Global Warming News! It's REAL!!!

Ladewig said:
There is controversy over whether the climate change that we are witnessing is partly (or wholly) man-made or is part of a natural change that has been observed in the Earth's past.

You seem to be claiming that global warming is not occurring at all. Even the U.S. Pentagon is seriously considering the effects of global climate change. How right wing does someone have to be before they accuse the Pentagon of falling for left-wing propaganda?
Click to expand...

You seem to be presenting a strawman.

The Pentago has also done white papers on US/Military response to an invasion from space and how to handle the US being attacked by the Duchy of Andorra.

So?

Tokie
 
The Painter said:
So you admit it's political, not scientific. BTW I know what causes global warming.
Click to expand...

Any RATIONAL person does. Just as a RATIONAL person understands what AGW means to the left.

Which is why you'll see so many leftists in here jumping around this subject like apes around an overturned banana truck.

Tokie
 
CapelDodger said:
One would like to think the Pentagon takes a rational view of the world, scientifically and politically.
Click to expand...

Let me see if I understand your POV:
When the Pentagon studies the military implications of global warming from A-Z, that's scientific, right?

But when the Pentago is engaging in strategy for the war in Iraq, that's political.

And ne'er the twain shall meet?

Hmmm...

Tokie
 
Alkatran said:
If I say something, you can't argue against it by pointing at a completely different group and saying "But they do it!". You'll just send the conversation in circles.

Did I say anything about frogs? No.
What the heck is an AGWist anyways?

Let me repeat myself: one instance of cold weather does not disprove global warming. One instance of hot weather does not prove global warming. The weather has too high a variance for that sort of technique to work.
Click to expand...

No, actually, I CAN do that.

See, when an AGWist sees, say, a temporary, local "heatwave" in France or Britain, that is proof--PROOOOOFFFFFF!!!!--that humans are causing the climate to superheat.

But when I see say, that lakes where I live are for the first time in 20 years developing ice thick enough to support fishermen and even auto racing, that's ALSO proof--PROOOOOFFFFFF!!!--that humans are causing the climate to superheat.

So, essentially, your religion is just the same as any other woo: if weather happens, regardless of what it is, the "spirits" (AGW) caused it?

As for the frogs: you really need to pay more attention to your own "science." Back in the early to mid 90s, "scientists" in Central America began sounding the alarm: amphibians (actually, just frogs) in Costa Rica were "disappearing at an alarming rate!!!" Leaving aside their laughable counting methods for the moment, we were told from screaming headlines (no...I don't have link--LIIINNKKKKKK!!!--if you don't remember this or choose not to, fine) that AGW was causing frog populations in Central America (one small park in Costa Rica) to drop so drastically, the "scientists" were certain extinction was just around the corner!!!

Oopsies. Turns out that what was REALLY going on is that these frogs were subject to a fungus that would go epidemic when their populations got too ...um, big (spread by obvious means), knocking the populations back down to ecologically sustainable levels.

Moreover, since these "scientists" began this work there, they've (oops!) discovered that not only are the frogs not doomed--DOOOMED!!--but that heh, heh, um, this is a bit awkward....they've cataloges something on the order (now) of 20 entirely NEW species!

Now, since it is a mainstay of AGW that "anthropogenic global warming is causing the largest die-off of species since the K-T event!!" it's a bit difficult to see how "we" know that when we don't even really know what animals are out there TO die off. Examples: cataloging of entirely new mammal species from large rat-like creatures, small deer and monkeys in SE Asia, to a completely new chimp-sized APE in Central Africa!

And let's not even talk about the oceans.

Tokie
 
The Painter said:
The data time period for global warming is far too short to draw any type of realistic conclusion. Those non-bias numbers on the thermometer haven’t really changed in the last 10 years. Does that mean global warming is over, or is that too short a period of time to draw such a conclusion?
Click to expand...

Nonsense!

It's clear you know nothing about science!

Don't you know that any good scientific consensus (and all science is done by consensus!) starts with the premise that correlation is causation!?

Tokie
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Tell it to the glaciers rube, and you'd better hurry or you'll miss them.

While you're at it, break this news to the American Pika and tell them they're not losing habitat because it snowed one day in one place.



Denier verbiage. "AnthropogenicGlobalWarmingist". In the same weasel league with "Darwinist" or "Evolutionist."
Click to expand...


The pika!!? LOL!

These things have always had extremely low population numbers. They are all over the damned place where I live, thriving like crazy because for the past 4-5 years now, the snow is deep and frequent and it's cold--again--after a period of warming (20 years or so).

Now, as far as glaciers go...which ones?

Oh, that's right...the ones in the Alps and Kilamanjaro, huh?

Do you have any idea what the heat island effect does to ice?

Now, let's talk about the glaciers in New Zealand...they are getting bigger, as are the ones in southern S. America, and um...the ones in Antarctica!?

No...wait...let's only talk about sea ice there...the fact that snow pack and ice thickness is increasing in central Antarctica is taboo, huh?

By the way, if I started a post by calling YOU a "rube" you'd be whining to the mods (and they'd be sending me a warning) before the electrons on this page were dry.

