Quote:
F*** you in the mouth.
Are you saying oral sex is the reason behind (lol behind) global warming?
Why are openly discrediting yourself by talking like a highschooler? Thats even too easy for the cloudephants. :p
~Toby
I am a high schooler and I only talk like that at night time! Oh wait it was 9:30, go ahead.
Marauder. Please.
For one thing, do you really think polar bears wouldn't be able to adapt. Do you think they can't SWIM? The whole fretting over available ice lies on the assumption that the polar bears will only feed on seals. If you know anything about polar bears you would know that they'll simply switch over to fish, especially salmon, and carrion.
For crying out loud, their numbers are UP in some places. You know why? Because the melting ice makes it easier for them to FISH.
And funny that this article mentions a shrinking glacier in Alaska. I notice that none of these global warming articles you post EVER mention glaciers that have been increasing. Observation from the University of Alaska at Fairbanks has shown that the McGinnis Glacier has surged. I can show you other places where ice/glaciers surged, if you'd like.
And on one final note: remember your claim (and Al Gore's) that a consensus on global warming has been reached?
From the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (short citation; more links to supporting pages are on the main link):
Quote:
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
So if you had said any of this before 2004, perhaps you'd have something going. But not now.
This is why I hate debating people like you Marauder. Not only do you cite articles that contain false information, but you also have all of the argumentive grace of a caveman.
I mean, for crying out loud, 'f**k you in the mouth'?
You agree with Al Gore. Tha makes you wrong.
You know, it amazes me that neocons think they know more about science than scientists do.
Quote:
You know, it amazes me that neocons think they know more about science than scientists do.
Funny. I just showed you that there are plenty of scientists who DISAGREE with the idea that global warming is manmade.
What amazes me is that you think the debate is over and that a consensus has been reached. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Can't you two just make love like in 'A Real Bro Relationship' and get it over with
You know, it amazes me that you think you know more about science than scientists do.
That isn't just directed to Marauder. Or Ultra (Though, for the record, I happen to agree with Ultra here).
I choose the side of caution in this debate. Cleaner air isn't going to hurt us even if half the scientists on earth are wrong.
(And I swear I'll give you pain if you take that literally and start throwing 'facts' about the percentage of scientists that believe/disbelieve. No Seriously. I'm talking Hello Kitty here.)
And NOT doing anything if they are right is going to make us BURN.
~Tobe
Well, I've always said that pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere can't possibly be GOOD for us.
o.o It may not be manmade 100% but its not like we don't contribute to it. Hey hundreds of years ago people thought we couldn't have an effect of wildlife....
>> Wait, dodo?
I know ENOUGH about science to not just credit humans with the full destruction of the planet at hand...we'll always be in a decline of Polar Ice. For now at least. Yes some areas have surged, but the (puts in bold...) total amount of Polar Ice in the Arctic has dwindled... Yes I can read the infinite Science/NASA/NG/Billion of the enviornmentalists Mags/newsletters/websites and I can find quotations that show that it has increased as a whole, but they only cover 1988-now I believe. Where's 1979? That's 13 years where the Arctic was just a tad bit bigger that we kinda just went "Ehh" about.
(#1: Do not start throwing articles left and right about how far back we can go and show the apparent expansion and decline of ice from like 1765 -.- I know this already and this is the point I'm trying to stand by.)
See what people also tend to forget is that the planet does shift. Latitude that we made don't move! They're static. Hence why the North Pole is like what, 7 degrees off where it used to be whenever they had the danged system. (And no, I'm not talking magnetic vs geographical, I'm talking Geographical vs Geographical.)
So it CAN look like the shelf is growing (compaction, refreezing, glacial build) as well as shrinking (seawater rise, ample fisheries in new area, animal migration for ease..)
Even though I'm still perplexed about the walruses (walrii?) moving to the shore. That's just....kinda backwards...
Personally, if you want to worry about ocean currents changing and sea water flooding the East Coast, then umm go find that article about those mountains off the coast of Africa or Europe or some damned place (can't remember where it was , Swore it was Africa tho..) that will fall into to Ocean pretty soon and have enough mass and force to force sea level to displace as far as the East Coast, giving us something to think about.
Honestly, I don't know why I posted, I really didn't want to get into this, xD
Oy, Ultra, gimme some Ice for my drink! And none of that Arctic tillite crap!
*protests global cooling*
Global COOLING IS A REALITY! Those who protest Will soon feel the wrath.
