. You can’t be humourless forever.
          I will find the ‘Funny Bone’, and when I do…
          :^0

        • #2852256

          Oh

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to True

          He has one.

          Only, he keeps it under wraps.

          Probably has to do with his self-perception.

          Can’t let that down, you know.

        • #2852183

          Funny bone.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to True

          Believe me I am FAR from serious, I don’t take much seriously at all, ESPECIALLY when it comes to politics, the US or people in general.

          Like I said though, just didn’t think it was funny,. Grin and bear it, mayb,e but that’s all.

    • #2853603

      I’m disappointed

      by santeewelding ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      At first, I thought the links pointed to your consistent and clarion-like alarms in a peer-reviewed journal of twenty or more years ago.

      They don’t.

      I’m in a black mood tonight.

      • #2853602

        aww

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to I’m disappointed

        poor santee, got yer panties in a knot? 😀

        you gotta start eating right to get mean.
        I’m a chowing down on Mako shark right now.

        • #2853599

          Black

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to aww

          Not distressed. Distress is a waste of time.

    • #2853601

      riiight

      by jaqui ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      citing radical news sources ain’t helping your credibility much :p

      I would tend to agree with the premise, but the agreement rules that out. 😀

      • #2853600

        Your dorsal

        by santeewelding ·

        In reply to riiight

        Is breaking the surface.

      • #2852296

        In all fairness Jaqi

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to riiight

        He at least admits to parroting a 20+ year old debate, whether relevant and supported by his new found hope or not.

        give him a break, there are still people who claim the lunar landings were all faked in Hollywood studios too. You wouldn’t call them delusional, nutters…would you?

        Face it, you are talking to a guy who lives in Colorado, may as well be describing polar bears to a child in Zimbabwe.

        How does someone living in central USA understand climate change, beyond what is blogged or spewed forth by the US government.

        Think blindfold and earmuffs, absolutely clueless.

    • #2853587

      Prosecuted?

      by jackofalltech ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      They never will be because TPTB are not interested in the truth but in controlling us.

      They want to control us, they see that, if true, MMGW will give them control, therefore it IS true no matter what.

      Any person with the slightest open mind who does just a little research will find all the information needed to see what a scam this is. Unfortunately, most people are sheep and too lazy to think for themselves.

      • #2853581

        Hit me.

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to Prosecuted?

        Put the information here.
        Just the information, no links.

        I’ll add it up myself, but I’m not tarnishing my browser with trawling through *that* morass.

        • #2852263

          Do I hear Baa, baa?

          by jackofalltech ·

          In reply to Hit me.

          The fact that you’re not interested in doing your own research just proves my point. No matter how much info I GAVE you, you would just filter it through your bias, ignoring what you don’t want to see, and come to the same conclusion you already have.

          I repeat, if anyone has an open mind they can easily find the truth.

        • #2852262

          I learn so much here

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Do I hear Baa, baa?

          Fact…proof…bias…want…see…things I am not myself capable of discerning.

          All laid bare here.

          Must be, I was behind the door when all this was passed out, Jack.

        • #2852254

          My kind…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Do I hear Baa, baa?

          we come in sheeps clothing too.

          What I want is the information that sufficed for you.

          With my superior googling skills, when I do a search, I can find “information” to support any stance at all.
          So, no, I don’t feel like doing something so futile.

          If you want to brag about your “information” then lay it on me. I’ll do my thing with it then, learn something. Maybe just about you though…

      • #2852383

        besides

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to Prosecuted?

        if we prostituted them we would make more money 😉

      • #2852295

        MMGW

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Prosecuted?

        don’t know what researc you have done, or how much dust was on the books you read, but MMGW hasn’t been a topic of debate for a logn time now. Perhaps US radical news agencies cling onto it, they are full of fear BS anyway, but any so called research would have shown you that MMGW was not a fact. GW/climate change is indeed a fact, man’s emissions mirror the conditions found during climate changes traced back hundreds of thousands of years, but that doesn’t mean we started it. It is VERY likely that our emissions may contribute to this matural phenomenon, but nothing says we started it, not in the last few decades anyway.

    • #2853582

      Using a gill net for trolling?

      by martyl ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      Are your shoes too tight, or what?
      It isn’t my fault that the world is round rather than flat; all I can do is help you find the edge . . .

      • #2852293

        I’ll push

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Using a gill net for trolling?

        Not singling out Max though, we can drive off the Area51 clan, the fake lunar landing clan and all the world’s religious sects too. Some people will parrot old, irrelevant garbage for decades, if not centuries. Damn, getting rid of the religious crowd would settle the world in a heartbeat!

        How can somethign like RELIGION still exist in 2010? It’s like th War of the World’s people STILL believe that stuff after all these years?

        I can understand natives once believing a guy in a canoe delivered the sun and moon into the sky, before we explored space.

        I can accept that people though Noah built a big boat and took two of every animal, insect etc. on the planet with him…when the planet was yet to be discovered.

        I can accept that Ancient chinese culture believed in Bhudda, or any other culture’s supoprt for a deity for that matter.

        But this is 2010, let’s get with the program and stop this global seperation simply due to this most ignorant, religious ‘faith’.

        Don’t buy into Obama’s HOPE, that’s not reality, but believe one man created the entire universe.

        More stars in the sky than there are grains of sand on the planet, but hey God made it all.

        Man, when are people going to wake up and stop believing just for teh sake of believing, whether it’s Max’s phoney MMGW debate or Islamic terrorism, it’s all complete BS without a leg to stand on.

        • #2852289

          Oz

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to I’ll push

          The rational leg that you stand on?

          Or, is it just — “rationality”? (Don’t nobody investigate further)

          Your exuberance…whence?

        • #2852279

          Santee

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Oz

          Bite me dong

        • #2852276

          “My”

          by nexs ·

          In reply to Santee

          : Grammar Police!

        • #2852271

          Where?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to “My”

          If you see them, kick them in the nuts for me.

    • #2853564

      Question.

      by charliespencer ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      Are you disputing global warming in general, or only the question of human actions as wholly responsible?

      • #2852416

        Answer

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Question.

        [i]Are you disputing global warming in general, or only the question of human actions as wholly responsible?[/i]

        The question of human actions as wholly (or even partially) responsible?

        • #2852286

          Uh okay

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Answer

          You are a man of religious faith, if I remember correctly.

          However you don’t believe that when scientists find specific atmospheric changes that are present during the natural climate changes, which have occurred for billions of years, that our increase i said atmospheric gases will have ANY adverse effect on the speed of which those changes occur.

          We know that water contains hydrogen however, by your claims, if we were to pump pure hydrogen into water for several decades, water’s properties would not change and, if they did, it would not be due to the increased hydrogen we added to it.

          Never did go to science class huh?
          Been to church and prayed to The Almighty though?

          It’s like listening to someone who believes in fairy tales telling you that wrestling is fake.

          You need some credibility to make a point, maybe that’s why you have been effortlessly repeating yuorself for 20+ years.

        • #2852087

          And how about

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Uh okay

          theory of evolution, that we all came from a “big bang” of nothing? Goes directly against the laws of physics. “Matter can neither be created nor destroyed”.

          Just curious.

        • #2852082

          Big-bang theory.

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to And how about

          What was there to cause a big bang and how did it get there?

        • #2852081

          Er, yeah

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to And how about

          If something explodes, there is matter. It doesn’t need to be ‘created’ it already exists and simply changes it’s form and properties.

          We can see the early stages of the big bang, by sighting planets and stars billions of light years away. Sure they have changed now but what we see today is an image that occurred billions of years ago and took that long to reach us. Some of those planets and stars may not even exist today, I guess well know in another few billion years. Damn, light can seem to travel slow sometimes!

          With all these bodies moving at extreme speeds in and outward direction from ‘somewhere’, they are obviously coming from somwhere. Once we see planets moving in the OTHER direction, away from us, it wil be pretty conclusive that we found the center of the universe we see.

          But you’re right, a fictional BELIEF that offers no compelling evidence whatsoever is so much more plausible.

          What are you asking Santa for this year?

        • #2852077

          Through it all, Oz

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Er, yeah

          How do you handle it?

          Certainly not through platitudes.

        • #2851690

          Look, it’s perfectly simple

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to And how about

          Before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics. The Big Bang created the laws and set the universal constants so that the Universe evolved the way it did.

          Nothing curious about it at all.

          🙂

          It’s not “Evolution”, though. We’ve had THAT argument before.

        • #2851687

          Big bang’s still going on…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Look, it’s perfectly simple

          It ain’t over till it’s over, and then, so will we be 🙂

          Kind of like how TR is so quiet now.

        • #2851615

          Everyone knows that we’re really just

          by darryl~ ·

          In reply to And how about

          in a big snow globe that a very large kid is shaking 😀

        • #2851600

          That explains a lot

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Everyone knows that we’re really just

          Every time I think things are going to stabilize, the little sh|t picks it up and shakes it again. 🙁

        • #2851593

          Yup, that’s exactly what’s been happening all along…

          by darryl~ ·

          In reply to That explains a lot

          It’s right up there with the “every time you get some extra money” theory….I don’t even want to mention any more about that for fear of what might happen :_|

        • #2851532

          I’ve heard about ‘extra money’

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to That explains a lot

          but I’ve never seen it! 😀

        • #2851519

          Nick….

          by darryl~ ·

          In reply to That explains a lot

          you must have a wife/partner similer to PurpleSkys…..I don’t understand “extra” money either. 😉

          Oh damn, am I ever going to be in trouble for that…..at least with the storm coming we won’t have any power so she won’t be able to read it for a couple days 😀

      • #2852414

        I always figured global warming was natural

        by slayer_ ·

        In reply to Question.

        I mean, the world was populated by giant reptiles, dinosaurs, etc.
        Then the ice age caused the whole planet to cool down and freeze up. Maybe now it is just going back to the temperature it used to be.
        Really, the glaciers have only recently melted away completely, slowly revealing the north pole.

        • #2852386

          Of course it’s natural…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to I always figured global warming was natural

          Unnatural climate change would mean that it’s accomplished by magic or daemonic influence or other such.

          If you pump enough inert carbon out of the ground and burn it, the CO2 equilibrium will start shifting. That’s natural.

        • #2852314

          What a totally ignorant thing to say

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Of course it’s natural…

          [i]Unnatural climate change[/i] (changes in global climate patterns) has been happening since the beginning of the earth. No [i] magic or daemonic influence[/i] is, or has been, necessary. Mother Nature drives her own vehicle.

          Your sarcasm only proves your ignorance – AND your blindness to the lack of real proof regarding the man-caused claims.

          There is no proof; there is no evidence; there are only unfounded assertions.

        • #2852306

          Erm

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to What a totally ignorant thing to say

          Aside from [i]whatever[/i] the genius of discussion may be, sling about with abandon “proof” and “evidence” and “assertions” in the presence of some here — these concepts central to your theme — and you end up an argumentative corpse.

        • #2852304

          How about this for an idea, santee:

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Erm

          Take a position.

          Quit trying to be cute, or profound, or thought-provoking, or whatever the hell it is you try to do, and take a position.

          Are you really that unsure of yourself that you can’t?

        • #2852302

          You and I

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to How about this for an idea, santee:

          We need to thrash out, “really”.

          I’m ready. I don’t think you are. Not on your radar. It is central on mine.

          Unless, of course, “reality” has nothing to do with what you are saying.

        • #2852301

          Santee: just take a f!@#$%^ position, man

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to How about this for an idea, santee:

          Just once. Take a !@#$%^ position.

          Quit the !@#$%^& games and take a position.

          Or are you incapable?

          Are you really no more than a word-game player?

        • #2852300

          It is as if

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to How about this for an idea, santee:

          Say, you were confronted by a respondent — just barely competent with spelling, word choice, sentence structure, dependence on passing fads, and…worst of all..that which so sweeteningly cloys — and you have an idea of how I greet you with respect to “position”.

          Position, as in, “posit”. I think you have forgotten, or never learned the meaning, of the word.

          I haven’t. And, I have. First line of defense. Bridge of Asses.

          Don’t be an ass.

        • #2852281

          thought provoking?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to How about this for an idea, santee:

          Do you actually think he believes that?

          What’s thought provoking about it? Is it that you think, “WTF is he babbling about now? What a lot of drivel.”

          If ANYONE here actually found santee’s comments to be anythign other than a random string or irrelevant words in a row, I’d be rather shocked.

          I don’t even know why he bothers posting so much, its all just nothing of any interest to anynone and, if it was, they wouldn’t see it anyway.

          It’s like reding through a discussion and finding posts stating how you can buy Gucci bags and Nike runners cheap, check out a great online business, buy Viagra, shoot the monkey, etc. Have YOU ever paid ANY attention to them? Thought provoking?

        • #2852280

          Pinecones

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to How about this for an idea, santee:

          Birds, worms “not”.

          Coming to high tide, not the ebbing of late.

          Man’s time unfounded amongst children’s playgrounds.

          Like Max said, just F#$@ off already, wot a twot!

        • #2852274

          Oh, you all sounds so angry

          by nexs ·

          In reply to How about this for an idea, santee:

          How do you all sleep at night with such rage built up inside?

          I, however, enjoy watching the to and fro of such conversational war. It brings a tiny spark of a smile to my my face.

        • #2852270

          How do I sleep at night?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to How about this for an idea, santee:

          Very well, knowing I am safe and far from the foreighn clowns that I experience on TR.

        • #2852187

          Not THAT far

          by slayer_ ·

          In reply to How about this for an idea, santee:

          I got some goons in Burnaby.

        • #2852182

          Burnaby/? LOL

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to How about this for an idea, santee:

          Yeah a real rough, pu$$y town there.

          Burnaby’s just full of SFU students and old folks homes. Most people that live in Burnaby say they live in East Van or New West just to gain some credibility.

        • #2851678

          Taking a position, choosing a side

          by mr stumper ·

          In reply to How about this for an idea, santee:

          Why is it that every single post that vomits forth out of your mind is for purposes of division and not discussion.

          Argument instead of true debate.

          Why is it so important to you that people choose a side? Regardless of topic.

          This need of yours to incite is truly disturbing. It’s closer to the behavior of a petty tyrant than a civilized being.

          For the record, my “position” is that Climate Change is real. Overall warming of the planet is happening. Human activity has a hand in this. The only question that truly remains is how much of an impact we have. A better question would be what do we have to lose in cleaning up our act. Since reason, maybe’s and open minded skepticism have no place in your world.

          Also, I’m disappointed…I hoped to see a link to OISM, otherwise known as “The Compound” by the locals, so I could get a good chuckle.

        • #2851609

          Mr Stumper

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to How about this for an idea, santee:

          Firstly, you know nothing of the history and/or banter between Santee and me. And I’m not inclined to explain.

          Secondly, you said, [i]”my (your) ‘position’ is that Climate Change is real. Overall warming of the planet is happening. Human activity has a hand in this. The only question that truly remains is how much of an impact we have. A better question would be what do we have to lose in cleaning up our act. Since reason, maybe’s and open minded skepticism have no place in your world.”[/i]

          Well, climate change is real. The climate’s always been in a state of flux, always changing. The same with warming and/or cooling. It’s always been happening, never constant. And never standing on a perfect setting!

          Does human activity have a hand in it? Hogwash! No way. It’s the biggest lie ever perpetrated on the human race. There’s absolutely NO PROOF – not even enough to lead one to believe; no doom and gloom predictions have even come close to happening; in fact, predictions have been proven to be wrong.

          [i]The only question that truly remains is how much of an impact we have. [/i]

          Not so fast! The next question – your [i]only question that truly remains[/i] – shouldn’t even be considered unless the underlying question is first answered. It has not been. In fact, it’s under dispute.

          What do we have to lose in [i] cleaning up our act[/i], as you say? We have plenty to lose. Losing even more power to a government that’s already too powerful. Losing more liberty to tyrants (both in and out of government) who’ve already become too tyrannical. Losing more money to fund yet another bogus governmental intervention into the lives of people on top of too much governmental interference already. And we have sensibility and reason to lose, if we – you – want to follow and believe in a lie.

          [i]….. reason, maybes and open minded skepticism have no place in my world[/i]?

          It’s reason and open-mindness, not blindly following the lie, that’s led to my skepticism.

          http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_climate_consensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DYH6A4uJ

        • #2851434

          Maxwell: STOP POSTING THAT LINK

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to How about this for an idea, santee:

          It does you no credit to switch from the Guardian’s and Express’s misreading of the IAC report to yet another similar misreading.

          Unlike jck, I’m not going to rubbish the IAC as they’ve got some pretty prestigious members on the panel. However, I did post earlier that I’d read the whole IAC report that formed the basis of your original post, subsequent posts and this post.

          I AM going to rubbish all three of the media reports that you’ve linked to so far. They are deliberate misrepresentations of the IAC report.

          One sentence cut [b]in its entirety[/b] from the executive summary of the IAC report – “The Committee found that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall.”

          What do you chose to make of it?

          🙂

          Just asking…

        • #2851426

          Lipstick?

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to How about this for an idea, santee:

          .

        • #2852282

          Proof evidence

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to What a totally ignorant thing to say

          I understand that you are born in a nation that needed thousands of soldiers to die from radiation exposure before agreeing with the scientist’s warnings that radiation will remain for decades and can still kill people.

          However, climate change is a fact, as you have attested yourself.

          Again, if high concentrations of specific gases are present in the atmosphere during climate change, do you REALLY need future generations to find out that emitting those same gases for decades did actually increase the speed that climate change occured.

          In order for you to accept science, it must have occurred yesterday, defeating the purpose of scientific exploration. It’s the old hindsight is 20/20 safety blanket you hang onto.

          Ignorance is not bliss, it is ignorance.

          There is no harm in reducing our carbon footprint, there is no foul in becoming more wise in our use of resources. Your fears are entirly political, as always. Someone taxes you a dime and you cry until you are blue in teh face about government corruption, personal liberties, freedoms.

          So here’s some personal liberty and freedom for you. YOu are allowed to take your own life, you have the liberty to be free of it all. You will save that dime, you will not face the horrific tryanny of the democratic party ever again, even if you pretend it’s all about science and not politics.

          I KNOW you don’t mind being personally reposnsible, I KNOW you dont mind being resourceful and freidnly to nature and the planet, or at least you pretend to be anyway.

          So you know what they say, only two things are certain in a persons lifetime, death and taxes; it’s your choice to make.

        • #2852273

          I’ll pay attention to you, Oz

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Proof evidence

          Soon as you are able to enunciate “life” and “death” and “certainty” without reading by rote what you pulled off a shelf.

        • #2852268

          I don’t have a shelf

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I’ll pay attention to you, Oz

          Actually that’s true not one shelf at all in my entire condo! not even in the garage!

          By Rote? I merely repeated, and acknolwedge it as such, a common saying.

          as for you paying attention to me, please don’t, just phuque off instead.

        • #2852253

          You ran into that one full-speed!

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to What a totally ignorant thing to say

          “Mother nature drives her own vehicle” … you managed to form that, and still failed to see the point? Or the edge for that matter.

          Whatever happens due to forces of [i]nature[/i] (be they matronly or not) is – by the common definition of the formation of “-al” adjectives – natural. What springs of logic is logical. What springs of the chemic is chemical (it’s the -stry formation that’s uncommon).

          So – nyah nyah.

          The equilibrium is a fact. Your “mother nature” on the other hand is a straw for which you grasp. Luckily, being what she is, she refuses to help you.

        • #2852252

          But despair not.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to You ran into that one full-speed!

          While I will not surrender the fact of the equilibrium, I am well aware of there being spin on both sides. Your actual arguments are safe with me – Just don’t expect me to eat spin or spam on the matter – my kind prefers a meatier diet.

        • #2852201

          ‘Unnatural climate change’?

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to What a totally ignorant thing to say

          “Unnatural climate change (changes in global climate patterns) has been happening since the beginning of the earth. … Mother Nature drives her own vehicle.”

          If ‘Mother Nature’ is making changes, aren’t those changes ‘natural’? If not, could you provide some examples of ‘unnatural climate change’, please?

        • #2852083

          I

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to ‘Unnatural climate change’?

          was gonna have to go there if you didn’t. 😐

    • #2853560

      Only in your own little world Max

      by fregeus ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      Only in you own little world!!!

      TCB

    • #2852433

      Now, I’d believe it of you and the Daily Express

      by neilb@uk ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      but The Guardian is usually better than this.

      From the source report’s executive summary [b]without[/b] the excision of selected words and phrases.

      “The Committee found that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall. However, the world has changed considerably since the creation of the IPCC, with major advances in climate science, heated controversy on some climate-related issues, and an increased focus of governments on the impacts and potential responses to changing climate. A wide variety of interests have entered the climate discussion, leading to greater overall scrutiny and demands from stakeholders. The IPCC must continue to adapt to these changing conditions in order to continue serving society well in the future. The Committee’s key recommendations for improving IPCC’s assessment process are given below.”

      Then you may, if you wish, read the full report, see where the Daily Express cherry-picked their lies, and then walk away quietly.

      🙂

    • #2852388

      Typical

      by jck ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      Chastise others for what you yourself do not do provide either; absolute proof.

      Typical rhetoric.

      • #2852310

        You are foolish if you really think . . . . .

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Typical

        …. that a negative should be proven. Instead, the positive should be proven – not asserted.

        The MM-GW/CC advocates have proven NOTHING! Moreover, they’ve been shown to be WRONG more than not.

        Typical jck reply.

        • #2852275

          Negative shouldn’t be proven then?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You are foolish if you really think . . . . .

          I see you are not fond of the US justice system and Constitution.

        • #2852199

          Law has nothing to do with science

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Negative shouldn’t be proven then?

          and little to do with logic. You’re comparing Apples and Subarus.

        • #2852181

          So you couldnt’ put it together

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Law has nothing to do with science

          not my fault. I didn’t say politics had ANYTHING to do with science, you just need to keep up that’s all.

        • #2851451

          Ah. So my next question is

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to So you couldnt’ put it together

          are you interested in others understanding your position, or do you have some other goal in your posts?

          Do you want to have a discussion, an argument, or something else entirely? If the first, would you mind expanding on your comment regarding the relationship between the legal system and proving an negative scientific concept so those you’re talking to can understand your position? If the second, you’re doing just fine. If the third, mind letting the rest of us in on your agenda?

