Global warming: new controvesy?

For non-Starport related topics

Moderator: Major

User avatar
Stormy
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:11 am

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Stormy » Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:40 pm

Global Warming is a myth..

Where's the evidence!!

User avatar
Armor
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: Not England >: (

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Armor » Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:21 pm

Stormy wrote:Global Warming is a myth..

Where's the evidence!!
Word up.

User avatar
Meliza-
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:24 am
Location: Arizona

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Meliza- » Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:53 am

Studies have shown it to be just a natureal climate shift.
The planet is acually cooling down.
But of course the media dosent show that, bad for rating.

-Meliza

User avatar
Havok
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Behind you, about to torp your engines

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Havok » Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:11 pm

personally i think that any warming or cooling of the globe to be part of a natural cycle, and has little to do with the actions of humanity. Alot of the 'scientific experts' supporting global warming today are same kooks that were screaming about 'global cooling' in the 1970s. However assume for a minute that global warming is real and that it is a result of human actions. The answer to this problem would NOT be for the United States, Europe, and Japan to destroy their economies by imposing ridiculous regulations on themselves when they arent the ones causing the problem. The majority of pollution in the world is done by 'developing' nations such as china, india, mexico and brazil to name a few. The pollution is so bad in china that in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, many foreign olympic teams had to wear breathing masks when traveling through the city.

User avatar
SnakeEyes
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:19 am

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by SnakeEyes » Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:47 pm

global warming is a fact. The only thing some scientists have a different view on, is if it is caused by human interference or not. But scientific consensus shows that most of the scientists agree that the humans are at least partly to blame.

User avatar
Turkey
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:28 pm
Location: Rib'zki

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Turkey » Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:38 pm

Please stop using the words 'scientist' and 'scientific' in this thread.

User avatar
SnakeEyes
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:19 am

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by SnakeEyes » Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:54 pm

Turkey wrote:Please stop using the words 'scientist' and 'scientific' in this thread.
Why should I

User avatar
MegaMan
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:24 am

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by MegaMan » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:28 am

Also, I've never heard of anything about "global cooling in the 70s;" the upward trend started well before the 1970s. Actually it started shortly after the industrial revolution, in the late 1800s, which is when some scientists first became concerned humans were causing the temperature increase.

It is not a new idea, and it is backed by a lot of evidence. If you doubt this, do check up on it. It isn't something that should just be laughed off, because it's not just Polar Bears that will become extinct as a result. It will be us.

User avatar
glory
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by glory » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:06 am

MegaMan wrote:Also, I've never heard of anything about "global cooling in the 70s;" the upward trend started well before the 1970s. Actually it started shortly after the industrial revolution, in the late 1800s, which is when some scientists first became concerned humans were causing the temperature increase.

It is not a new idea, and it is backed by a lot of evidence. If you doubt this, do check up on it. It isn't something that should just be laughed off, because it's not just Polar Bears that will become extinct as a result. It will be us.
i dont care about us, i love polar bears

User avatar
anito1
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 10:36 am

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by anito1 » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:02 am

why bother with global warming when these gooks are saying the world will in 2012?

User avatar
MadAce
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 6:12 pm

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by MadAce » Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:56 am

Mmmmh.


I didn't realize before now Idiocracy was a documentary.

User avatar
Grimoire
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 5:33 am
Location: Shredding
Contact:

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Grimoire » Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:24 am

Stormy wrote:Global Warming is a myth..

Where's the evidence!!

Have you happened to look at the size of the North Pole? As I recall its melting.

User avatar
Havok
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Behind you, about to torp your engines

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Havok » Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:52 pm

Not suprised some havent heard of the 'global cooling' hysteria of earlier, since the large majority of SGE players were not even alive back then. But I assure you it happened and alot of the politicians and 'scientific experts' of then support global warming of now.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate ... ling_N.htm

As for ice levels in the arctic, for the past two years I hear opposing claims from both sides about whats actually happening up there. Im no scientist myself and dont pretend to have even limited knowledge or understanding of all the stuff these guys are talking about. But there until there is a wider consensus in the international scientific community as to whats happening, no government should take any action to prevent something that may turn out to be a hoax.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15 ... e_mystery/

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/ ... aps_1.html

User avatar
glory
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by glory » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:35 pm

Havok wrote:Not suprised some havent heard of the 'global cooling' hysteria of earlier, since the large majority of SGE players were not even alive back then. But I assure you it happened and alot of the politicians and 'scientific experts' of then support global warming of now.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate ... ling_N.htm

As for ice levels in the arctic, for the past two years I hear opposing claims from both sides about whats actually happening up there. Im no scientist myself and dont pretend to have even limited knowledge or understanding of all the stuff these guys are talking about. But there until there is a wider consensus in the international scientific community as to whats happening, no government should take any action to prevent something that may turn out to be a hoax.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15 ... e_mystery/

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/ ... aps_1.html
errrm....one of those was written by goddard, ruling it out as a source.