I have proof! All scientific data tells us that Global cooling will occur....
....
.......
.............
Yeah seriously. Can't happen tomorrow, Heroes is on and the planet knows better than to mess up when my show iz on :O!
DL, if you hadn't envoked Heroes, I'd have cyberpunched you for even mentioning that movie in my presence. There is nothing. NOTHING worse than that film.
NOTHING.
Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Martians, Star Wars Episode 1... NOTHING.
Transformers the Movie begs to differ.
I dunno...I thought it was better than An Inconvenient Truth.
I actually liked Transformers the Movie. o.o
SX wins with trying to get the topic back on track XD! >>
Yeah global cooling/warming/rubbing my sore leg can continue in about a hour and a half, Heroes is almost on...
Quote:
DL, if you hadn't envoked Heroes, I'd have cyberpunched you for even mentioning that movie in my presence. There is nothing. NOTHING worse than that film.
NOTHING.
Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Martians, Star Wars Episode 1... NOTHING
Superman 64 begs to differ (if we are talking movies, I can't argue or agree with you on this one).
Quote:
DL, if you hadn't envoked Heroes, I'd have cyberpunched you for even mentioning that movie in my presence. There is nothing. NOTHING worse than that film.
It was that bad? I liked it o.o
It was stupid.
Another thing to the neocons here (especially Ultra):
Now, I've seen your arguments that 1934 was the warmest year
in history. Actually, 1934 was the hottest year in American history. As for the globe, where all of us live, the hottest year was 2005. Followed by 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2006. I mean, I know facts aren't mandatory in what you do, but isn't it embarrassing when you get them wrong every day?
*looks back at the older thread* Hmm, thought I said it was for American history. Oh well.
But I digress Marauder, I have to ask; considering all possible information presented over various threads (including this one, which includes information about glaciers that are surging while others are receding, some polar bears that thrive in the warmer temperatures while others don't, some places where temperatures are increasing while others are decreasing, and an overall lack of scientific papers in recent years pinning man as the primary cause of increasing temperatures), I have to ask; why in the world are people fretting over something as natural as CLIMATE CHANGE?
Cycles. We have a seasonal temperature change. We've had periods of high and cold temperatures lasting decades (the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, etc.). Humans and wildlife tend to prosper in warmer temperatures overall (some won't be better off, but others will be better off. That's nature), so you'd think the environmentalists would be happier (well, maybe about the last part; they don't seem to have much love for their own species).
I mean, the likelihood of man ever controlling the weather on Earth is slim to none. Treating climate change as a doomsday scenario is silly (and to get such scenarios as depicted in most environmental doomsday films, you'd have to have a cosmic event like a massive meteorite, or perhaps all out nuclear war to cause such things) when there could be other issues to take up your time (for instance, focusing time and energy on getting modern agricultural methods of harvesting and producing into the hands of Third World nations to replace the more damaging slash-and-burn style of agriculture). You know, something productive, instead of convincing the nations of the world that it's a good idea to forcefully restrain and push down their economic output (thereby affecting a large number of people in negative ways) just to get temperature to go down by 1-degree (and in case you haven't noticed, the US - which is not part of that Kyoto Protocol - has lowered CO2 emisisons by a greater magnitude than many European countries that ARE).
What ticks me off most is the lack of science in the whole debate. Particularly, the process. Dissent is discouraged, even admonished and criticized. Scientists and meteorologists who disagree with anthropogenic global warming (or global warming in general, reaching this conclusion based on their own information or analysis of available data) lose funding. The whole scientific process seems to not apply to matters regarding climate change, which is just ludicrous. The science is 'not' conclusive at this point. It's also not a good idea to consider scientific fact to be up to 'consensus'. Consensus once said that the Earth was the center of the universe.
To sum up my post...Orson Scott Card puts it best. For people like you Marauder, the entire issue of climate change seems to be an ideology.
People disagree that climate change is a bad thing? HERESY! 
o.o Ultra, people worry over natural things as extinction of their species, rapidly declining food supply, overpopulation-you name a natural occurrence in nature...and humans worry about it
See, I also think the problem with this is that humans-being the highest tiered animals on the planet thus far-dont seem to understand that what we do is natural too. We think. Therefore the planet may not be fully able to keep up with our thinking, and so we use up more then the planet can provide.