          Hugs and kisses.

        • #2852188

          What does being asked to prove a negative. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Negative shouldn’t be proven then?

          ….. have to do with the US justice system and Constitution?

        • #2852180

          Try jumping next time

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to What does being asked to prove a negative. . . .

          It seems to have sailed over your head fast enough to blow your hair back.

        • #2852170

          Well, then, it’s sailed over two of us.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Try jumping next time

          Care to break your point down into single-syllable words for us? I’m also not sure what the legal system has to do with logically or scientifically proving a negative.

        • #2852080

          Nothing

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Well, then, it’s sailed over two of us.

          And that’s where you missed the point. If you don’t understand that justice works in the opposite manner, then I won’t take time to break it down for you.

        • #2851589

          I just want to interject this…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Well, then, it’s sailed over two of us.

          If you want things that have been proven:

          Carbon dioxide has approximately a 7 year life in the atmosphere before it degrades.

          The amount of carbon dioxide emissions from man-made sources being emitted into the atmosphere has increased, while the deforestation of the worlds largest natural rainforests has continued around the globe.

          So, here’s logic:

          If CO2 traps heat, and you have less plants on the planet to convert that C02 to O2…

          There will be an increase of CO2 concentration.

          Doesn’t that make sense?

          And if you have more CO2 staying up there 7 years, it will retain more heat…right?

          So, why is Global Warming and Climate Change so unbelievable?

          It’s really elementary school level science.

        • #2850970

          jck

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Well, then, it’s sailed over two of us.

          It’s selective education based on political preference. That’s why nobody takes them seriously and just laughs them off as “the ignorant ones”.

        • #2876397

          Actually, Oz

          by jck ·

          In reply to Well, then, it’s sailed over two of us.

          I think it has less to do with politics, and more to do with selfishness.

          If most people who disbelieve in fundamental, elementary science were highly invested in alternative energy production and global warming was making them a lot of money…they would be all gung-ho over making sure to stop it.

          But since people want their big cars, fast boats, a big screen in every room, etc., they won’t give up their creature comforts until it comes up and smacks them in the face. Then, they will back finding a solution…even if it’s really too late to stop it.

          For instance: There have been lots of people who have said for years (I personally knew one in my youth in South Texas) that there are a lot of rigs that are not being operated safely. If people were less concerned about spending a couple $100Ks a year to hire a couple more rig inspectors for the MMS and other regulatory bodies, things like the Gulf oil spill might not have happened.

          But as it was, people pennypinched, took funds away from one thing to fund another in selfish partisanship, etc.

          And look where it got us: a bunch of aristocratic bureaucrats on a headhunting mission to find who let those things get out of hand, when they are the ones who appropriate and cut the funds which pay for the oversight.

          It’s all about me me me nowadays with most people, unfortunately. And, it ranges from those who are poor who feel it’s their right to get a free ride, to those who have done well financially and think their money affords them any luxury or mistake they want to experience.

          Quite pathetic, if you ask me.

        • #2876365

          Oh, I don’t disagree jck

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Well, then, it’s sailed over two of us.

          I think my political stand was based on a lack of scientific education, and instead just radical campaigns from left and right that oppose each other to such an extreme that it makes a farce of the whole issue.

        • #2852117

          You are called on an asinine comment. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Try jumping next time

          ….. and you retreat.

          You are either intellectually dishonest or a coward.

          Answer the question or prove yourself to be a fool.

          What does being asked to prove a negative have to do with the US justice system and Constitution?

        • #2852076

          I see

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You are called on an asinine comment. . . . .

          But when you continue to babble on and on and on when called to task, offering no relevant reply, you simply dismiss the comment as being so stupid it’s not worth answering.

          I don’t know wht you get so upset about being called a hyprcite, hypocrisy shines brightly in almost all of your posts.

          I owe you nothing, no matter what I say you will dismiss it anyway. Don’t even BEGIN to try your idiotic games with me, I know your style far too well, seemingly better than you see it yourself.

          [i]”You do realize, don’t you, that I consider you . . . .
          ….. no more than a pesky fly?

          I might swat, but you keep coming back.

          You – and/or your questions/comments – mean nothing to me.” [/i]

        • #2851700

          Meanwhile Max

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to You are called on an asinine comment. . . . .

          You were called upon to deliver, free of taint, the information upon which you increasingly found your position.
          And you give links to crap.
          Anyone with a preformed opinion can find crap to support it, it’s called the internet.
          Notice, that I am polite enough not to counter your crap with crap of my own digging.
          In this matter am genuinely open to information, but that port is reactively stealthed; you have the privilege of my ear, if you will use it. But know that, in this instance and for all intents and purposes, all your links are belong to crap – by definition. I will not read but your own words on this matter, but if you make a good point I will listen.
          I’m allergic to agitprop though.

        • #2876308

          Asinine content

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to You are called on an asinine comment. . . . .

          sounds way better than logical fallacy, too. :^0

        • #2851596

          Give up, Oz

          by jck ·

          In reply to Negative shouldn’t be proven then?

          Max just doesn’t want to believe it for the fact that if the US Congress makes laws to make vehicles more fuel efficient, he can’t drive his big ole pickup that drinks gas and goes VROOOM. :^0

        • #2851597

          Well…

          by jck ·

          In reply to You are foolish if you really think . . . . .

          You are calling all people who make the postulate “liars” and something they are educated on and you are not. So first of all, I’d call you foolish.

          Then, you yourself provide no conclusive, irrefutable proof of their inaccurate findings, research, methods of conclusion, etc.

          You will say they (global climate change supporters) are lying about it, yet you can not prove their inaccuracy and show proof they purposefully have lied about everything involved.

          As for them having proven nothing, the gas studies from both the Antarctic and Greenland glacial samplings has proven that C02, Methane, and Sulfur Dioxide are at their highest levels in the past 650,000 years. And, that data has been verified by multiple research institutions. Not just the IPCC.

          I’ve given you the data on that previously that was researched by the National Climate Center, NASA, et al, here in the USA.

          So, I suppose the whole US government is in on it too?

          As for being shown wrong, that’s inaccurate. Climate Change detractors have never proven the data is wrong. They have just argued against it with their own theories.

          As for not having to prove negatives…I say I’m not stupid. So, I don’t have to prove it under your own terms.

          Therefore, I am smart and right.

          Thanks 🙂

    • #2852379

      Yeah, so

      by kenone ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      When? After the peak. But that’s not likely for a few thousand years. Now if this interglacial turned out to be much shorter than usual and the peak were to occur soon we could maybe nail some of them to the advancing glaciers, but that’s not likely.

    • #2852328

      Who’s the pretty girl in the mirror there?

      by drowningnotwaving ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      Seriously, is this really about global warming, or about seeing your name in lights?

      • #2852308

        A foolish message

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Who’s the pretty girl in the mirror there?

        When will you post something of substance?

        • #2852259

          Substance?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to A foolish message

          is that what you call your OP? 😀

        • #2852220

          For a peson who purports to substance and relevance

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to A foolish message

          … you really missed on this one.

          Oh, by the time the kooks get into it, you’ll probably score a three-hundred again.

          What is this – the third, fourth or fifth blog of near-identical hyperbole that you’ve initiated in the last few years?

          Your question is pretty fair: I should come up with something of substance.

          On this particular blog, the substantial issue is “what really is your point, and what do you really hope to achieve?”

          Banging your chest and saying “Look at the Fools that I’ve Exposed”, hey, if that works for you, it’s certainly allowed around here.

          From afar, the difference between you and those you think you expose becomes somewhat dim.

          You’ve made up your mind, under no circumstrances would you accept compromise or dissent, you scream it loudly in the hope that volume beats value and you jump on the bandwagon of any clown publication that spurts out reports in favour of your point.

          So, what exactly is the difference between you and them?

          Because surely when two sides are so opposed that neither heed the other, the actual cause or subject becomes somewhat irrelevant, don’t you think?

        • #2852217

          Here’s another challenge

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to A foolish message

          Why don’t you ponder how educated and erudite people on the differing side of the fence on MM Climate Change could ever be in a position to truly peer-review each othe’s work?

          There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of extremely well educated scientists on either side of the fence.

          It would be foolish in the extreme, willfully ignorant in my opinion, to consider every one of those individuals on either side of the fence to be motivated by ill-gotten gain or deception. Some of them on both sides of the fence actually undertook real science and found real outcomes. Differing as those outcomes may be.

          Turn your mind to the REAL problem facing us now, not the soap-box soap opera you enjoy visiting every now and then.

        • #2852112

          You do realize, don’t you, that I consider you . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Here’s another challenge

          ….. no more than a pesky fly?

          I might swat, but you keep coming back.

          You – and/or your questions/comments – mean nothing to me.

        • #2852111

          I don’t think of him as such

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to You do realize, don’t you, that I consider you . . . .

          This guy can hurt you. Ignore at your peril.

        • #2852109

          That guy . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I don’t think of him as such

          …. is a fool and an idiot.

        • #2852106

          You have taken leave

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to That guy . . . .

          Haven’t you?

        • #2851480

          No, really, we truly understand

          by drowningnotwaving ·

          In reply to You do realize, don’t you, that I consider you . . . .

          This thread [b]really is[/b] all about your ego!

          That was an amazing response! Perfect.

      • #2852260

        Definitely the latter

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Who’s the pretty girl in the mirror there?

        Max has been hell bent on getting another post into TR history for length, regardless of relevance or validity.

      • #2851449

        “Who can that attractive girl be?”

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to Who’s the pretty girl in the mirror there?

        Sorry, I couldn’t let the first line just lie there without the second. I’m surprised I didn’t finish the whole bridge.

    • #2852309

      Man-caused global warming.

      by boxfiddler ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      Sure I believe it. It’s from all the hot air we spew arguing over things. :^0

    • #2852299

      IN 20 years you still haven’t found anything to support your title either

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      I read teh articles, and nope, nothing about man-caused global warming mentioned in there. YOU still haven’t educated yourself enough to understand the difference?

      The articles also don’t say that they have proven there is no such thing as global warming, just that many ‘predictions’ were made falsely or in haste without proper scientific fact to support it.

      nobody thinks MAN ’caused’ global warming, well nobody relavent anyway. That’s an old argument that was dead and done 20 years or more ago ,yet you still parrot it like claiming ‘the world isn’t flat’ makes you sound clever.

      Yeah we all know that, thanks for pointing otu the obvious.

      However, global warming/climate change is absolute and certainly DOES exist. It has been a proven fact of the Earth’s natural progression for millions of years.

      The atmospheric changes that occur during a time of warming/cooling, includes atmospheric changes that are shown to include gases that we humans emit in massive quantities. Therefore a natural progression can increase it’s efective speed when that atmospheric change is helped along.

      The ever famous, though now not so newsworthy ozone hole has actually been PROVEN to be reducing in size. Funny enough, such changes started to occur shortly after man’s emissions were reduced.

      Unfortunately the polar bears still have a rapidly dwindlign environment and THEY believe in GW all too much.

      Your baseless claim, which holds no modern relevance at all, is also not supoprted by your fantastic articles of scientific brilliance. All they say is that many of the predictions related to specific effects of global warming were either made in haste or have since been found unsubstantiated. BRILLIANT MAX! After 20 years you STILL don’t have a point and nobody is debating MAN MADE global warming, well they haven’t for many years anyway.

      I suppose declaring that the Earth really isn’t flat is relevant news that makes you right too, in your mind anyway.

      No foul though, ive met people from Germany that lived through WWII and STILL claim there were no concentration camps and gas chanmbers were not used to kill millions of Jews.

      I’ve worked with a guy who spent hours each day studying Area51, with his monthly subscriptions and news updates available at a fingers touch. He swears that Aliens are using the US government in Area51 to control mankind. He’s a norrmal guy, nice, held a good job, but a little whack too.

      Now when you finally come down from your unsupported, groundbreakign news tha man didn’t actually create global warming, or if you can find someone else who actually think man DID cause it, you mmay have a reasonable and rational debate, until then you are just parroting old, irrelevant crap that everyone knows anyway, and have admittedly done so for 10, 20 or more years.

      Find a real point of debate instead.

      You ask:
      [i]When will the Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change advocates either be tarred-and-feathered and run outta’ town, or better yet, be charged and prosecuted for criminal misconduct? [/i]

      Probably when WMD are found in Iraq or GWB is thrown in jail for war crimes, lies and deceit to teh American people that have cost the many thousands of coalition lives around the world.

      I wonder how many people unproven global warming predictions have killed already?

    • #2852287

      Man-Caused?

      by nexs ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      That’s fairly sexist!
      Women are just as likely to damage our environment… Unless, of course, we’re going to start up some ripper Sexist Jokes…
      😉

    • #2851613
      • #2851587

        Pfffffft…

        by jck ·

        In reply to Meltdown of the climate ‘consensus’

        What a meltdown. One “independent” panel rebukes it, and it’s a meltdown.

        So, I guess since a lot of people here think you’re full of it…that, you’re gonna have a thermonuclear explosion? :^0

        You’re just being silly now. You can’t be serious.

      • #2851586

        Let’s take a look at who the IAC is…

        by jck ·

        In reply to Meltdown of the climate ‘consensus’

        If you will go to this link:

        http://www.interacademycouncil.net/CMS/3239/6166/10105.aspx

        You can see what their board consists of.

        I got bored reading through all of it. But of the first 10-12 of them, there was 1 climate chemist and 1 geophysicist.

        The rest were:
        Mechanical Engineer
        Virologist
        Communicable Disease
        Mathematical Physics
        Pharmaceuticals
        Petrochemicals

        etc etc

        Seems as tho this council who is so profound they should be the authority on climate research…

        Is not even composed mostly of climate researchers.

        Now, who would be better to judge climate research accuracy…

        climate-related scientists?

        or

        PhDs in pharmaceuticals and petrochemicals and mechanical engineer?

        I guess I could go get PhDs in like…library science and electrical engineering, and have them say the IAC is wrong…and it’d be valid?

        Just absurd. Really…

        • #2851529

          Not absurd at all

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Let’s take a look at who the IAC is…

          It’s called peer review. In this case, the IAC is not calling into question the conclusions, they are calling into question the methods used to reach those conclusions. They did this at the request of both the UN and the IPCC itself. Who better to question the scientific method of one group of scientists than other scientists?

          Climate change is a fact. Man-caused? Not proven. Given the questions raised in this report, I think some members of the IPCC may be guilty of research bias, choosing the data that supports their desired conclusion and ignoring the rest.

          http://www.interacademycouncil.net/CMS/Reports/13042.aspx

        • #2851430

          Read the report

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Not absurd at all

          You’d be surprised just how little they call into question.

        • #2851413

          I read the report

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Not absurd at all

          As I read it, the emphasis is on management failures in the IPCC that allowed the publication of inconsistent, unsubstantiated, or poorly substantiated conclusions.

          As I said, the method is called into question, not the conclusions themselves. And I still think there’s research bias in the IPCC.

        • #2876396

          Actually if you’ve worked in academia

          by jck ·

          In reply to I read the report

          you know there’s research bias everywhere.

          Why?

          Most professors are required at major research universities to either procure their own grants or use grants from the university…most of which are supplied by major corporations.

          For instance: I had a professor who used to work at The University of Oklahoma. He was required to go and apply for and successfully obtain grant monies for projects within his school. Several grants he got were from petroleum companies who worded grants to allow for research they wanted, and even went as far as to name processes and methods to be used.

          The IPCC and the IAC and other conglomerate scientific bodies are no different. Most scientists are professors who get huge grants and endowments from private enterprise, who quite often “muscle” them into finding “desirable” conclusions.

          Hence, bias is going to bleed in from every direction in every kind of research.

          Til the day Bill Gates and others like him throw tens of billions in trusts at research and say “Go research.” and don’t require any sort of result, conclusion, etc., you’re going to continue to bias.

          Personally, I think all monies for research should be pooled and professors/universities be allowed to pull funds from a pool so that no corporation can say their dollars paid for anything and pressure a person or institution to derive findings to their liking.

          But, I guess that’s communism…or at least some would say that.

        • #2876350

          That’s why I am such a Suzuki fan

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Actually if you’ve worked in academia

          David Suzuki is one of those guys who quickly saw that government grants caused a conflict of interest when it came to providing facts and truth. He found that his scientific studies were conflicted with what he was ‘supposed’ to report on for government grants.

          It takes a good man to see such conflict, raise the awareness of such and dismiss it to become independent and rely on donation to continue. This means more volounteer man hours, staff, fund raising efforts etc. for a guy who was initially handed cash simply to put his stamp of approval on it and receive TV funding for his show too.

          Of course there is always some reliance on corporate funding, and those corporations are very carefully investigated so no influence or bias is created.

          As per the David Suzuki Foundation: “The Foundation is primarily funded by donations from individuals and by grants from other charitable foundations. The David Suzuki Foundation does not accept government grants, except in relation to the direct funding of scientific research through the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.”

          I am sure others do it too, but it certainly makes one proud to see that someone in his hometown does so much, so graciously in the name of the planet and not self interest. It really causes people to naturally follow his great examples.

        • #2851498

          jck – you are a desired end conclusion . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Let’s take a look at who the IAC is…

          ….. in search of justification.

          It’s sad – sad indeed.

        • #2850969

          Not as sad as

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to jck – you are a desired end conclusion . . . .

          Standing there with your arms folded, humming so as not to hear any facts and ignoring or condemning those you do hear just so you don’t have to believe them. Like a spoiled child who doesn’t want to be told NO.

          How is your creator, lord and saviour today, spoken quiety to each other lately? 😀 now that’s a roar and you talk about proof?!

          idiot

        • #2850673

          That’s quite ironic

          by jck ·

          In reply to jck – you are a desired end conclusion . . . .

          I stated earlier in the thread you could show no irrefutable, conclusive proof of the inaccuracy of Man-Made Global Warming that you claim backs that it is a fallacy.

          You never refuted me with that proof. Guess that makes you…unfounded and unwilling.

          And actually as a human being, I am the end result of a conscious action.

          And, I don’t go looking for arguments out of pseudo-intellectual hubris.

          Fact is, you can not conclusively, irrefutably, and scientifically prove anything you state about the fallacy of anthropogenic climate change.

          I dare you to try. People far more intelligent and educated than you or I have been trying to do it for a few decades now and can’t. So, I don’t see what makes you think your opinion on it means squat.

    • #2851584

      my favorite one has to be . . .

      by who am i really ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      “look, here’s proof, the glaciers are melting at an alarming rate”

      well duh!
      they’ve been melting since shortly after they were formed

      and basic laws of physics dictate that the smaller the ice is the faster it melts

      here’s a simple experiment to prove it

      go to the store and buy two bags of ice
      1 brick
      1 cubes
      both the same weight
      containing the same amount of water

      take the brick and place it on the driveway
      take the cubes and dump them on the grass

      now naturally there’s more heat to melt the ice on the drive way than on the grass

      but the cubes will be gone long before the brick is half melted

      • #2851431

        I sometimes wonder

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to my favorite one has to be . . .

        whether you have ever thought to stop and think that those who make a lifetime’s work of studying glaciers might just have worked that out without your help.

        I’m not going to try to tell you that Climate Change is or isn’t happening or is or isn’t Man’s fault because your mind is obviously shut tighter than a cormorant’s bum but I would suggest that, just once, you give some credit to those who know more about any part of this subject than you could ever dream.

        Bricks? Gah!

      • #2851398

        Relevant examples

        by generalist ·

        In reply to my favorite one has to be . . .

        From a simple physics standpoint your example is quite accurate. Unfortunately it doesn’t quite work when it comes to the formation and maintenance of glaciers.

        In a stable environment, the amount of ice in a glacier is relatively constant, the melt coming out being replaced by the snow coming in. The size of the glacier doesn’t matter.

        In an environment where there is more snow and less melting, the glaciers grow. Once again, size doesn’t matter as long as there is more snow than melt. Since snow requires moisture in the air and getting moisture in the air requires heat, it would be possible for glaciers to grow in a warming environment if other conditions keep the melt from increasing faster than the addition caused by the snow.

        In an environment where there is less snow and more melting, glaciers shrink. Again, the size of the glacier doesn’t matter. But if there are a lot of glaciers shrinking, and not many growing, people can honestly claim that they are melting at an alarming rate, especially if they are dependent upon that melt water. The fact that the glaciers are retreating is the alarming aspect. The rate of retreat just adds urgency to things.

        • #2851386

          Why is it “alarming” that glaciers are retreating?

          by darryl~ ·

          In reply to Relevant examples

          To quote you – “The fact that the glaciers are retreating is the alarming aspect. The rate of retreat just adds urgency to things.

          I believe the planet is coming out of the last ice age & not entering a new one, the glaciers have been retreating for many thousands of years, I don’t think that is very alarming as people have been aware of it for many centuries; however, if the rate of retreat has suddenly increased over a very short period of time (ie. that last 100 years) I would find that more alarming.

        • #2851366

          Glacial retreat

          by generalist ·

          In reply to Why is it “alarming” that glaciers are retreating?

          Retreating glaciers can be alarming if they are a primary source of water and you are FINALLY aware that they are disappearing. They can also be alarming if they are creating glacial lakes that break on a more frequent basis. (I have to concede that having an increase in the rate of glacial retreat over a short time is more alarming.)

          While glaciers have been retreating for thousands of years, not all glaciers have been retreating. Some have been holding steady and others have been advancing. Perhaps I should have said that ‘a greater number of glaciers have been retreating.’

          In one study, 53% of over six hundred glaciers in China were retreating during the 1950-1977 period. After 1990, 95% were retreating. In another area, glaciers showed a slight loss between 1943-1977 and a twenty percent loss between 1977-2001. (Definitely an accelerated trend.)

          It would be interesting to have a list of all the glaciers that existed in 1950, along with their specs, and compare that has happened to them over the last sixty years. Length, thickness, total amount of ice, rate of advance/retreat, type of advance/retreat, snow accumulation by month and water output by month would be a start. You could then add in regional weather conditions because they affect the glaciers.

          For some of the glaciers you can extend the studies back for a hundred years or so. They would be the ones that early geologists have studied.