User avatar
Havok
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Behind you, about to torp your engines

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Havok » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:44 pm

yeah no one knows who he is, hes obviously an opponent of global warming, and has used several pennames in the past. Steven stays the same, just different surnames. Goddard is his most recent one, probably a reference to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies

User avatar
glory
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by glory » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:48 pm

Havok wrote:yeah no one knows who he is, hes obviously an opponent of global warming, and has used several pennames in the past. Steven stays the same, just different surnames. Goddard is his most recent one, probably a reference to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies
goddard was also the pen name of stoddard, a notorious lying asswipe...and anyone who names themselves after him is just as stupid

User avatar
Havok
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Behind you, about to torp your engines

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Havok » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:59 pm

never heard of this 'stoddard' fellow. But seeing how Al Gore (another lying asswipe) is the champion of the whole global warming theory, same thing could be said about anyone who treats him as a credible source :P

User avatar
glory
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by glory » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:02 pm

i love pandas, yes i can, i love meowmix, yes i do, i love meowmix, yes i can, and i love biscuits too!!!
orly? yarly snuggles galorrrrrrrrrrrreee

i think that global warming is a very snuggley issue and needs somebody to hug it.......id voulenteer but al gore is already feeling it up.

User avatar
CaptainKangaroo
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 3:07 am
Location: Mr.Angry's House Drinking His Beer Watching Captain Kangaroo Re-runs

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by CaptainKangaroo » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:52 pm

As the sun expands, the climate on all of the planets change. Very simple to understand, the closer you are to heat the warmer it gets.

Can someone explain how we are the cause of global warming on mars?

User avatar
MadAce
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 6:12 pm

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by MadAce » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:45 pm

How much do I have to pay you guys to never, ever vote?

User avatar
Havok
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Behind you, about to torp your engines

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Havok » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:57 pm

been voting for 4 years now man, participate in every election eligible for, even local tax issues and such. If i stop voting then i lose my right to I love you man! about the government :wink:

User avatar
MadAce
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 6:12 pm

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by MadAce » Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:00 am

Havok wrote:been voting for 4 years now man, participate in every election eligible for, even local tax issues and such. If i stop voting then i lose my right to I love you man! about the government :wink:
For you there are risks to voting. Odds are someone from the future will go back in time and kick you in the balls.

User avatar
Caia
Posts: 790
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:15 pm

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Caia » Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:45 am

Super easy.

Global Warming is a cozy theory, but doesn't have much evidence supporting it. There are numerous flaws in the theory, and with so many, it shouldn't be taken as seriously as the media takes it.

That being said, the global average temperature has gone up a bit over the past decade. I don't think anyone can deny this, as we have the data to back it up. The problem with correlating a VERY short term shift in temperature is that global warming is a process that takes decades and centuries to truly detect. A heat wave for 5 years isn't proof of anything.

Moreover, millions of years ago when the dinosaurs were still around, we think the Earth average temperature was quite a bit warmer than it is today. 10 to 15 degrees warmer, which is a vast difference. Given that the Earth was warmer way back before humans were around, I'm not terribly worried about the "dire consequences" that loons like Al Gore keep talking about. The Earth's weather patterns have varied fairly greatly as best we can tell.

Now, that isn't to say I'm all for pumping out all the pollution we can. In fact, quite the opposite. Pumping all that garbage into the air causes many problems. Allergies, asthma, cancer, and smog just to name a few. If people want to clean that up and make the air cleaner, that's a good thing. But worrying about carbon dioxide levels causes the Earth to warm up? That seems to be a lot of nonsense.
Havok wrote:Not suprised some havent heard of the 'global cooling' hysteria of earlier, since the large majority of SGE players were not even alive back then. But I assure you it happened and alot of the politicians and 'scientific experts' of then support global warming of now.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate ... ling_N.htm

As for ice levels in the arctic, for the past two years I hear opposing claims from both sides about whats actually happening up there. Im no scientist myself and dont pretend to have even limited knowledge or understanding of all the stuff these guys are talking about. But there until there is a wider consensus in the international scientific community as to whats happening, no government should take any action to prevent something that may turn out to be a hoax.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15 ... e_mystery/

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/ ... aps_1.html
I've heard of the global cooling theory, though it is a bit before my time. In a nutshell, here's what happened: A small group of scientists did a study and found that the Earth was cooling. The published a paper and got very loud about it. So loud, the media got wind of it and ran with it. Well, in the scientific community, you have to get "peer reviewed" in order to be taken seriously. This NEVER happened with the paper they published. It was never verified that the theories they presented were even close to accurate. Still, by the time the media runs with a "the world is ending" story, it gets taken as "fact" and we get a bunch of no-nothings claiming the sky is falling.

I've looked and looked to find a SINGLE peer reviewed theory on global cooling. As far as I can tell, there isn't one. Not a single one. Global cooling was amyth perpetuated by the idiots in the media, and the culture just ate it up.

As for the ice caps in the arctic, I too have heard it both ways. It seems some of the ice caps are shrinking while others elsewhere are growing. We don't have any definitive data on it, and with the way the media is, we're unlikely to get a balanced report from them.
Also, I've never heard of anything about "global cooling in the 70s;" the upward trend started well before the 1970s. Actually it started shortly after the industrial revolution, in the late 1800s, which is when some scientists first became concerned humans were causing the temperature increase.

It is not a new idea, and it is backed by a lot of evidence. If you doubt this, do check up on it. It isn't something that should just be laughed off, because it's not just Polar Bears that will become extinct as a result. It will be us.
Laughable. We don't have much data on continental temperatures going back to the 1800s. We certainly don't know what the average global temperature was, though we can make an educated guess. We'd need data from Africa and Asia, which we just don't have.

No one but Al Gore is saying this is an extiction event for humans. Even if the global average temperature goes up 30 degrees, we'll adapt. We survived an ice age 30,000 years ago when half the globe was covered in ice. We'll survive a heat wave too. Now that isn't to say the coastal areas will be well off. Miami, Seattle, NYC, Boston... All underwater. It'd be bad, but it won't wipe us off the planet.
global warming is a fact. The only thing some scientists have a different view on, is if it is caused by human interference or not. But scientific consensus shows that most of the scientists agree that the humans are at least partly to blame.
No. Just no. Science doesn't deal in FACTS, it deals in THEORIES. Gravity? Yeah, its a theory. Easy to test, easy to observe, but a theory nevertheless. If you want FACTS, you turn to math. Math uses concepts that can't be falsified and allows for proof. Science, on the other hand, uses theories which can be falsified. When new data comes in, we adapt the current theory to adjust for the new data.
Despite the existence of well-tested theories, science cannot claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject or of the field of study due to epistemological problems that are unavoidable and preclude the discovery or establishment of absolute truth. Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. Critical to this process is making every relevant aspect of research publicly available, which allows ongoing review and repeating of experiments and observations by multiple researchers operating independently of one another. Only by fulfilling these expectations can it be determined how reliable the experimental results are for potential use by others.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

You need to seriously read up on how science works. Ignorance can be fixed, but stupidity is forever. I pray you're of the former.
It is not a new idea, and it is backed by a lot of evidence. If you doubt this, do check up on it. It isn't something that should just be laughed off, because it's not just Polar Bears that will become extinct as a result. It will be us.
Not really. The empirical evidence of global warming is quite scant. The theories aren't working out as predicted and there are various flaws. Hell, the internation taskforce came out in 2007 with a computer generated model saying the Earth was warming. But in the VERY SAME REPORT they said that computers can't be used to any degree of accuracy because A) We simply don't know enough about how the planetary warming system works and B) Even if we did have the data, it would take decades for a current day super computer to take all this data and crunch the numbers. There's just too many variables -- trillions upon trillions -- for a computer to generate an accurate model.

Disagree? Then answer me this. Why can't the weatherman predict the weather beyond 7 days? Hell, even beyond 3 days its a gamble to trust them. We can't even predict the weather a month in advance, and you seriously think we can generate an accurate guess about something as complex as a planetary heating/cooling system? You're living in a dream world.

User avatar
MadAce
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 6:12 pm

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by MadAce » Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:59 am

Caia. You're not at risk to be kicked in the balls by someone from the future. Simply because you'd be too much of a hit in comedy shows like "Super-Stupidity in the early 21th century" and "Oh, God, are those retards my ancestors?".

Suggestion:

Learn what scientists mean with "theory".

Learn the difference between climate and weather. Tho the "weatherman are unreilable"-argument might make you break the one billion viewer count in one of those future shows.


To humour you and aleviate the image our children's children have of us, I'll bite.
Show me one recent, credible source denying global warming.

User avatar
Havok
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Behind you, about to torp your engines

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Havok » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:06 pm

MadAce wrote:
Havok wrote:been voting for 4 years now man, participate in every election eligible for, even local tax issues and such. If i stop voting then i lose my right to I love you man! about the government :wink:
For you there are risks to voting. Odds are someone from the future will go back in time and kick you in the balls.
well rather than telling us we're stupid and should not be allowed to vote, can someone give credible evidence that global warming is not a hoax? If you're so certain it's factual, then post a link from a credible scientific journal thats been peer-reviewed.

User avatar
MadAce
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 6:12 pm

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by MadAce » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:18 pm

Havok wrote:
MadAce wrote:
Havok wrote:been voting for 4 years now man, participate in every election eligible for, even local tax issues and such. If i stop voting then i lose my right to I love you man! about the government :wink:
For you there are risks to voting. Odds are someone from the future will go back in time and kick you in the balls.
well rather than telling us we're stupid and should not be allowed to vote, can someone give credible evidence that global warming is not a hoax? If you're so certain it's factual, then post a link from a credible scientific journal thats been peer-reviewed.
I'm going to finish off Caia first. Feel free to join in or follow along.

User avatar
Jwilson6
Posts: 1609
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:27 pm

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Jwilson6 » Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:20 pm

Wow I can't believe so many people here think global warming is false.
Havok wrote:
MadAce wrote:
Havok wrote:been voting for 4 years now man, participate in every election eligible for, even local tax issues and such. If i stop voting then i lose my right to I love you man! about the government :wink:
For you there are risks to voting. Odds are someone from the future will go back in time and kick you in the balls.
well rather than telling us we're stupid and should not be allowed to vote, can someone give credible evidence that global warming is not a hoax? If you're so certain it's factual, then post a link from a credible scientific journal thats been peer-reviewed.
I'll dig some stuff up later when I get the time, but I think maybe you should try finding a credible scientific journal that denounces it as a hoax, I think you would probably have a much harder time with that one.

User avatar
CaptKirk
Posts: 289
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 4:50 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA, Earth, Sol

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by CaptKirk » Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:10 pm

There is evidence that shows a warming trend over the past 15 or so years. There is extremely little evidence to tie it to human activity, and far greater evidence that points to solar activity as the culprit.

For those that don't remember, likely because they weren't born yet, there was a cooling trend prior to the current warming one. Many scientists were predicting the coming of the next ice age and, as now, tried to make humans the culprit due to destruction of the ozone layer and other polluting activities shrouding the earth in a haze that blocked the suns warming rays.

So, we look at the trends, and how "science" has dealt with them; The cooling trend lasted from prior to WWII, in the height of the Industrial Revolution with little pollution controls to decrease industrial pollution. Suddenly in the '70s, that trend reverses. Thus now, with more pollution controls in place, the same man-made pollution that was blamed for cooling is now being blamed for warming.

Basically what it tells us is that there are way too few true scientists, who observe, gather facts, and actually find things out, and way too many scientist wannabes that decide their agenda before they go looking, interpret that data they find to fit their agenda and ignore the rest. They then arrogantly announce that the debate is over and they know something that they truely have little clue about. These are the ones usually dependent on politicians for grant monies to continue their "research", thus cater to whatever is currently being hyped as the next imminent disaster. This way they, and the politicians that fund them, can all pretend that they're doing good and keep living high at government expense.

Considering what one single sunstorm can do the the earth's climate, and the protection mechanisms the earth has in place to protect itself(such as the ozone repairing itself that scientists had no clue about till after the fact), and it's nothing short of arrogant to think that humankind has the capability to screw up the planet beyond nature's capacity to adapt.

User avatar
Caia
Posts: 790
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:15 pm

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by Caia » Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:38 am

Caia. You're not at risk to be kicked in the balls by someone from the future. Simply because you'd be too much of a hit in comedy shows like "Super-Stupidity in the early 21th century" and "Oh, God, are those retards my ancestors?".
Attacks on me just show how incredibly weak your argument is. If it were easy to dismiss what I said, site some evidence. The problem is because there is very little evidence you can't and its much easy trying to attack me than an argument. Fail.
Learn the difference between climate and weather. Tho the "weatherman are unreilable"-argument might make you break the one billion viewer count in one of those future shows.
The fact that the weather -- as a short term thing -- cannot be predicted accurately by the best science today lends credit to the idea that something even more complex would be even more difficult to predict. Global cooling/warming systems are much much more complex, so it will be even harder to predict. That was the point which you seem to have missed.
I'll dig some stuff up later when I get the time, but I think maybe you should try finding a credible scientific journal that denounces it as a hoax, I think you would probably have a much harder time with that one.
I'm not out right saying it is a hoax. I'm saying the theories have been in large part been well off the mark when we've begun to get empirical evidence on the subject. Until the theories start lining up with reality, its unlikely that they are anywhere near correct. I'm very very skeptical.
I'm going to finish off Caia first. Feel free to join in or follow along.
Good luck. You're gonna need it. Lots of it.

User avatar
SnakeEyes
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:19 am

Re: Global warming: new controvesy?

Post by SnakeEyes » Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:29 am

CaptKirk wrote:There is evidence that shows a warming trend over the past 15 or so years. There is extremely little evidence to tie it to human activity, and far greater evidence that points to solar activity as the culprit.
I'm sorry, but without credible sources I'm inclined to believe the scientific consensus.
National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position of January 2001 that
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

Post Reply