We see this new problem, and we think of ways to get around it. Only problem is, humans don't like to think for every other human. That's nature in a nutshell. Survivial of the fittest. Maybe its more fit for us to act as if global warming is happening? Maybe it'll help get our act together and stop overusing the planet?
Maybe it won't, and we'll end up just wasting out time, but we're bound to make some useful things out of it.
...I just read the first line of this thread again. OMG that has to be the funniest line I've read in a while XD. I know where that line's going....
I know I'm in the wrong forum. I got lost again. Tom-Tom, take me to the RP guild!
I'm going to have to agree with Rico on this one, using a bit more conservation is good whether it applies to recycling or finances. Something simple like turning off a light or switching it out with one of those environmentally friendly ones surely isn't too burdensome is it?
However there does seem to be something fundamentally wrong with this whole thread. Although it is true a group of scientists came together and formed a consensus that man is responsible for Global Warming, everyone seems to forget that a consensus isn't based on anything other than like-minded agreement.
Now I understand that this particular like-minded agreement is based on professional opinion, but none of it is based on actual scientific fact. The only thing that's been proven is that the globe is warming.
Is it not so far-fetched to believe that, much like nature, the globe is going through a cyclical stage of warming and cooling? Where did our last so-called "Ice Age" come from if not from a period warmer than when it had began?
Honestly, there simply isn't enough information to determine whether mankind is truly as responsible for global warming as a large group of like-minded scientists believe it is.
There are two large groups of scientists out there on opposite ends of the fence. I really don't give two proverbial rodent's posteriors about the face value of "Global Warming". Personally I know something is changing and even it's natural, like hell if I'm going to let that slut mother nature wipe ME out. The human race will fight back, no matter how hard the conservatives fight against them. 
My real issues stands, burning bunnies hopping around your yard not withstanding I don't see any bad coming from less toxins in the air/water/wonder bread.
Quote:
Personally I know something is changing and even it's natural, like hell if I'm going to let that slut mother nature wipe ME out.
Even though, historically, the human race tends to prosper in warmer temperatures while it tends to downsize in colder temperatures. o.o
Also, what Evalc said.
Conservation itself is not something I have a problem with. It's rabid environmentalism, where all human actions are seen as 'OMGBADdon'tdoit'.
It's nice to conserve, but not to the point where you retard all progress. That's why the US hasn't built a new nuclear power plant (which is much cleaner over all than coal or petroleum) since the 70s. It's also why dead trees and old brush can't be cleared away in some places (say, California) so that wildfires don't have as much fuel. It's also why...well, you see where I'm going with this.
We're not really talking about tropical compared to temperate here. We're not even talking about "warmer". I'm not sure why people always pull the same old lame, "Well it doesn't FEEL warmer in winter lololol." line. Even I know they're talking about temperature extremes, not that "it r hotter now".
Sheesh, I don't even research this, I'm not even sure I believe in 'global warming', and I seem to know more about it, Ultra. You're slipping here. 
Although...
The US hasn't a built a cleaner more efficient nuclear power plant because people think it will be more harmful to the environment than the @#%$ old ones? Source on that one?
And I think the brush problem is more a problem with overworked and underpaid city workers than rabid liberals tying themselves to dead limbs on a hunger strikes.
~Tobe
*smashes ezboard* Okay, I just lost a big post, so I'll paraphrase what I was going to say.
Nuclear power plants were hamstrung by federal regulations, more environmental laws, and societal fear due to the quadrinity of the Cold War/Three Mile Island/Chernobyl/Falling Fossil Fuel Prices, making the construction of such plants unattractive (last one to open, after being commissioned in 1973, opened in 1996...23 years later). However, there seems to be a turnaround in opinion, and now lots of new ones with better technology are being implemented, so that's good to hear.
As for the brushfires, the culprits are environmental laws that prevent deforestation (some due to endangered species, some due to some environmentalists' affinity to tree-hugging) and inefficient forest management by the federal government that has not only disallowed logging to get rid of dead or dying trees, but has allowed beetles and other wood-eating insects to kill large tracts of woodlands to the point where wildfires have lots and lots more fuel to work with (which then burn up the homes of the endangered species, suffice to say).
Not as detailed as it was going to be, but hey. To compensate, I leave you the following question that now emerges from San Francisco: should fires in the fireplace be banned? And no, I'm not kidding you.
I think the treehuggers are getting to be like the born again christians. We need some public floggings so the hippies can learn their place again.
~Tobe
Instead, make the hippies eat some chicken from KFC. 
Ouch.