          If you do the list right, perhaps as a huge table with citations, people could have a more reasoned discussion on glaciers and climate change.

        • #2853150

          Thank you, you reaffirmed my original understanding…

          by darryl~ ·

          In reply to Glacial retreat

          of the concern around glacial retreat.

          Although you only quoted statistics dating back to the 50’s, I think you would find a much greater increase in the rate of retreat since the Industrial Revolution as that is when the planet’s population started to increase at a greater exponential value; add to that the introduction of burning carbon based fuel for heat/transportation and you may discover when things started to change.

        • #2850464

          Later data may be more accurate

          by generalist ·

          In reply to Thank you, you reaffirmed my original understanding…

          I figured that data collection starting in the 1940’s and 1950’s would be a bit more quantitative than earlier data since by that time we had explored most of the surface of the planet. Even in that amount of time we’ve more than doubled the population of the planet.

          In Europe, and possibly Japan and China, you would be able to find research that goes back a hundred years or more beyond the 1940’s, though it may not be as quantitative as more recent data. I would love to see a comprehensive list of research, perhaps on a time line of both publication data and years studied, that includes current and past data.

          Another factor that could be considered when dealing with the rate of retreat is the change caused by deforestation and the conversion of lands to agriculture or cities.

        • #2850431

          I would like to see some of that data also….

          by darryl~ ·

          In reply to Later data may be more accurate

          I think it would be informative to see it all laid down together.

          I’m sure there are people who have/are doing studies on it, I wouldn’t be surprised to see it in the near future.

          The population increase would have a relationship with deforestation and the conversion of lands to agriculture or cities. I would think the curve is becoming greater every year.

    • #2851412

      Yes or Not

      by camilo.carvajalino ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      Man must have to controll IT and take action

    • #2851384

      A matter of degree

      by generalist ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      Quoted from the article:

      It also claimed that water supplies for between 75 million and 250 million people in Africa will be at risk by 2020 due to climate change, but the real range is between 90 and 220 million.

      If I interpret the stats correctly, the MINIMUM number of people at risk is going up fifteen million while the MAXIMUM is going down by thirty million. This is more a matter of degree than an argument against global warming. In either instance, the sentence implies that the water supplies for several million people are at risk due to global warming.

      Is there a citation for where the source of the ‘real’ range of 90 to 220 million people?

    • #2850968

      Truly Committed?

      by dogknees ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      If, contrary to your belief, it turns out we are the cause, are you prepared to accept blame for the amount you and all the other deniers out there have caused? Personal legal responsibility for any deaths that are a direct result of climate change?

      If you continue acting the way you do despite expert advice to the contrary, you are criminally responsible.

      It goes both ways. You want the believers prosecuted if they are wrong, so you’d have to accept the same if you are wrong.

      Fair?

      While we’re at it, I assume you’re buying up beachfront property so you and the rest can live there. Cause you sure as hell aren’t going to be welcome up on the hill with the rest of us. While you’re at it, how about telling your kids you’re screwing up their world for them and theirs.

      • #2850963

        We, the cause

        by santeewelding ·

        In reply to Truly Committed?

        Who you gonna get to arbitrate? Martians? Armadillos? Who, outside us?

        Your passion, laudable, falls flat.

        • #2850958

          Dice

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to We, the cause

          Throw down. Iacta alea est.

          Or… if you’re a simplist, black’n’whiter – use my binary abacus. Heads means it’s us. Tails means it’s the others. Best out of three.

      • #2850955

        Is it stupidity or arrogance?

        by nicknielsen ·

        In reply to Truly Committed?

        What is it that makes people think that mankind can [u][b]initiate[/b][/u] climate change when we are powerless in the face of Earth’s other activities?

        Earth’s climate was changing for billions of years before anything remotely resembling mankind first crawled out of the trees. It will continue to change long after mankind disappears. If you can’t face the fact that mankind will not be around forever, then you need to adopt a religion that will help you get over it, preferably one that keeps to itself.

        • #2850813

          Simple Principal

          by dogknees ·

          In reply to Is it stupidity or arrogance?

          People die all the time from natural causes. This fact says nothing about a particular instance. It in no way implies that we should assume all deaths are of natural causes.

          We are not powerless. Have you heard of salination of land? We little humans have managed to destroy vast areas of land, fundamentally changing the way water moves through it and the plants and animals that live (or used to live) there.

          We’ve been doing it for millenia, and we are doing it now. Why can’t you understand the simple maths that demonstrates that the amount of crap we have pumped into the air over tha last few hundred years adds up to a significant percentage of the planets atmosphere? Why can’t you understand that this has an effect on the way the planet works?

        • #2850783

          I understand the math perfectly

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Simple Principal

          I understand all the rest. The data show a correlation, but correlation is not causation. And the correlation collapses over the past decade as CO2 levels continue to increase, but average temperatures fail to rise accordingly. Additionally, too many people are ignoring the fact that we are in a glacial period: the Earth has been warmer in the past and will warm in the future with or without humans.

          What I don’t understand is the insistence that mankind caused it. Did we contribute? Of course we did, we’re part of the ecosystem. But cause it?

        • #2850762

          That’s a fair cop

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to I understand the math perfectly

          What I feel is this: we have to do what we can to exert a useful influence upon world climate, since we’re going to suffer for it if it goes too far in either direction.

          We inadvertently starting pumping previously inert subterranean carbon into the athmosphere as carbon dioxide, and now a century later, we realize that it affects climate… so we found the accelerator; that’s step 1. Step 2 is to stop keeping it depressed, so we can see which way we’re going, and how much acceleration we need. Also, we need to find the brakes – for future reference if nothing else.
          This is just preparing to drive. Too bad the steering wheel is so far beyond us.

        • #2850608

          Inadvertant?

          by dogknees ·

          In reply to That’s a fair cop

          >>We inadvertently starting pumping previously inert subterranean carbon into the athmosphere as carbon dioxide

          There’s nothing inadvertant about it. It’s not like we just left a gate open and the horses bolted. We actively dig the stuff up and burn it!

        • #2850605

          We actively breathe

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Inadvertant?

          And spew it, too.

          Let’s all cut our throats and be done with it.

        • #2850600

          Inadvertant, as in

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Inadvertant?

          at the time we started doing it, we had no idea of the consequences because the science wasn’t there yet.

          Since then, the entire world economy has been built around it. And until such time as it becomes economical to replace it, we are unfortunately stuck with it. All we can do is try to mitigate the effects.

        • #2874093

          Nick

          by dogknees ·

          In reply to Inadvertant?

          Yes, but I don’t accept that we have to go on working under the capitalist system that currently prevales and which has contributes enormously to the problem we’re facing.

          Some as not assuming that the fact we’ve done something one way for decades/centuries is any recommendation to continue doing so.

        • #2874092

          “System”

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Inadvertant?

          Or, individuals — atomic individuals?

          Do you recognize any such entity? I sure as hell recognize myself as such. I don’t fit your “system”. What do you do with me?

          You? You make yourself out to be, and the rest of us, as contiguous cogs.

          Look to your spellings, too.

        • #2876448

          That’s a different disco you know…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Inadvertant?

          (If distribution can be distro, then discussion can be disco, hey!) (And I know, hay is for horses)
          A number of truisms really annoy me:
          *When people think that socialism=communist terrocracy.
          *When they think that the US republic is somehow something else than a democracy, flawed as they regrettably all are, still a lesser evil as Churchill grunted.
          *When they think that capitalism=corporatocratic* oligarchy
          That last is what you seem to be having gbentley. Not that I’m pro-capitalism per-se, that’s beside the point as I see things.
          But capitalism is just allowing ownership to be distributable monetarily, it’s just a direction – not a goal. As such total capitalism is not only a fallacy (no end-point) it’s also suboptimal and unnatural (the structures of capitalism begin to fight each other at some point, hindering further movement).
          Back when there were to blocs I measured their ideals** like this: One has a billion bodies, and no central nervous system. Another has a thousand tonnes worth of nervous system, and no body to lug it about.
          Maneuverability and stability are opposites, they can’t both be maxed at once, and both extremes are undesireable… an optimum is what should be decided on.
          Likewise, economic thrust and economic control are opposites, and both are undesireable for the same reason. Hurtling at a billion miles per hour into the sun isn’t worth it, and neither is hanging motionless in the void, tidelocked at best.

          *publically traded corporatocratic I should probably have said, but modifiers and classifiers don’t mix like that, sorry.
          **that is, their desired economic destinations, regardless of their success at implementation.

        • #2876345

          Very insightful Ansu

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Inadvertant?

          I agree with the focus and most of your comments.

          I think it relates to my more simplistic comments of being radical or extremes in either direction with no reasoned, rational middle ground, which is also why I compare it to politics which sits similar in the US.

          I have discussed my goals and business position here before, while I agree that capitalism feeds fair game for business and repels monopoly, unfortunately there are still those who take capitalism to an extreme and create a monopoly anyway, by removing the ability of fair competition.

          An example is with the 2 or 3 beer companies that literally dominate the US marketplace and remove all hope of a small brewer growing beyond the point where a major company will buy it out. They have their own government lobbyists, they can have legislature passed and changed in a heartbeat, as they have done several times to gain distribution control. If yo have a small brewer, you are not allowed to sell directly to the resellers bars/club etc. anymore and you MUST use one of the three approved distribution systems that are 100% controlled by one of two companies.
          How reliable do YOU think your deliveries/distribution efforts will be until you sell out to the big brewers? Especially when fighting for truck and shelf space. My point is, it is an example of capitalism gone bad, which is where I draw the line on fair business.

          That said, I agree that many people have very skewed views on socialism too. Canada is seen as a socialist, government controlled country because we have social programs, which the people of Canada have kept around because they see that they work, for the most part, better than alternatives. This doesn’t make us socialists or commies though, we haven’t had a socialist party in control for many decades. People revert what the don’t like and support what they do, which is a mixed party system that sits close to the middle compared to most other governments.

          The US is a democracy, by definition, but when people are fed half truths and false facts, they don’t have a level surface for which to base a true democratic opinion. They are either compelled by a radical left or right party that goes out of its way to be an absolute and extreme opposite to the opposing party, there is no middle ground shared and the result is extremes on both sides, not realism.

          This is a result of both media (most of our television in Canada is from US networks so I see the difference in wold reports first hand, when compared to our own) and political parties. So I see the US as having a substandard form or true democracy, people can only have a fair vote if they have fair information to base it upon.

          Interesting comments though, Ansu, I welcome more of the same.

        • #2876344

          Santee you are a great example

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Inadvertant?

          Of how radical press has resulted in your radical mentality.

          Reducing personal and industrial carbon emissions is a reasonable goal that can easily be obtained, slitting our throats because we breathe has never been suggested or implied by anyone except the most radical idiots with no reasonable objection than to simply be unreasonable.

          It is a most ridiculous exaggeration that only goes to show what a limited and most ignorant mindset you really have. Not that it was in question to begin with but it certainly is both confirming and condemning.

        • #2876325

          Santee

          by dogknees ·

          In reply to Inadvertant?

          Perhaps consumerism rather that capitalism is more what I mean.

        • #2876323

          Thank you, Bentley

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Inadvertant?

          You pulled that off without a hint of radicalism.

        • #2876314

          Your chance, Oz

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Inadvertant?

          Here, in this byway of attention, to scientifically validate what you have to say about me, as opposed to your personal precis.

          That is what your precis is, isn’t it: some kind of hair up your ass?

          Dedicate yourself as you so assiduously do elsewhere to means, manner, and method ([i]scientia[/i]) with respect to my case, re, “radical press”. How am I radicalized? How does it come to be that you are not, in order to say that I am?

          Show your cards.

          ________

          Pulled over by the Comma Police

        • #2876561

          LOL, “My chance”

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Inadvertant?

          Who the hell are you? Well, I think we all know who you THINK you are, perhaps that is where the term radical vs realist is best defined.

          You have proven yourself absolutely incapable of reasonable discussion, to me and everyone else you pretend to converse with. For you to now assume I woul dhave any interest in further discussion with you simply proves how clueless you really are.

          I owe you nothing and will not answer your most senseless questions.

          If you ever get a grip and start to function a other humans do, you could change your alias and try again, for now you are on your own whilst I engage in more relevant discussion with ‘peers’ on TR.

          In short, get bent.

        • #2876556

          You mean

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Inadvertant?

          that 1 to 2 out of 3 to 5 of you are participating… that’s an average ratio equal to the 6th root of33%*25%*20%*66%*50%*40%… that’s almost exactly 36% participation, on average… :p 😀

          Balls of yarn… whee!

          To Apotheon: The above is not an admission to being a troller 😀

        • #2876548

          You don’t have to admit it Ansu

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Inadvertant?

          We all know you’re a troll. Now clean that friggin bridge already! 😀

          The person you were speaking of is the biggest troll I’ve ever seen here anyway. Starts entire threads for the sake of having a say and flames anyone who disagrees. I guess that’s a flaming troll then?

        • #2876547

          Me… a troll?

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Inadvertant?

          Hey, a giant is what I am. With the fee and the foe and the hi-fi and the antispam-foam.
          And with the smelling the blood of a half-an-englishman!
          And all that.

          Ooo, that reminds me of one of my favorite songs; “Eric the half-a-bee”.

        • #2876536

          I had a license for my pet cat, Eric.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Inadvertant?

          You don’t need a license for a cat!

          I do and I bleedin well got one! There, see?

          That’s a dog license with the word DOG crossed out and CAT written in in crayon!

          The man didn’t have the right one.

          What ‘man’?

          The man from the cat detector van.

          What, cat detector van?

          The cat detector van from the Ministry of Howsinge!

          You’re a bleedin looney, mate!

          I’m not a looney. The van had so many bleedin’ aerials that the man said he could pinpoint a purr at 400 yards; Eric, being such a happy cat was a piece of cake!

          😀 oh my gawd, prob a few mistakes but just drew it from memory, don’t have time to look it all up.

          Singing! “LA-DEE-DEE, 1,2,3, Eric the half a bee!”

        • #2875150

          Speaking of unwholesome fun…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Inadvertant?

          Have you checked out the latest from member:Adornoe? 😀

        • #2850650

          By that same flawed reasoning

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Is it stupidity or arrogance?

          We have no power to pollute the Earth’s oceans, stunt the growth of flora and fauna, deplete its natural resources etc.

          Firstly, I wholly agree that we did not ‘initiate’ he process of climate change, it’s gonna happen whether we are here or not.

          However, as the Vostock ice core samples have proven, by examining the climate changes hundreds of thousands of years ago, there is a very high concentration of Co associated with climate change. Whether that CAUSED the change or not is purely speculative and yet to be determined. Science is simply the act of recognizing such changes and speculating the cause and effect.

          So whether proven or not, WAITING for prof is not the answer.

          You would think that people were being expected to give up their first born or something, emissions responsibility is simply the action of being more aware and controlling ones emissions.

          Take teh California clean air act for example, when initiated people moaned and groaned about how cars were gutless, more complicated, more expensive and required more maintenance. Today it is a non issue for California motorists. When AirCare testing was introduced in BC the same thing occurred. Now a car belching smoke and running like crap gets noticed and people complain abut the emissions levels instead. It’s just a new frame of mind, awareness and responsibility.

          The complaint I see from many in the US is carbon tax, not emissions control, not the reality of climate change, not the reasons for it but simply TAX. the ‘they can’t tax us, we are American’ mindset comes into play more often than not.

          One thing I have become very skilled at is recognizing the true objection, it’s what pays my bills. So while people mask their true objections by complaining that there is no proof, knowing all along that waiting for proof would leave it until it was too late to act upon it, in most cases the true objection is government imposed taxation.

          If they wanted that money they just have to allocate a tax to something else, as they usually do. In this case public awareness is imperative and private as well as corporate action is their best solution as of now.

          So be forthright, complain about tax, not about CC/GW, as CC/GW responsibility is not imposing on your way of life, your day to day activities etc.

        • #2850619

          Not arguing that it’s not happening

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to By that same flawed reasoning

          Not arguing that mankind isn’t contributing to the problem; that we can cause environmental change all by ourselves is long-since demonstrated. Not even arguing that we shouldn’t do everything economically viable to reduce our impact. I am saying we shouldn’t break our economies (or societies) on the altar of climate change. The climate will change and there’s not a d@mn thing we can do to stop it; all we can do is deal with (and prepare for) the results.

          Many of those most vocally in favor of the idea that climate change is parthenogenic also believe that every environmental issue is ultimately caused by humans and that we should do anything we can, no matter how expensive or socially unacceptable, to not only eliminate, but reverse the effects on our environment. At best, that smacks of diminished reasoning; at worst, there’s the hypocrisy of Al Gore. Neither of those perceptions does responsible environmentalists any favors.

      • #2850940

        Burden of Proof

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Truly Committed?

        The burden of proof is FIRST on the mm gw/cc advocates to PROVE two things: that human activity IS the cause of any recorded change in global tempertures and/or climate patterns – assuming, of course, they first PROVE said recorded changes are indeed valid! – and that the EFFECT is both significant and damaging.

        So far, none of that has been proven, only suggested as theory.

        And as Nick asked, who’s going to preside over this [i]hearing[/i]?

        • #2850932

          I’d love to take the credit, Max

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Burden of Proof

          But you know I can’t.

        • #2850810

          Proof

          by dogknees ·

          In reply to Burden of Proof

          The fact that you even use this word in this contezxt demonstrates that you have no idea how science works.

          Nothing can ever be “proven” in the way you seem to want. Everything is contingent. It can not be otherwise.

          Anyway, I’m over arguing about this. I’ve spent 25 years studying this. I dig into the details of the arguments and the data, and I have looked at both sides. As far as I am concerned we are directly responsible for the changes that are already happening and which are likely to accelerate. Those that deny it and carry on regardless are directly and personally reponsible and I’ll continue to treat them/you accordingly.

        • #2850663

          Why not at least get the position correct max

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Burden of Proof

          It appears more and more that your actual knowledge on the subject is well below the kindergarten level.

          PROVE human activity is the cause. There is substantial evidence proving the contributing factors of CC/GW.
          Scientists SEEK to be proven wrong, however if such a change is deemed imperative for mankind, the effects must be reduced a great deal LONG before it comes to pass.

          We KNOW what atmospheric gases are present during such changes, we KNOW that we also emit these gases into our atmosphere.

          In order to err on the side of caution, we need to reduce such emissions until it can be absolutely positive, one way or another, exactly what effect we really have. Waiting for the likes of you to agree just isn’t an option.
          You are of the mindset that when it happens you’ll be able to look back and say “Oh yeah, I guess they WERE right!” and THEN make personal changes.

          But let’s look at your reality shall we?

          YOu couldn’t care less if emissions need to be reduced, you couldn’t give a rats arse if you were wrong or right.Your ONLY concern, and this sums up the entirety of your argument, is that you are being taxed for it.

          End of STORY, Max is against any tax at all, whatsoever. Someone is reaching into your pocket, taking your money and using it for something you don’t personally believe in. Just like the medical system, you oppose it so you don’t agree with tax dollars being spent to support it. You favour war so you have no qualms about the billions of tax dollars wasted in Afghanistan and Iraq.

          So blatantly transparent in all you say.

        • #2850553

          Proof

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Burden of Proof

          You’re going to have to define “proof”.

        • #2874411

          Easy

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Proof

          Needing to dry your hair and jacket after coming inside means PROOF it is wet out.

          Beyond the things you can touch and see, there is no proof.

          That’s why the same people that don’t believe in GW are not religious, don’t have hope, refuse to accept theory or concept and are always late to the party because they need to see the others turn up first.

    • #2850656

      el SOL

      by unhappyuser ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      The sun is at an active point right now and has been steadily becoming more active for several years. Temps in the US have been rising at the same rate over the same period of time. Hmmmmmmmmm. Predictions are it’s going to become more active too!

      EMD

      • #2850655

        And as we all know

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to el SOL

        The laws of thermodynamics say that no two forces can affect a system at one time. When one starts, the other must stop… right?
        No?!?

      • #2850549

        Oh! Absolutely amazing!

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to el SOL

        Man, you have saved us all. I mean, no climate scientists has noticed that and factored it into his equations and computer model. It took you to do that and expose the Climate Change findings as a complete sham.

        Actually, sarcastic attack aside, I’d be very interested in some sort of link to your data that demonstrates this link. I bet you can’t post one.

        🙂

        • #2850521

          Here’s just one

          by unhappyuser ·

          In reply to Oh! Absolutely amazing!

        • #2850490

          RE: “rising at the same rate”

          by darryl~ ·

          In reply to Here’s just one

          I believe if you are to read the article you posted the link for, you would find it states the temperature is not increasing at the same rate as the sun’s activity.

          “Many scientists find that these correlations are convincing evidence that the sun has contributed to the global warming of the 20th century. Some say that as much as 1/3 of the global warming may be the result of an increase in solar energy. So, while it is becoming clear that human activity is changing the climate today, solar activity may also be contributing to climate change and probably changed the climate in the past.”

          “Therefore, even though solar activity may not be the dominant factor in global warming,it is important enough that understanding how the climate responds to small changes in solar irradiance will help scientists predict the climate changes caused by human activity.”

        • #2850486

          Dammit Darryl…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to RE: “rising at the same rate”

          you just single-handedly made 3XXX0N drop 200 points!

        • #2850478

          Darryl, he was mine to slap

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to RE: “rising at the same rate”

          but you did it so well that I forgive you.

          🙂

        • #2850477

          It was an interesting article though….

          by darryl~ ·

          In reply to Darryl, he was mine to slap

          The NOAA site has a lot of good information on it, I’m on it quite a bit this time of year because of the hurricanes in this part of the Atlantic.

          But yeah, I thought I did a good job of getting my point across too. 😉

        • #2850473

          Hey, how’d you do last week?

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to It was an interesting article though….

          I was off line but wondering about you guys. Better than last time?

        • #2850469

          RE: Earl

          by darryl~ ·

          In reply to It was an interesting article though….

          It wasn’t too bad, it passed almost directly over Truro but the winds had dropped a lot by the time it was here. We only lost our power for a couple hours but others in the area we out for 3 days. The were a lot of big branches down here but in Halifax, about 60 miles south of us, there were a lot of big trees uprooted & quite a bit of damage…but nothing like when Juan hit us in 2003.

        • #2850425

          Multiple causes and different degrees of impact

          by generalist ·

          In reply to RE: “rising at the same rate”

          Finally, a quote that suggests there might be multiple causes for global warming.

          All too often, in the debate on global warming, there seems to be a binary bias. This bias ‘assumes’ that global warming is purely a manmade phenomena OR global warming is a natural event. You rarely hear about the middle ground where part of the problem is caused by one source, another part is caused by a second source, a third part is caused by a third source, and so on.

          Frequently missing from the debate are things like cumulative impacts, microclimate changes, and changes in the sources of global warming.

          For example, some people claim that it is a big planet and mankind only has a small impact on things. But that ignores the fact that even a one percent annual change, cumulative, adds up over time.

          The varying manmade sources can create some interesting problems in the debate. While the London pea-souper fogs and the Los Angeles Stage One smog alerts have decreased over the decades, places like China have been running into similar problems as they industrialize and then play catchup with pollution control.

          The whole global warming issue is a complex problem that affects our life support systems AND economic systems. Trying to make the problem simpler by claiming that it is an either/or situation could be fatal to billions of people and millions of species.

        • #2850308

          The majority of scientists in relevant fields

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Multiple causes and different degrees of impact

          are firmly in the “yes, but we don’t know how much is our fault” camp. It’s only the politicians and those who see global warming as a chance of profit or loss who tend to take the extremes.

          Maxwell sees it all as a loss of freedom.

        • #2874408

          That’s the sad part

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to The majority of scientists in relevant fields

          Reality is clouded by the money grabbers who feel financial gain accolades are more important than simply providing knowledge and facts to people.

          The government tax issue was ridiculously presented and poorly received at a time when AlGore was the poster boy for climate change in the US.

          I think the photo proofs for the pro-Abortion campaign got mixed up I’m afraid.

        • #2874406

          OZ, you forgot to mention….

          by darryl~ ·

          In reply to The majority of scientists in relevant fields

          Max really, really likes to drive that gas guzzling truck around also. 😉

        • #2876349

          I am no example in that respect

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to The majority of scientists in relevant fields

          I drive an Explorer, 16-20mpg and a LOT of city and hwy driving, I mean a LOT.

          It is jut big enough for my needs, not over sized and I keep it immaculately tuned. The 4.0L V6 SOHC runs more efficiently than most 5.0L V8’s on today’s trucks, and yet has equal horsepower to most new, full sized trucks.

          It’s what I need to earn a living, and I understand it is no shining example of energy efficiency, but I make my sacrifices elsewhere, as your much better half and I have recently discussed.

          It’s not about making massive sacrifices and changing the way we lead our lives, just a bit of awareness and personal responsibility. A little, times 7 billion people, equals a LOT!

          I think Max is aware of his resource use, I wouldn’t say he’s a bad polluter from what we have discussed in the past, but even then we can ALL do a wee bit better, and that’s what REAL science is looking for, not radical life changing experiences.

    • #2850418

      my two cents

      by purpleskys ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      and I chastize myself for even adding to this particular topic of discussion.

      Climate change (ie: global warming) is a fact – plain and simple. Whether it is man made or not is debatable for some folks. My opinion is, it’s not that man created global warming, it’s that we have accelerated the natural process by warming the earth’s atmosphere faster than it would have on it’s own – without our industrial interference. We have wreaked havoc on our beloved planet all in the name of progress. Anyone wanna talk about what BP’s oil disaster has done to our oceans? Or any oil spill by that matter. And I’m sure this doesn’t do our oceans any good either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

      Before Hurricane Juan, I think I only experienced one hurricane in the 38 yrs before that. Now I’m seeing at least one every 1-3 yrs. Our oceans are warmer – why does one suppose that is? Don’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out (and if it does, I’ll talk to my nephew). It’s a proven fact that the ocean water around Nova Scotia is two degrees warmer than normal; wonder how that happened eh?

      Anthropogenic factors are human activities that change the environment. In some cases the chain of causality of human influence on the climate is direct and unambiguous (for example, the effects of irrigation on local humidity), while in other instances it is less clear. Various hypotheses for human-induced climate change have been argued for many years. Presently the scientific consensus on climate change is that human activity is very likely the cause for the rapid increase in global average temperatures over the past several decades.[26] Consequently, the debate has largely shifted onto ways to reduce further human impact and to find ways to adapt to change that has already occurred.[27]

      Of most concern in these anthropogenic factors is the increase in CO2 levels due to emissions from fossil fuel combustion, followed by aerosols (particulate matter in the atmosphere) and cement manufacture. Other factors, including land use, ozone depletion, animal agriculture[28] and deforestation, are also of concern in the roles they play – both separately and in conjunction with other factors – in affecting climate, microclimate, and measures of climate variables. >>> for more information, read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Human_influences

      While I’m here, what’s with ppl building in flood plains, tornado alleys, earth quake zones, and other hazzardous areas? Hello!?!

      I could go on and on and on (I am a woman afterall 😉 ).

      Anyway, take it or leave, I could care less, that’s the jest of my opinion.

      That’s the end of my two cents, I will comment no further.

      edit: ’cause i err’ed 😉

      • #2850309

        Re: ocean water around Nova Scotia is two degrees warmer than normal;

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to my two cents

        You said (and asked), “It’s a proven fact that the ocean water around Nova Scotia is two degrees warmer than normal; wonder how that happened eh?”

        [i]”I haven’t seen a warm water anomaly quite as big as this in a while,” Chris Fogerty, with the Canadian Hurricane Centre, told CBC News. Recent readings showed temperatures were two to five degrees above normal in a million square kilometres of ocean stretching from off the coast of Maine to the Grand Banks off Newfoundland….[/i]

        To answer your question:

        [i]”Fogerty blames the mild winter and prevailing southerly winds for the rise in water temperature.”[/i]

        Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2006/07/11/warm-water-hurrican.html#ixzz0z96xy6zc

      • #2850306

        “what’s with ppl building in flood plains”

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to my two cents

        “While I’m here, what’s with ppl building in flood plains, tornado alleys, earth quake zones, and other hazzardous areas?”

        What’s with using my tax dollars to pay them to REBUILD in the same place, over and over and OVER? I don’t care where people live, but if they can’t or won’t buy the necessary insurance coverage they aren’t entitled to my money to start over, especially not in the SAME HAZARD-PRONE SPOT.

        Looks like there’s something wrong with my Caps Lock key. Oh, I see; it’s wired to the knot in my knickers.

        • #2850301

          Aye.

          by seanferd ·

          In reply to “what’s with ppl building in flood plains”

          Actually, I’m not so sure there is something wrong with your capslock key. I think it is one of them newfangled smart capslock whatchajiggers.

          As for flooding, let me just add BUILDING BELOW SEA LEVEL RIGHT ON THE COAST WHILE RADICALLY DISTORTING RIVER SYSTEMS AND THEIR NATURAL DEPOSITION PATTERNS.

          Oops. Musta had smart capslock turned on as well. Spelling check seems to be off, though.

        • #2850296

          kudos

          by purpleskys ·

          In reply to Aye.

          to both of you 🙂

        • #2874344

          Ahem

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Aye.

          *cough**cough**netherlandscough**cough*

        • #2874341

          They did it right

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Ahem

          They planned their flood control systems. Their dike and flood control systems are designed [u]and maintained[/u] for the storm of the century. The flood control gates at the Scheldt Estuary are among the engineering marvels of the modern world.

          Here in the States, on the other hand, the levees were not designed, just built as the need arose. Most of them have not been maintained, nor have they been updated. The same areas along the same rivers flood time after time.

          Second, the flood insurance premiums are subsidized and change only when the flood risk changes. Even the highest premium, for those in coastal areas subject to storm surge, is only $5700 this year for building/contents coverage of $250,000/$100,000. The rates are much less for those living in high-risk inland areas: $2766 for the same amount of coverage. http://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/pages/choose_your_policy/policy_rates.jsp

          Think about it. I want to live along the coast, in an area subject to storm-driven flooding every four years on average. Let’s say I buy a smaller beach house in a less-desirable area and only pay $250,000 for it. Assuming current premium rates and flooding at the average rate of every four years, I pay only $22,800, plus the deductible, to have it gutted and rebuilt when it floods. And there are no penalties for rebuilding right where I was. Not bad.

          Not a bad deal at all. And we wonder why people rebuild in the exact same spot when they are flooded out.

        • #2874318

          But…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to They did it right

          let’s see them raise their dams a further 10 m if that’s what it takes… not such an easy thing to do. But that’s why european cars are smaller 😉

        • #2874270

          My answer would be about the same.

          by seanferd ·

          In reply to But…

          The Netherlands: Doing it right for two millennia.

          They are aware, prepared, and act as though they are. Unlike some other places, where any sort of “natural disaster” is like a freaking surprise, even if a similar event occurred last week, last month, last year.

        • #2874264

          Confucious was describing Americans, I think

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to But…

          When he said, “Please to remove cranium from inappropriate location.”

        • #2874317

          You know

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Ahem

          I was thinking along those lines.

          I live in the potential flood plain of one, San Vincente Dam, a very old dam.

          Study was done once about how deep and how fast the water would scour the plain.

          You can say you knew me, once.

        • #2874316

          Ohhoh…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to You know

          Well… you know… not much to be done about that except relocation. Unless you feel like building a very tall, very thick concrete wall around your place… with ladders and chutes … or sluices… if it’s a surroundable property that is.

        • #2874315

          Like I said

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Ohhoh…

          Once.

        • #2874269

          Just a bit scary.

          by seanferd ·

          In reply to You know

          Failing dams release water in manners only seen during large-scale glacial retreat and sub-ice volcanic eruption.

          On the bright side: At least it isn’t a coal ash slurry pond.

        • #2874268

          Or

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Just a bit scary.

          Pig manure.

        • #2874266

          Oh, Lawlz no.

          by seanferd ·

          In reply to Just a bit scary.

          Toxic death.

        • #2874263

          Thank your deity of choice

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Just a bit scary.

          Americans don’t raise sheep the way they raise pigs. The stench of sheep manure will gag a maggot.

          Much worse than pigs.

          etu

        • #2874402

          Flood Plains….

          by darryl~ ·

          In reply to “what’s with ppl building in flood plains”

          G D it!

          Do you have any idea how much that frustrates me? It’s my department at the Municipality that deals with that…..people look for every little loophole to get around it…..sort of like Max & his “big truck” 😀

    • #2874349

      I wouldn’t do that though

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      I drive an 97 Explorer lImited, abg 16mpg city and 20mpg hwy. 14.7L/100lms, not exactly an enviro buggy.

      I reduce my footprint a lot of other ways though by joining in on the one ton challenge.

      • #2874345

        we’re trying

        by purpleskys ·

        In reply to I wouldn’t do that though

        both cars are small http://www.chevrolet.com/cobalt/coupe/features-specs/
        and http://www.gm.ca/gm/english/vehicles/pontiac/g5/model-detail01-key-features
        Pretty much the same car really.

        As for the house, I use nothing but cold water to wash our laundry, hang them to dry as often as possible, all our lights are compact fluorescent lights, and as many other little ways as humanly possible. This is a wonderous planet that we live on, it would be a moral sin if our grandchildren didn’t get to see the beautiful things that we have seen in our lifetime.

        • #2874343

          You know… it’s not the size that matters…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to we’re trying

          it’s how far it goes on a certain amount of fuel. At least for the chevvy I calculated (roughly) what it is in litres per 100 km, as that’s what I know how to compare with, and it came out a 9,4… and that’s not good.
          I have a 9 years old car and I still manage to achieve 6,4 on that.

          http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/fuel

          EDIT: Yeah, I know, should have written “…it’s how long you can go before filling”, what can I say, bad brain days happen to us all, right?

        • #2874299

          9.4 doesn’t seem correct to me but

          by darryl~ ·

          In reply to You know… it’s not the size that matters…

          we don’t do much city driving (we don’t have any cities near by to drive in) so we’re pretty much always getting “highway” consumption which is around 6.4

          As for the conversion thing….that can be a real pain here…when they rate something in mpg we have to figure out if they are using Imperial gallons or US gallons before you can even begin to calculate the rest….so I sort of think of it like you said….how far can I go before I have to fill it…I usually get about 750 km per tank (13 US Gallons = 49.21 l) and that works out to 6.56 l per 100 km so that’s not too bad for a combined rate….her car is a little better than mine because it’s a standard transmission but she drives it harder than I do so she could get better than me if she tried 😉

        • #2874292

          That’s right…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to 9.4 doesn’t seem correct to me but

          City driving is messy… without a hybrid at least.

          I’m waiting for a TSI/Electro hybrid, that’d be pretty good.

        • #2874271

          I have an onboard computer that does it for me

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to 9.4 doesn’t seem correct to me but

          I can check average and instant milage, then just hit a message centre button to show me Imperial or metric. Cool thing is, when I cross the line it is a press of a button and evetything, including the temperaure settings on the climate control flip to imperial measurement, not bad for an old banger.

          The funny thing is, my 1997 4.0L SOHC V-6, is actually faster than the brand new Explorer’s V8. I have every feature and creature comfort of the new ones too.

          Why spend $40K+ and then get a wimpier drive train and terrible transmission that are not actually designed for off road use anyway?

          I just replaced my 97 with an identical one (new driver changed lanes without looking and took out the entire side of my truck!), same mfg plant, same package and build, made on the same day just 12 units before my last one was made. Probably had the same guy drive it off the production line before lunch. 😀

        • #2875149

          yeahbut

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to You know… it’s not the size that matters…

          [i]EDIT: Yeah, I know, should have written “…it’s how long you can go before filling”, what can I say, bad brain days happen to us all, right? [/i]

          If you dill up, aren’t you wasting fuel hauling around fuel? 🙂

        • #2875147

          dill by any other name…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to yeahbut

          I was actually commenting on the line “It’s not the size that matters”…
          There’s an unwritten rule that says that whatever follows that line must be misconstruable! And I failed that at first.
          “…it’s how long you can go before filling” was my belated replacement :p ]:)

          Yes, you’re correct; the most ecologically sound way to drive a ICE vehicle is on trace fumes 😉

        • #2875129

          I was told to dill it for max cheapness

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to yeahbut

          A long time ago, a priest (at pre-marriage counseling) told me that it was less expensive to fill up than to just add a couple of dollars to the tank.

          Reason being that more evaporation happened in a nearly empty tank.

          I don’t know if he had his information from God or from a more reliable source. Made sense to me at the time.

        • #2874883

          Yes.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I was told to dill it for max cheapness

          Miles per dollar, rather than miles per gallon.

          It’s largely a guess though, Around here it can jump 50 cents in one day… for no apparent reason. (It never drops that quickly though…)

          Still using the EEEPC and my fingers are bigger then the keys.

        • #2874858

          Isn’t there an app for that…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Yes.

          one that calculates from every cluster of three keys pressed simultaneously the most likely intended keypress? Should be one, it’s just basically autocomplete.

        • #2874844

          Aren’t miles per gallon and miles per dollar the same?

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Yes.

          If I were trying to get absolute top mileage from a car on a test circuit, then I would put exactly one gallon (and no more) in the tank, and have an anorexic teenaged girl drive it, and maybe take out the back seat, spare tire, and floor mats for good measure. Because all of these things save weight, and if the point is to win a test, then that’s how you’d do it.

          However, in life as it is actually lived, tubby guys like me drive around with as much gas as we can afford at any given time.

        • #2875135

          10 mpg (U.S.) equals about 4.25 km/liter

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to You know… it’s not the size that matters…

          You can scale from there.

          Multiply MPG by 0.425 for KPL
          Multiply KPL by 2.353 for MPG

          These presume USA gallons. If you’re an ancient war widow surviving in Vancouver, you may think Imperial Gallons is the only way to measure things. These numbers would have to be adjusted by 20%: 0.354 and 2.82.

          Ansu, a U.S. gallon sensibly has four quarts, while an Imperial gallon inexplicably has five.

        • #2875101

          It’s a quadrilogy in five parts…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to 10 mpg (U.S.) equals about 4.25 km/liter

          … so that’s where that came from.
          Thanks for the clearing up of that.

          I bet Lord Kelvin had a hand in that… what with his beloved Ether, and all.

    • #2874090
      Avatar photo

      Maxwell you are so badly mistaken

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      The reason that the real people are saying that Man has caused this is to prevent Ming The Merciless from destroying the planet.

      Remember every thousand years he visits the distant planets and exposes them to all sorts of calamities. If the inhabitants them see these events as Acts of Nature or the results of their actions he leaves them alone for another thousand years.

      If they see the [b]Hand of Ming[/b] he destroys the entire planet. If you persists in your actions Ming will believe that you know of his presence and destroy the place.

      Col

      • #2874089

        Sometimes, HAL

        by santeewelding ·

        In reply to Maxwell you are so badly mistaken

        That’s what you gotta do.

        You have to superintend all this stuff with superior — albeit, tongue in cheek — supravention.

        Your tongue was in your cheek, wasn’t it?

        • #2874083
          Avatar photo

          No Comment

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Sometimes, HAL

          On the grounds that Newspapers are not required to report the truth but only what sells papers which in this case is what their readers want to hear. 😉

          Col

      • #2876421

        I thought it was to prevent

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to Maxwell you are so badly mistaken

        that cylindrical starship from “Star Trek IV” from avenging our destruction of the whales.

        • #2876395

          Personally…

          by jck ·

          In reply to I thought it was to prevent

          I’m waiting for Amazon women from the stars to come grab me up and use me…a lot. 😀

        • #2876362
          Avatar photo

          I didn’t realize

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Personally…

          That you liked getting whipped so much. :0

          Takes all kinds I suppose.

          Col

        • #2876575

          They aren’t from the stars

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Personally…

          They’re from the moon.

        • #2876526
          Avatar photo

          RE : They aren’t from the stars

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to They aren’t from the stars

          No that is just wrong.

          They are from the [b]Dark Side of the Moon[/b]

        • #2876525

          Yup.

          by seanferd ·

          In reply to RE : They aren’t from the stars

          The Kentucky Fried Dark Side of the Moon, that is.

        • #2876364
          Avatar photo

          Well actually that was another example

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to I thought it was to prevent

          Of where man changed things so much that it was about to lead to his end. 😉

          But we couldn’t drive things to extinction could we? :^0

          Col

    • #2876358

      I dont need you to tell me its a lie…

      by snuffy09 ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      or tell me the sky is blue or the grass is green!

      If it has government stamp on it, you know its a lie!

      • #2876335

        What government stamped it?

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to I dont need you to tell me its a lie…

        You need to get a clue. GW was not an invention of governments in fact most dispelled the claims instantly as their campaign funding is from petroleum suppliers and large manufacturing coporations, those that are the most apt to have high polulution emissions.

        Just because your little brain can’t sort out facts from political BS, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

        NOTE: The sly is every colour BUT blue and grass is every colour BUT green, stop listening to mainstream yahoos an learn some real science for a change.

        Do I think man CAUSED global warming? nope.

        Do I think that we are contributing to the speed at which it takes effect? Most likely and don’t want to wait until its too late just to find out. Being more resourceful is no skin off my nose.

        You act like someone has asked you to give up a nut to save the world, as radical as the politicians that you rightly shun.

        • #2874985

          your the one that needs to get a clue…

          by snuffy09 ·

          In reply to What government stamped it?

          If you don’t think the government lies to you.

          Global warming is a man made (government made) panic mode. It’s used as another opportunity to control our lives and gain more of your hard earned money in the process, by telling you what kinds of cars you can drive, taxing you on energy usage, mandating how efficient cars are that are produced, tax on gas, ect., ect.

          Note: global warming is not the only thing i think the government lies to you about, thus “anything with a government stamp on it” I am not ridiculing goerge washington the founding fathers tried to prevent against government corruption / take over with the constitution which modern government are trying to throw out the window

      • #2876582

        I want to know what technology

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to I dont need you to tell me its a lie…

        allowed the Vikings to plant this stuff under the ice

        http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100914/lf_nm_life/us_climate_vikings

        • #2876560

          Hope they find my Action Man

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I want to know what technology

          Lost him when I was 6, had a really cool snowmobile, snow goggles, winter anorak etc.

        • #2876522

          Mu.

          by seanferd ·

          In reply to I want to know what technology

          The question is not even wrong, so it cannot be answered. We’ll work around that.

          Technology: Living a long time ago, and dropping stuff in the area, if you can call that technology.

          Technology: Snowfall, if you can call that technology.

        • #2876515

          Sure it’s technology

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Mu.

          It’s technology we haven’t discovered yet.

          We still haven’t devised a way to stop forgetting things, leaving things behind and automatically clean up after ourselves.

          We can make snow, but it’s not the real thing, nor can we really manipulate the clouds, besides creating acid rain.

          So yeah, I guess it is technology way beyond our means for now, maybe one day. 🙂

        • #2875151

          I was being sarcastic

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Mu.

          If you require a more lengthy explanation, let me know.

      • #2875138

        I actually need more information to make that call

        by delbertpgh ·

        In reply to I dont need you to tell me its a lie…

        “If it has government stamp on it, you know its a lie!”

        If it has a Tea Party stamp on it, you know it’s ill reasoned, and that its “facts” are just made up. But, for the sake of good form, you try to reason against it any way.

        Reasoning against this stuff becomes a mutual jerk off session pretty quickly. When you find somebody who believes that all of politics and science is just a conspiracy to put something over on you, then grounds for agreement just disappear.

    • #2875075

      Please change your title.

      by puppybreath ·

      In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a Lie

      According to the White House Office of Science, should no longer be referred to as “Global Warming”. The correct term to use is now “Global Climate Disruption”.

      • #2875027

        It changed again:

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to Please change your title.

        Now it’ Terran Climatological Dysfunction… it’s related to ADHD.

        • #2874968

          ADHD?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to It changed again:

          As with all politically-motivated causes, in this case ADHD means “Ass Deposited Head Displacement”

        • #2874962

          ACI?

          by puppybreath ·

          In reply to ADHD?

          Is that the same as Anal-Cranial Inversion?

        • #2874959

          Quite similar, as I understand it

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to ACI?

          The difference being how much more pretentious one politician is than another. 😀

Viewing 24 reply threads