well this last decade the earth got cooler, so right there that puts your argument of it gettin hotter and hotter to rest.
Climategate = FAIL
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
Ok so where does the money come from to pay for all these so called climate experts who publish papers? Government grants? Who is in charge of doling out these grants? Who controls those bureaucrats? Ultimately your answers will eventually find the moneyed interest who is getting ready to make alot more wealth on the backs of the people who will be duped into accepting this cap and trade agenda that will cause YOUR energy bill to SKYROCKET! Well who doesn't want to have even less than they do now? I mean its all about who ends with the least right? Its so much fun to be destitute and living on the street I understand that, but SOME of us like living in a heated building when its 40 below zero out.
Its like the Patriot Act for Carbon. I know how much we love the Pat Act.
Its like the Patriot Act for Carbon. I know how much we love the Pat Act.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/22/nasa_global_warming_warmest_decade/
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Decade/climate-2009-caps-hottest-decade-record/story?id=9283733
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html
http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0126-climate.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2009/1208/climate-change-scientists-say-this-decade-likely-hottest-on-record
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/01/22/nasa.warmest.decade.data/index.html
How do you explain that?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you're positing that each and every one of these millions of individuals gets up in the morning and ponders: how can i fabricate a false thesis of climate change based on human activities in order to further my own wealth/agenda or others?
that thought is infinitely more ridiculous than the thought that human activities somehow effect the climate patterns and environmental conditions around us.
unless, of course, you hold some key piece of information that the most knowledgeable researchers on the subject do not have...care to share?
huffy420
Well-Known Member
I think its funny how most people talk shit about main media sources. Calling them liars and fact manipulators(which they are)... Then I see the same news affiliates posted as unarguable fact...
I can find links that support a cooling Earth just as easy...
Ironic how that second link you posted("theregister.co.uk") seems to flip flop on its climate stance. Here is a link below showing an article from The Register that runs down nasa's climate models saying they didnt include a few key variables into their model..
Is that the kind of source you want to put your faith in???
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-facts-to-warm-to/story-e6frg7ko-1111115855185
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/3583-earth-is-cooling-sea-levels-not-rising-scientists-say
Nice try but I wont buy into bullshit affiliates like CNN and ABC... Might as
well be watching Fox...
Sorry for any type-os... Im on iphone(will be last time i post from iphone, this takes
forever...hah)
Patrick Bateman
Active Member
Yes I bet these scientists are in it simply for the money, because we all know what a lucrative business research science is - lol
The global CO2 concentration stood at approximately 260 ppm for 11 000 years until the early 18th century , but is now 380 ppm
Gathering climate change evidence from ice cores in Antarctica (the most reliable source), the maximum CO2 concentration during the previous 420 000 years was 300 ppm
That interval witnessed 4 glacial - interglacial cycles, each of about 100 000 years, who were driven by rhythmic changes in the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth, whose effects are amplified by the feedbacks and forces they in turn generate within the Earth's environment
We are living in an interglacial period, or warm phase
If current carbon emission trends continue, by 2050 carbon concentration will reach 500 ppm, and could reach 750 ppm by 2100
A doubling in atmospheric carbon of today's levels will give rise to an increase in the mean global atmospheric temperature by 3 to 7 degrees celsius
The speed of that temperature change is where the danger lies
It will mean an immense portion of our capital assets will be no longer useful, much sooner than their planned obsolescence
Infrastructure will disappear under rising seas
Is it better to sit idly by while this takes place or to actively sequester carbon output with alternative energy sources?
The global CO2 concentration stood at approximately 260 ppm for 11 000 years until the early 18th century , but is now 380 ppm
Gathering climate change evidence from ice cores in Antarctica (the most reliable source), the maximum CO2 concentration during the previous 420 000 years was 300 ppm
That interval witnessed 4 glacial - interglacial cycles, each of about 100 000 years, who were driven by rhythmic changes in the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth, whose effects are amplified by the feedbacks and forces they in turn generate within the Earth's environment
We are living in an interglacial period, or warm phase
If current carbon emission trends continue, by 2050 carbon concentration will reach 500 ppm, and could reach 750 ppm by 2100
A doubling in atmospheric carbon of today's levels will give rise to an increase in the mean global atmospheric temperature by 3 to 7 degrees celsius
The speed of that temperature change is where the danger lies
It will mean an immense portion of our capital assets will be no longer useful, much sooner than their planned obsolescence
Infrastructure will disappear under rising seas
Is it better to sit idly by while this takes place or to actively sequester carbon output with alternative energy sources?
abe23
Active Member
That's right....scientists only care about money. That's why they become scientists.
JeffersonBud
Active Member
Major Volcano eruptions have been known to put more co2 into the air then we humans.
Current sampling shows the earth has been on a cooling trend in the last few decades. It's a giant cycle. There has been no smoking gun that humans co2 use is or ever was causing the earth to warm. As you can see in the chart below for the last 400k years the earth gets cooler and warmer. It spikes high, then drops off very quickly. The earth has warmed and cooled, at times, faster then what we are seeing today. Just look at the data people. Stop taking things at face value. Al Gore's WE company posts profits in the billions, so yes there IS money to be made.
I would be much more worried about the solar storms we are going to see very soon then the earths temperature fluctuations.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.johnworr.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/vostok-ice-core-petit.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.notundertaxed.com/2007/05/10/&usg=__ZGUoJ_5QxZOWyi7HpKJHT1B2s6w=&h=441&w=598&sz=46&hl=en&start=9&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=WP2aGp9lFyBLoM:&tbnh=100&tbnw=135&prev=/images?q=earth%27s+temps&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&tbs=isch:1
Current sampling shows the earth has been on a cooling trend in the last few decades. It's a giant cycle. There has been no smoking gun that humans co2 use is or ever was causing the earth to warm. As you can see in the chart below for the last 400k years the earth gets cooler and warmer. It spikes high, then drops off very quickly. The earth has warmed and cooled, at times, faster then what we are seeing today. Just look at the data people. Stop taking things at face value. Al Gore's WE company posts profits in the billions, so yes there IS money to be made.
I would be much more worried about the solar storms we are going to see very soon then the earths temperature fluctuations.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.johnworr.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/vostok-ice-core-petit.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.notundertaxed.com/2007/05/10/&usg=__ZGUoJ_5QxZOWyi7HpKJHT1B2s6w=&h=441&w=598&sz=46&hl=en&start=9&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=WP2aGp9lFyBLoM:&tbnh=100&tbnw=135&prev=/images?q=earth%27s+temps&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&tbs=isch:1
JeffersonBud
Active Member
You know Nasa is a defense agency right?
Fuhrer
Member
ink the world
Well-Known Member
LOL Abe......I always thought it was because of the scientest groupies, you know those groupies are as quality as Motley Crue groupies.
I can always count on you for a good laugh,,,,+rep...had a real shitty day and you just gave me my first smile since 5 AM
I just went and reread my post, guess what? I didn't say ANYTHING you just posted as me saying, plain as day i think you are deluded in your own fantasies. I mean where do you even come up with this stuff? Where do you see I say they even wake up in the morning? So you got it all wrong, try again.
I could use you own logic and just ask if you mean that all scientists work for nothing, have no economic benefit if their studies suggest what the government models want them to reflect? Its kinda like when Nixon had top scientists study the effects of Marijuana and they came back and told him that it was pretty harmless. Well that didn't jive with his agenda so those studies were dismissed as quackery and the war on drugs was born. And that just begs the question: Why does the government only propagandize the man made warming pundits and not the global cooling everything is normal pundits? Why do they only lean towards the global warming side? Maybe, just maybe they have a vested interest?
I would never rely on the government to make anything better. The gubbermint screws up everything it touches, and it always costs 10x more than they said it would and we end up with everything worse for it. Education, economy, medical, failed war on drugs, failed war on poverty, sky high unemployment, tent cities of people who are destitute. And after they have proven themselves over and over again to be utterly incompetent people still clamor for them to do "Something". They won't clean the gulf oil spill, it is in their best interest to use this catastrophe for other things, like a smokescreen for the collapse of our economy, or as a distraction from whats really happening in the world.
ruderalis88
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
What scientists? What research money? Specifics.
That's wrong information you're working with. The OP of this thread explains how the guy went to trial and was found INNOCENT of those charges. Don't be exactly what Fox News wants you to be - a spokesperson for their false claims. Investigate this stuff for yourself, click on the link in the original post.
Yes, people are working on it, private companies and small underfunded entrepreneurs, but that isn't enough to make the kind of impact we need to make, now, soon, before the snowball effect takes over and we don't have the ability to control it anymore. When I say that I don't mean in our lifetime. I mean in our kids or grandkids lifetimes. They will be feeling the effects in the future of our lifestyles today.
Governments actively block innovations that prove to be more efficient than current sources of energy. Why is another question entirely. Once you start asking that one, you start discovering the real reasons credible climate change research and investigation is being attacked.
No, not always, and in the projects that do receive government funding, what, they have agents on site making sure everyone is following the rules? This stuff takes place at universities, national academies of science.. Laboratories with PUBLIC ACCESS. Nothing is hidden, nothing is secret. The data is consistent with what we see in reality.
Outline specifically what you don't like about current legislation regarding climate change.
That's where you messed up, I didn't say it's "unarguable fact!". I posted like 5 or 6 different sources, all consistent with each other. Usually, when I research something I discover that if the sources you go through are all essentially telling the same story there's some truth to it. Take politics for instance, you read something political about Obama or Clinton from any right wing outlet, chances are it'll have a negative slant. Same people from a left wing outlet, positive slant.
Climate change is an environmental issue, which is dominantly a left wing issue, therefor, it's not odd to see the left wing slant.
The only reason it was cold this winter was because I used my bike instead of my Toyota
huffy420
Well-Known Member
I messed up?? Please re read again... As I said "people" as in people who post in the political forum.. I never stated that "you" claimed them as unarguable fact.
Kind of like how my 3 links are consistant with the other side of the argument...
Tons of universities recieve federal funding for reseach and development... you said that money is spent to block new innovations...So why cant money be spent to recieve specific research results??
Keenly2
Active Member
earlier in this thread you asked who was making money?
people like al gore, who invest in carbon taxes, do you remember what they were trying to do at copenhagen? establish global taxes for everyone who used c02
so your telling me that people invested in this wouldnt make huge profits?
people like al gore, who invest in carbon taxes, do you remember what they were trying to do at copenhagen? establish global taxes for everyone who used c02
so your telling me that people invested in this wouldnt make huge profits?