Tokie
 
The Painter said:
So you admit it's political, not scientific. BTW I know what causes global warming.
Click to expand...

Discussions proceed in a more orderly manner when people present thier opinions rather than simply saying "I know something you don't know."

The Painter said:
The data time period for global warming is far too short to draw any type of realistic conclusion. Those non-bias numbers on the thermometer haven’t really changed in the last 10 years. Does that mean global warming is over, or is that too short a period of time to draw such a conclusion?
Click to expand...

It means ten years was too short of a time to draw a conclusion.

Arguing about global warming is pointless. You either believe or you are skeptical about it, and I thought this was a skeptic message board.
Click to expand...

So you believe that the scientists who believe in GW and insist that it is not man-made are completely wrong?
 
Tokenconservative said:
No, actually, I CAN do that.

See, when an AGWist sees, say, a temporary, local "heatwave" in France or Britain, that is proof--PROOOOOFFFFFF!!!!--that humans are causing the climate to superheat.

But when I see say, that lakes where I live are for the first time in 20 years developing ice thick enough to support fishermen and even auto racing, that's ALSO proof--PROOOOOFFFFFF!!!--that humans are causing the climate to superheat.

So, essentially, your religion is just the same as any other woo: if weather happens, regardless of what it is, the "spirits" (AGW) caused it?

As for the frogs: you really need to pay more attention to your own "science." Back in the early to mid 90s, "scientists" in Central America began sounding the alarm: amphibians (actually, just frogs) in Costa Rica were "disappearing at an alarming rate!!!" Leaving aside their laughable counting methods for the moment, we were told from screaming headlines (no...I don't have link--LIIINNKKKKKK!!!--if you don't remember this or choose not to, fine) that AGW was causing frog populations in Central America (one small park in Costa Rica) to drop so drastically, the "scientists" were certain extinction was just around the corner!!!

Oopsies. Turns out that what was REALLY going on is that these frogs were subject to a fungus that would go epidemic when their populations got too ...um, big (spread by obvious means), knocking the populations back down to ecologically sustainable levels.

Moreover, since these "scientists" began this work there, they've (oops!) discovered that not only are the frogs not doomed--DOOOMED!!--but that heh, heh, um, this is a bit awkward....they've cataloges something on the order (now) of 20 entirely NEW species!

Now, since it is a mainstay of AGW that "anthropogenic global warming is causing the largest die-off of species since the K-T event!!" it's a bit difficult to see how "we" know that when we don't even really know what animals are out there TO die off. Examples: cataloging of entirely new mammal species from large rat-like creatures, small deer and monkeys in SE Asia, to a completely new chimp-sized APE in Central Africa!

And let's not even talk about the oceans.

Tokie
Click to expand...

I don't know who you're arguing with, but it's not me. All of your points are aimed at other people. You're just using any post as an excuse to spout whatever thoughts go through your head.

You need to start reading what people say and responding to that, not arguing against some view point held by unrelated people.
 
Tokenconservative said:
You seem to be presenting a strawman.

The Pentago has also done white papers on US/Military response to an invasion from space and how to handle the US being attacked by the Duchy of Andorra.

So?

Tokie
Click to expand...
From the preface of the report:"We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately."

I don't think the Duchy of Andorra plan has the word plausible in it. Also, the plan urged the Pentagon to take steps immediately in order to be prepared for this contingency. Again, neither the space invasion nor the Andorrian invasion include immediate action steps. I will withdraw that statement if you can illustrate that they do.


Lastly, you seem to be arguing that GW implies that every part of the planet will get warmer so any evidence of some areas becoming colder is proof against the GW theory. GW theorists (including non-Anthropogenic climate change theorists) all agree that the effects will appear very localized as some areas dry up while others see dramatic increases in rainfall; some areas will become much colder as other areas become much hotter
 
Alkatran said:
I don't know who you're arguing with, but it's not me. All of your points are aimed at other people. You're just using any post as an excuse to spout whatever thoughts go through your head.

You need to start reading what people say and responding to that, not arguing against some view point held by unrelated people.
Click to expand...

No, actually, I don't.

You see, the AGWist perspective is a lockstep one. One AGWer is pretty much like any other AGWer. In for a penny, in for a pound...or you can't be in at all.

See, on the other side, despite your (collective) strawman assertions, we can agree that yes, it might be getting warmer and that yes, human activity MAY have some exacerbating impact there.

On YOUR side you MUST believe (key term) that it IS getting not just "warmer" but that temps are rocketing upward globally at a dangerous pace that will turn the planet into a superheated deathball w/in a century and that the SOLE cause of this is human (mostly American) industrial activity.

See the difference, now?

So, when you make a point within the strictured confines of your belief structures, they are part n' parcel of ALL this (your) mythology, and so I can "attack" you for holding this particular religious view. It's no different from my saying to a Catholic: you are wrong, Jesus did not walk on water, or to a Baptist: you are wrong, Jesus did not walk on water.

The core belief in the mythological substructure remains the same, regardless of whether you are catholic about it, or practice some slightly Protestant genre of the faith.

Tokie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom