PDA

View Full Version : live earth



heywooood
07-07-2007, 02:12 PM
good music (http://entimg.msn.com/i/ExperienceData/p1-7/en-us/x.htm?sh=LiveEarthLive&g=abf8b59e-e85a-4f8a-b565-28b54d1aecde)

ytareh
07-07-2007, 02:23 PM
Yeah but I can think of dozens of more 'worthy causes' ...My 2 cents worth?Global warming?Happening?Yes .As a result of Human CO2 emmissions ?Heck no!

F19_Orheim
07-07-2007, 02:25 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Camaero
07-07-2007, 02:35 PM
Don't care how good the music is... I can't stand Al Gore. I would hate to be watching the music and see a picture of him or something.

heywooood
07-07-2007, 02:44 PM
yeah Al Gore is scary alright and he's way stupider than 'W' good point...

and C02 is produced in metric tons daily by nature - sure I believe that...and I believe that ocean water tastes just like Coca Cola...try it - you'll see.

MEGILE
07-07-2007, 02:50 PM
Hey if anyone else has an opinion on global warming, I'd love to hear it.

/sarcasm.

slappedsilly
07-07-2007, 02:52 PM
If it wasn't for global warming, we'd be stuck in an ice age. I for one am thankfull for it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

heywooood
07-07-2007, 02:57 PM
theres no quasi for alarm - theres nothin to see here - its all in your head....

its just a live music link

and Joss Stone is a biscuit...and did you see Metallica earlier? absolutely ripping it up.

MEGILE
07-07-2007, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by heywooood:

and Joss Stone is a biscuit...and did you see Metallica earlier? absolutely ripping it up.

Joss stone smells.

Metallica... I love em.. but damn James can't sing anymore.

leitmotiv
07-07-2007, 03:08 PM
A substitution for hard science and clear thinking. Big Al's the big winner---gone from joke to savior of the world in a mighty leap. Oh, and, by the way, he is on the board of Apple, a not very environmentally friendly computer company whose stock has just about tripled in the last year. Of course Big Al could demonstrate his greenness by quitting his lucrative board position....

slipBall
07-07-2007, 03:10 PM
Gore is a bore

Camaero
07-07-2007, 03:13 PM
His son seems to be into the green even more than himself!

heywooood
07-07-2007, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by heywooood:

and Joss Stone is a biscuit...and did you see Metallica earlier? absolutely ripping it up.

Joss stone smells.

Metallica... I love em.. but damn James can't sing anymore. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


So you didn't see them then - cause you is wrong

..and for Joss Stone - until I smell her personally and professionally I must withold judgement...

heywooood
07-07-2007, 03:29 PM
c'mon - is that all you Al Gore haters got?

His kid likes weed? who doesn't?

He's making some money off of some investments?
Who isnt? If you don't have money in the market or know what its been doing lately you're an idiot..
Steve Jobs is making history with the iphone so you bet your A$$ if I could be on their B.O.D. I would be and so would you.
Live Earth is just music and a message and if you don't like the message just listen to the music - no one wants to turn over the rock your under believe me.

John Mayer is on now -

OMK_Hand
07-07-2007, 03:44 PM
http://www.darwinawards.com/

'A Chronicle of Enterprising Demises
Honoring those who improve the species...by
accidentally removing themselves from it!'

We'll all of us get a mention here.
Cause of death: 'Knowing I am right'.

'Live Earth' is one of many means to an end.
F**k Gore, it's the issue that's real, and my God, I'd vote for Dave Grohl, passion like that is what's needed...

Badsight-
07-07-2007, 03:48 PM
nature is a self regulating system

it creates & absorbs huge amounts each day/week/month/year

what we , mankind produce isnt natural & tips the balance of the scales

industralisation allows us to have a bigger effect on the enviroment than normal

OMK_Hand
07-07-2007, 03:56 PM
http://www.darwinawards.com/

We'll all end up here.
Cause of death: 'Knowing I was right'.

Gore is a politician, so he doesn't really matter, does he?
The matter of so called 'Global warming' is a real, live threat to us all, and warrants our attention.
Also, by God, I'd want Dave Grohl on my side in a fight, passion like his is priceless.

heywooood
07-07-2007, 03:56 PM
WRT Co2 yes nature does produce and manage huge amounts - my reference was to the amount over and above that that we are dumping daily -

I was not looking to go down this road again - only linking the music man, its all about the music.

Genesis @ Wembley right now and if you missed it Metallica will be replayed later today and tomorrow all of the highlights will be replayed.

slipBall
07-07-2007, 04:21 PM
The shout should be "population control"....how many more can the earth support....this subject is ignored, and never talked about http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

carguy_
07-07-2007, 04:33 PM
Yeah,people who daily ride Escalade singing for greenie movement and Gore`s personal agenda.

Can one think of anything of bigger hypocricy?

DKoor
07-07-2007, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
Hey if anyone else has an opinion on global warming, I'd love to hear it.

/sarcasm. http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1664/20061012cheerrh1.jpg

this is where I'm lookin at http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

bun-bun195333
07-07-2007, 05:12 PM
Al Gore, meet the Bro.

http://home.comcast.net/~argylestransom/Pics/AGoreBore.jpg

OMK_Hand
07-07-2007, 06:16 PM
'Global warming' is a complex mix of phenomena, none of which are understood, all of which are real and are happening.
It's not about opinion. It's not about perception. It's not about nationality. It's not about wealth. It's not about war, or peace. It's not about anything that we would like or anything we hate.
It's about life or death.
We think we have a choice. What is it to be? Death is easy. Life, as always, is hard.

Charos
07-07-2007, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
Hey if anyone else has an opinion on global warming, I'd love to hear it.

/sarcasm.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1664/20061012cheerrh1.jpg

Well since you asked........um er wha what was the question again?



Megile http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif you could be personally held accountable for globally warming too many Cockles.

bun-bun195333
07-07-2007, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by OMK_Hand:
'Global warming' is a complex mix of phenomena, none of which are understood, all of which are real and are happening.
It's not about opinion. It's not about perception. It's not about nationality. It's not about wealth. It's not about war, or peace. It's not about anything that we would like or anything we hate.
It's about life or death.
We think we have a choice. What is it to be? Death is easy. Life, as always, is hard.

We're coming out of the Little Ice Age 1500-1850 when most of Europe froze and crops failed. Whole towns died off.

Here are some facts:
Carbon dioxide levels rise 600 to 1000 years after the atmosphere warms. It takes that long for the oceans to warm and they can hold less dissolved CO2 as they warm. So CO2 levels are a result of warming, not a cause.

There is no sea level rise from melting glaciers. The Arctic ice cap could all melt and rise wouldn't happen because the ice is floating there. The Antarctic ice is increasing.

The myth of severe weather being caused by a warming atmosphere is bunk. Severe weather happens when warm water causes a local hot spot of warm air to meet surrounding cooler air. The difference in air temps causes large storms, hurricanes and tornadoes. When all the air is warm the weather is nice.

The climate has changed for billions of years before man was man. Trying to stop climate change is like trying to stop the tides.

And here is my opinion on the matter:
Al Gore has a financial interest carbon credits. He is the head priest for this new religion.

If the earth cools this lass will start wearing coats rather than tee-shirts.


http://home.comcast.net/~argylestransom/Pics/AAokie.jpg

Little Ice Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age)

heywooood
07-07-2007, 10:45 PM
so far - you are the only credentialed climatologist to come along with these facts....oh - you are not a credentialed climatologist? scientist? oh - these are facts?

so you got nothing - thanks for playing

..well - almost nothing...the girl can stay

Al Gore haters have got so much on the ball - but at times I think it would have been better if Al Michaels or Al Jareau had been the ones to get this issue on the table.

Faith_Healer
07-07-2007, 11:28 PM
Global warming is small potatos..And not really worth worrying about.. The big picture is whats going to hit the earth and how big is it going to be. Sooner or later an asteroid is going to impact the earth.. It will happen way before we run out of oil or any other type of fossil fuel. so no need to worry about that part. I say burn as much fuel as you can..while you can.

When it happens Al Gore and the rest of his kind will be meaningless ,useless and extinct.



And about carbon credits... Im a self proclaimed
carbon offset offsetter.. Everytime i hear about someone buying those low energy bulbs or whining to everyone about how green they are.. I throw a few extra old tires in my burn pit and really smoke up the valley..

And now with this live earth concert and all the Sheeple who really believe a concert is somehow magically going to change something on earth that cant be changed.. I just stacked up a big pile of old tires just for them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Camaero
07-07-2007, 11:43 PM
Move over **** Tracy, Faith_Healer is MY new hero! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

EDIT: Wow I guess people can't even be named **** anymore...

F19_Orheim
07-07-2007, 11:49 PM
ooh Mr bunbun..

http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/ostridge.jpg

Oh and the earth can't be round either, if it was we would fall off.
Well i can "google" stupid semi sientific arguments for that as well:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatWhyFlat.htm (http://www.alaska.net/%7Eclund/e_djublonskopf/FlatWhyFlat.htm)

To ignore a serious issue just because you don't like a spokes person is just plain ******


To make it easy for ya:

One doesn't need to be a scientist to figure out if you eat too much, more than you can burn, you'll look like this:

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i290/willi377/FatDude.jpg

Simplest of maths, what comes in must come out.
A 6 year old get that - common sense light version even.

Charos
07-08-2007, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by Faith_Healer:
Global warming is small potatos..And not really worth worrying about.. The big picture is whats going to hit the earth and how big is it going to be. Sooner or later an asteroid is going to impact the earth.. It will happen way before we run out of oil or any other type of fossil fuel. so no need to worry about that part. I say burn as much fuel as you can..while you can.

When it happens Al Gore and the rest of his kind will be meaningless ,useless and extinct.



And about carbon credits... Im a self proclaimed
carbon offset offsetter.. Everytime i hear about someone buying those low energy bulbs or whining to everyone about how green they are.. I throw a few extra old tires in my burn pit and really smoke up the valley..

And now with this live earth concert and all the Sheeple who really believe a concert is somehow magically going to change something on earth that cant be changed.. I just stacked up a big pile of old tires just for them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Interesting logic ... Here is a case of someone who while trumpeting that the individual is helpless and unable to make a difference then personally
invests time and energy in negating what they have already concluded to be impossible.

When one's life only exists to perpetuate grief on those around them - their life is thereby dictated by the food on which they dine.

Throw another tire on the fire your asteroid may require a shining beacon on which to navigate. After all there's nothing quite like the
satisfaction garnered from that "I told you so" from self fulfilled prophesy.

ElSjonnie
07-08-2007, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
Hey if anyone else has an opinion on global warming, I'd love to hear it.

/sarcasm.

lol in-f'ing-deed. People acting like they know what they are talking about, when even scientists haven't figured it out yet, looks really smart.

/sarcasm.

slipBall
07-08-2007, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by bun-bun195333:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OMK_Hand:
'Global warming' is a complex mix of phenomena, none of which are understood, all of which are real and are happening.
It's not about opinion. It's not about perception. It's not about nationality. It's not about wealth. It's not about war, or peace. It's not about anything that we would like or anything we hate.
It's about life or death.
We think we have a choice. What is it to be? Death is easy. Life, as always, is hard.

We're coming out of the Little Ice Age 1500-1850 when most of Europe froze and crops failed. Whole towns died off.

Here are some facts:
Carbon dioxide levels rise 600 to 1000 years after the atmosphere warms. It takes that long for the oceans to warm and they can hold less dissolved CO2 as they warm. So CO2 levels are a result of warming, not a cause.

There is no sea level rise from melting glaciers. The Arctic ice cap could all melt and rise wouldn't happen because the ice is floating there. The Antarctic ice is increasing.

The myth of severe weather being caused by a warming atmosphere is bunk. Severe weather happens when warm water causes a local hot spot of warm air to meet surrounding cooler air. The difference in air temps causes large storms, hurricanes and tornadoes. When all the air is warm the weather is nice.

The climate has changed for billions of years before man was man. Trying to stop climate change is like trying to stop the tides.

And here is my opinion on the matter:
Al Gore has a financial interest carbon credits. He is the head priest for this new religion.

If the earth cools this lass will start wearing coats rather than tee-shirts.


http://home.comcast.net/~argylestransom/Pics/AAokie.jpg

Little Ice Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif finally a voice of reason....the pic is causing me to heat up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

GIAP.Shura
07-08-2007, 03:37 AM
What was the topic again?

DuxCorvan
07-08-2007, 04:44 AM
The increasing of CO2 in atmosphere is caused by the breathing of an increasing number of human beings. If we eliminate all the non-Western population of the planet -something between 3000 and 4000 million people- the emission of CO2 to the atmosphere will be significantly reduced, and will have lots of benefits, like:

-No more cultural clashes: one culture.
-No more wars: lots of resources and free lands for everyone.
-Nature recovering its primal status in most regions of the planet. Virgin jungles and deserted paradise beaches again!
-A huge rise in per capita income, due to the much lower number of 'capitas'.

So, I bet for *genocide* as the best chance to get a agreement between ecologists and economic interests. Finally something which will satisfy everyone -except the murdered masses- but, I mean, everyone alive, of course.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

EDIT: Spare the hot chicks.

slipBall
07-08-2007, 04:59 AM
The "final solution" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 06:37 AM
Your Grandchildren or great grandchildren will most likely be dying horrible deaths from starvation if global warming is not checked.

It has be proven beyond reasonable doubt that current rates of global warming have been caused by humans.

The PT mass extinction was caused by NATURAL GLOBAL WARMING over A FAR LONGER PERIOD OF TIME than current warming trends. Our global warming is over a FEW HUNDRED YEARS. Our temps have already increasd by 2 and a half degrees, once you raise temps by FIVE degrees, then Methane is released from the ocean. This causes an extra 5 degrees of warming.

This is what also happened in the PT extinction . A 10 degree temperature rise kills of 95 percent of life. However, the mass extinction took place in two parts, a smaller mass extinction occured at the 5-6 degree increase.

The same will happen this time round.

Hope you have fun explaining to your grandchildren why you ruined their lives for them.

Dont forget the PT extinction occurred over a MUCH longer timeframe. We've reduced that to a few hundred years at the most.

In the words of Steven Hawking "We're at risk of reuniting our planet with its dead neighbors"

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bun-bun195333:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OMK_Hand:
'Global warming' is a complex mix of phenomena, none of which are understood, all of which are real and are happening.
It's not about opinion. It's not about perception. It's not about nationality. It's not about wealth. It's not about war, or peace. It's not about anything that we would like or anything we hate.
It's about life or death.
We think we have a choice. What is it to be? Death is easy. Life, as always, is hard.

We're coming out of the Little Ice Age 1500-1850 when most of Europe froze and crops failed. Whole towns died off.

Here are some facts:
Carbon dioxide levels rise 600 to 1000 years after the atmosphere warms. It takes that long for the oceans to warm and they can hold less dissolved CO2 as they warm. So CO2 levels are a result of warming, not a cause.

There is no sea level rise from melting glaciers. The Arctic ice cap could all melt and rise wouldn't happen because the ice is floating there. The Antarctic ice is increasing.

The myth of severe weather being caused by a warming atmosphere is bunk. Severe weather happens when warm water causes a local hot spot of warm air to meet surrounding cooler air. The difference in air temps causes large storms, hurricanes and tornadoes. When all the air is warm the weather is nice.

The climate has changed for billions of years before man was man. Trying to stop climate change is like trying to stop the tides.

And here is my opinion on the matter:
Al Gore has a financial interest carbon credits. He is the head priest for this new religion.

If the earth cools this lass will start wearing coats rather than tee-shirts.


http://home.comcast.net/~argylestransom/Pics/AAokie.jpg

Little Ice Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif finally a voice of reason....the pic is causing me to heat up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a piss poor post. And goes to show you how much you really know about Paleoclimatology.

Quite simply no natural event has EVER caused such a fast rise in Co2 levels. Not even the Siberian Volcanic traps.

But I mean, seeing as your so much more qualified than the scientists working on this...you must be right. I mean holy S***, this guys a genius.

bun-bun195333
07-08-2007, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
That is a piss poor post. And goes to show you how much you really know about Paleoclimatology.

Quite simply no natural event has EVER caused such a fast rise in Co2 levels. Not even the Siberian Volcanic traps.

But I mean, seeing as your so much more qualified than the scientists working on this...you must be right. I mean holy S***, this guys a genius.

The right one looks a wee bit larger. Oh no, I'm wrong. It's just the angle. They're perfect.
http://home.comcast.net/~argylestransom/Pics/AAokie.jpg
Miss Global Warming - 2007

joeap
07-08-2007, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
Your Grandchildren or great grandchildren will most likely be dying horrible deaths from starvation if global warming is not checked.

It has be proven beyond reasonable doubt that current rates of global warming have been caused by humans.

The PT mass extinction was caused by NATURAL GLOBAL WARMING over A FAR LONGER PERIOD OF TIME than current warming trends. Our global warming is over a FEW HUNDRED YEARS. Our temps have already increasd by 2 and a half degrees, once you raise temps by FIVE degrees, then Methane is released from the ocean. This causes an extra 5 degrees of warming.

This is what also happened in the PT extinction . A 10 degree temperature rise kills of 95 percent of life. However, the mass extinction took place in two parts, a smaller mass extinction occured at the 5-6 degree increase.

The same will happen this time round.

Hope you have fun explaining to your grandchildren why you ruined their lives for them.

Dont forget the PT extinction occurred over a MUCH longer timeframe. We've reduced that to a few hundred years at the most.

In the words of Steven Hawking "We're at risk of reuniting our planet with its dead neighbors"

So did you watch the concert or not? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

What did you do to help?

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2007, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by heywooood:
c'mon - is that all you Al Gore haters got?

His kid likes weed? who doesn't?

He's making some money off of some investments?
Who isnt? If you don't have money in the market or know what its been doing lately you're an idiot..
Steve Jobs is making history with the iphone so you bet your A$$ if I could be on their B.O.D. I would be and so would you.
Live Earth is just music and a message and if you don't like the message just listen to the music - no one wants to turn over the rock your under believe me.

John Mayer is on now -

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I watched about 30 seconds on a TV at the Hotel bar, where I was attending a wedding

All I could think of was "How many megawatts are being wasted right now for this 'Live Earth' thing, for all the electronic gizmos, big screen TVs behind the stage, all the boards, controls, and satellites that are used to cover this thing"?

What a joke. They are advocating being more environmentally responsible, by using up electricity at a disgusting rate. Holy cr*p. That's a thing I call "hypocrisy" personally:

Do what I tell you, but don't do what I do, because it's bad when YOU do it, but it's OK for me to do it, so I can get out my message

Sorry, but that's a pantload. I think Al Gore is just like anybody else who suddenly finds himself with an audience and a message. I don;t have feelings about him except that he is one who deals in extremes, it's only black and white, and it seems to be his way or the highway. I distrust those people, but I don't care F* all what he says

'Live Earth' is showing me how Big Business can waste resources that i's own spokespeople say I should be careful with, or I will face bad Consequences. Right. When was the last time I used enough electricty to power a town for a month on one night of music? The message is "Do as they say, not as they do- because they are Priveledged People, and Better than you are"

Oh-

I refuse to accept Al Gore as the Posterboy for Saving the Planet. I'm no fool, I can see what we are doing. But the fact is that the little Guy is always taken to task. I have to do blah blah. You should blah blah. Nothing's ever done on a basic scale in this regard, it's always "look at the details first" rather than How do we change this trend- a;though they TELL you it's the other way around, don't they?

For example: how many lawnmowers, gas generators, and chainsaws are there in the USA alone?

Now- how many have emissions standards? How many require inspections? Well why not?

Money. My car has an emission standard it must meet every two years. But the car drives to a station. Imagine the cash it would take to have Lawnmower Inspection Stations? Pretty expensive

Now, you and everyone else will probably say "Well lawnmower inspections are absurd"

Why? Can anyone deny that they are IC engines that produce hydrocarbons? I don't want to hear any of the "yeah but cars" or "It's too small a percentage" or any other excuse: if wasting resources and posioning the Planet are Real and Important Issues, what's the problem? It boggles my mind. We listen to the spoon-fed nonsense of Celebrities who lead lives of priveledge becasue we idolise them, and then stop thinking for ourselves. We are a bunch of morons who need pretty faces to tell us things, as a race

The answer is not "Al Gore". The answer is "Start thinking for ourselves". No lumpy Al Gore or similar is going to change this basic truth- until we start doing some things that require more than just bobbing our heads to pop music, there's trouble. Another example:

Any idiot can look at a brand new car and see the gasoline it takes to operate based on MPG

How many people consider all the electricity and petroleum products that it required to make? From mining ore to lights at the refinery to Coke machines at the assembly plant to gas for the car carrier to deliver the vehicle? But I need my new Escalade with the plasma TV, 12 way power seats, GPS, and HiDef radio, dammit. Yeah, sure it weighs 5500 pounds and uses the same amount of gas a big block Corvette did in 1969, but so what?

We are a bunch of dopes, letting pop stars and lumpy ex politicians think for us

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Your Grandchildren or great grandchildren will most likely be dying horrible deaths from starvation if global warming is not checked.

It has be proven beyond reasonable doubt that current rates of global warming have been caused by humans.

The PT mass extinction was caused by NATURAL GLOBAL WARMING over A FAR LONGER PERIOD OF TIME than current warming trends. Our global warming is over a FEW HUNDRED YEARS. Our temps have already increasd by 2 and a half degrees, once you raise temps by FIVE degrees, then Methane is released from the ocean. This causes an extra 5 degrees of warming.

This is what also happened in the PT extinction . A 10 degree temperature rise kills of 95 percent of life. However, the mass extinction took place in two parts, a smaller mass extinction occured at the 5-6 degree increase.

The same will happen this time round.

Hope you have fun explaining to your grandchildren why you ruined their lives for them.

Dont forget the PT extinction occurred over a MUCH longer timeframe. We've reduced that to a few hundred years at the most.

In the words of Steven Hawking "We're at risk of reuniting our planet with its dead neighbors"

So did you watch the concert or not? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

What did you do to help? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

nope didnt agree with the way they were pushing the issues of global warming forward. To animal rightsy. Will make lots of people cynical.

Also I agree with much of BBB462cid post.

slipBall
07-08-2007, 08:09 AM
I agree the world is warming, but it has been since the last ice age. Totally natural, and a ice age will follow after the warming hits a threshold....Off the top of my head two good things will occur,

1-
there won't be much starvation, because we will grow crops again in Greenland

2-

Eskimo woman, and all women will wear bikini's most of the time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2007, 08:10 AM
And I agree with your idea that the way they are presenting the issue is bad, Aimail

In my opinion, "Idiocracy" is <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">right now</span>, and it's not "W"'s fault any more or less than it is any other single person's fault. Blaming him doesn't change a thing, although it's easy just to lay blame- and it's right up our alley, because we don't need to think to do it. Pointing fingers is what we do- because we are a Society of Victims- nothing is OUR fault, oh no! It's the President, or those Repubclicans, or those Democrats, or that Tony Blair. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">I</span> had nothing to do with it, but now I have Bad Things happening, boo hoo, I need a lawyer

We over-consume. That's a huge issue and it's a touchy one. But that's a basic fact. If it's not Shiny, it's Broken, make me another. We need to consume less, it takes a big part of the cycle out, and it's basic: radical changes may do X Y and Z, but basic changes in our consuming habits do similar things. But if the factories lose production, jobs are lost. Jobs are lost, the economy suffers. I'm not sure who mentioned that Money had nothing to do with this, but unfortunately, whoever said that is wrong

joeap
07-08-2007, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:

nope didnt agree with the way they were pushing the issues of global warming forward. To animal rightsy. Will make lots of people cynical.

Also I agree with much of BBB462cid post.
Me too, though I love music concerts in general. Went to Montreux.

Anyway, I also hate rich telling poorer to consume less.

XyZspineZyX
07-08-2007, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by joeap:


Anyway, I also hate rich telling poorer to consume less.

This is perhaps the perfect way to say it

Warrington_Wolf
07-08-2007, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by ElSjonnie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
Hey if anyone else has an opinion on global warming, I'd love to hear it.

/sarcasm.

lol in-f'ing-deed. People acting like they know what they are talking about, when even scientists haven't figured it out yet, looks really smart.

/sarcasm. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I saw Live Earth at work and we all agreed with the point that many people have made here, that the amount of electricity that they used made the entire thing look hypocritical.
I saw a segment where an "expert" was talking about climate change and she said that predicting the effect of global warming "is not an exact science", in my eyes that means that it isn't science at all it is just the thing that we are supposed to prevent, hot air.
I think that global warming does exist but we did not cause it by driving cars, but we may have caused a slight increase in global temperature in another way (I will go into more detail in a minute). We have been burning fossil fuels since the industrial revolution started in the late 18th and early 19th century, yet the arctic ice caps have only started melting in the past couple of years, the whole global warming thing doesn't seem to make sense. Another point that is hardly ever mentioned is the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, and the fact that it has ACTUALLY BEEN PROVEN that the rainforest can have an influence on global temperatures. The Amazon is that large that the amount of CO2 absorbed by the plant life has an effect on a global scale. However the rainforest is having less and less of an influence because it is rapidly being destroyed by man, along with hundreds of species of plants and animals. In other words save the rainforest to slow down climate change, we can't stop climate change completely because the Earth goes through phases where it is warming up or cooling down but we can give the animals that are in danger a fighting chance.

P.S. Genesis were great, as were Metallica and the Foo Fighters http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif, and how gorgeous are Joss Stone and Rihanna http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif.

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
I agree the world is warming, but it has been since the last ice age. Totally natural, and a ice age will follow after the warming hits a threshold....Off the top of my head two good things will occur,

1-
there won't be much starvation, because we will grow crops again in Greenland

2-

Eskimo woman, and all women will wear bikini's most of the time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Another uniformed idiot, up until the 1950/60s global temperatures were actually decreasing.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf

EDIT: Decided to keep the link and not the chart, has more weight to it

slipBall
07-08-2007, 09:05 AM
You my friend should just give up and hide in a corner somewhere. There is always going to be temp spikes up or down, learn to live with it. Don't be a doom and gloom personality, life is too short

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
You my friend should just give up and hide in a corner somewhere. There is always going to be temp spikes up or down, learn to live with it. Don't be a doom and gloom personality, life is too short

You my friend should grow a brain and quit making opinions of something you know f*** all about

Read the link

No all I want to do is ensure that my children have a good life.

slipBall
07-08-2007, 09:12 AM
You should not have any children!..but if you have a boy name him Nancey http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
You should not have any children!..but if you have a boy name him Nancey http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

No mate, your the one who shouldn't have any more children.

Humanity wants to keep its mean IQ at 90

PF_Coastie
07-08-2007, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
I agree the world is warming, but it has been since the last ice age. Totally natural, and a ice age will follow after the warming hits a threshold....Off the top of my head two good things will occur,

1-
there won't be much starvation, because we will grow crops again in Greenland

2-

Eskimo woman, and all women will wear bikini's most of the time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Another uniformed idiot, up until the 1950/60s global temperatures were actually decreasing.

http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/small/05.16.jpg

Please read http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Based on very dodgy estimations over 100 years ago, yes.

I am so glad all those weather stations and temperatures were monitored for thousands of years so we can now have these "facts". Its good to know all these folks are so good that they can "estimate" Global temperatures to within a tenth of a degree a thousand years ago, but they can't tell me if it is going to rain tomorrow, or not!

EURO_Snoopy
07-08-2007, 09:15 AM
CO2 accounts for 0.02% of the atmosphere

Think about it

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 09:16 AM
I advise all of you to read that freaking link, you bunch of ******s

Snoopy, did you know C02 was responsible for the PT extinction event

Oh i forgot, your an idiot as well. Do some in depth research, before making such a stupid statement.

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by PF_Coastie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
I agree the world is warming, but it has been since the last ice age. Totally natural, and a ice age will follow after the warming hits a threshold....Off the top of my head two good things will occur,

1-
there won't be much starvation, because we will grow crops again in Greenland

2-

Eskimo woman, and all women will wear bikini's most of the time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Another uniformed idiot, up until the 1950/60s global temperatures were actually decreasing.

http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/small/05.16.jpg

Please read http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Based on very dodgy estimations over 100 years ago, yes.

I am so glad all those weather stations and temperatures were monitored for thousands of years so we can now have these "facts". Its good to know all these folks are so good that they can "estimate" Global temperatures to within a tenth of a degree a thousand years ago, but they can't tell me if it is going to rain tomorrow, or not! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its called paleoclimatology, its much like forensics mixed with geology

I guess its way over your head though, they aren't estimates either. You'd know that If you had a good knowledge of chemistry or geology.

Cant argue with your kind of research though, I mean ****. Obviously the majority of the scientific community are wrong, and your right. I should listen to you instead. It's not like they aren't objective, and havnt looked at everything from as many angles they can think of.

You know these guys lose sleep trying to get their head round this stuff. You make an opinion within....oooh i dont know....30 seconds based on some moron you heard on the radio.

Predicting something on a short timescale is infinitely harder than working out a historical general trend or even a long term future general trend.

EURO_Snoopy
07-08-2007, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
I advise all of you to read that freaking link, you bunch of ******s

Snoopy, did you know C02 was responsible for the PT extinction event

Oh i forgot, your an idiot as well. Do some in depth research, before making such a stupid statement.

Wow you're sensitive.

I have done alot of thinking about this issue, I have done a great deal of research. You have to take a step back and look at where the research is coming from. Who is saying what and why, where the money the money for that research is coming from. this 'science' requires knowledge from a broad range of sciences, it is new, prone to error and exaggeration.

Do you recall the prediction that the melting of the ice caps would cause the collapse of the ocean conveyor belt that drives the weather throughout the northern hemisphere causing a new ice age, disproved recently as climatologist admitted they couldn't get the model to work under even the worst global warming scenario

Overall remember that we have only recently aquired the technology to properly monitor global climate.

Don't get me wrong, my carbon footprint is probably one of the smallest amongst the posters here. Waste and pollution are bad things but blind belief in a theory without solid eveidence based on interpretatons of data which cannot be proven to be solid is, indeed, stupid.

Also the PT event was not caused by CO2. carbon isotope levels were higher post PT. The event itself may have been caused by one or more of the following:
Imapct event
Volcanic activity
There was a subsequent global warming which was caused by Methane hydrate which has a far greater impact on global warming than carbon dioxide.

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by EURO_Snoopy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
I advise all of you to read that freaking link, you bunch of ******s

Snoopy, did you know C02 was responsible for the PT extinction event

Oh i forgot, your an idiot as well. Do some in depth research, before making such a stupid statement.

Wow you're sensitive.

I have done alot of thinking about this issue, I have done a great deal of research. You have to take a step back and look at where the research is coming from. Who is saying what and why, where the money the money for that research is coming from. this 'science' requires knowledge from a broad range of sciences, it is new, prone to error and exaggeration.

Do you recall the prediction that the melting of the ice caps would cause the collapse of the ocean conveyor belt that drives the weather throughout the northern hemisphere causing a new ice age, disproved recently as climatologist admitted they couldn't get the model to work under even the worst global warming scenario

Overall remember that we have only recently aquired the technology to properly monitor global climate.

Don't get me wrong, my carbon footprint is probably one of the smallest amongst the posters here. Waste and pollution are bad things but blind belief in a theory without solid eveidence based on interpretatons of data which cannot be proven to be solid is, indeed, stupid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Much as blind disbelief of any data or warnings from scientists is stupid.

The collapse of the conveyor belt wouldn't occur from the melting of the ice caps anyway, however sea level temperature rises could quite easily do it.

Your example however just goes to show how objective the scientific community are. Most of the studies barring the ones sponsored by the oil companies are objective anyway.

The new reports of the IPCC, are meant to be watered down even. To the point where there has been a lot of outrage.

reisen52
07-08-2007, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
your an idiot as well. before making such a stupid statement.

You ever notice how all the really, really, really smart guys here have to get all hysterical, go ballistic and call everybody else names when they can't make their point.

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by reisen52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
your an idiot as well. before making such a stupid statement.

You ever notice how all the really, really, really smart guys here have to get all hysterical, go ballistic and call everybody else names when they can't make their point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I get tired of repeating stuff to stupid in people in real life. Who seem to fail to even try to understand anything.

EURO_Snoopy
07-08-2007, 09:49 AM
No blind disbelief here, nor hysteria, just caution and a firm belief in science.

Please note edits to earlier post, re PT event

heywooood
07-08-2007, 09:50 AM
ok - now I'm curious about something.

You've got all these countries and all these bands all over the world.

The scientific community has raised this alarm over global warming (not Al Gore - he is just the face of the issue in America) and other governments besides ours have decided it is a valid issue based on the science or the evidence collected by that community (includes NASA) and in order to get some kind of message out for popular discussion it was decided that a worldwide concert should be the way to appeal for a small change in the way people handle their electricity and their garbage/waste.

How do you geniuses propose to do it?
Without resorting to the energy available today how do YOU think it should have been done?

You have to use current technology to promote the idea of changeing that technology on a mass scale -

Now - the true test of success or failure will be when the next live earth event is held.
Then we can compare the carbon footprint of the two...as well as any progress among the people to curb their energy and material waste...and see if it is working.

You have to pay to play - and so it cost some energy to play the live earth event around the world...a first ever worldwide live event of this kind (Olympic coverage being similar but not as internet focused) so I think that makes it noteworthy.... Not Al Gore's participation - or the amount of energy required to produce it.

Hopefully it will make a difference

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by EURO_Snoopy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
I advise all of you to read that freaking link, you bunch of ******s

Snoopy, did you know C02 was responsible for the PT extinction event

Oh i forgot, your an idiot as well. Do some in depth research, before making such a stupid statement.

Wow you're sensitive.

I have done alot of thinking about this issue, I have done a great deal of research. You have to take a step back and look at where the research is coming from. Who is saying what and why, where the money the money for that research is coming from. this 'science' requires knowledge from a broad range of sciences, it is new, prone to error and exaggeration.

Do you recall the prediction that the melting of the ice caps would cause the collapse of the ocean conveyor belt that drives the weather throughout the northern hemisphere causing a new ice age, disproved recently as climatologist admitted they couldn't get the model to work under even the worst global warming scenario

Overall remember that we have only recently aquired the technology to properly monitor global climate.

Don't get me wrong, my carbon footprint is probably one of the smallest amongst the posters here. Waste and pollution are bad things but blind belief in a theory without solid eveidence based on interpretatons of data which cannot be proven to be solid is, indeed, stupid.

Also the PT event was not caused by CO2. carbon isotope levels were higher post PT. The event itself may have been caused by one or more of the following:
Imapct event
Volcanic activity
There was a subsequent global warming which was caused by Methane hydrate which has a far greater impact on global warming than carbon dioxide. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Methane Hydrate aka The Clathrate gun effect, brought about by warming from CO2 caused by excessive volcanism

The impact event has been disproven.

Targ
07-08-2007, 09:55 AM
Aimail101,
please stop refereeing to people who do not agree with as idiots. There is no reason to be insulting.

heywooood
07-08-2007, 09:58 AM
yeah - that is counterproductive at best

EURO_Snoopy
07-08-2007, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:

The collapse of the conveyor belt wouldn't occur from the melting of the ice caps anyway, however sea level temperature rises could quite easily do it.

Actually the entire premise of the collapse of the conveyor was based on melting caps and a drop in ocean salinity, nothing else.


Originally posted by Aimail101:
Your example however just goes to show how objective the scientific community are. Most of the studies barring the ones sponsored by the oil companies are objective anyway.

As objective the admission was it never made the worlds press, feeding hysteria and pushing red buttons doesn't sell newspapers, the myth must be fed at all costs?

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 10:02 AM
Okay, Sorry guys. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I have a little less respect for niceness on these boards, after some unexplained rudeness directed at me on these boards recently.

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by EURO_Snoopy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:

The collapse of the conveyor belt wouldn't occur from the melting of the ice caps anyway, however sea level temperature rises could quite easily do it.

Actually the entire premise of the collapse of the conveyor was based on melting caps and a drop in ocean salinity, nothing else.


Originally posted by Aimail101:
Your example however just goes to show how objective the scientific community are. Most of the studies barring the ones sponsored by the oil companies are objective anyway.

As objective the admission was it never made the worlds press, feeding hysteria and pushing red buttons doesn't sell newspapers, the myth must be fed at all costs? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But actually rising ocean temperatures could quite easily do it, global warming would reduce the temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. Leading to a collapse of the Thermohaline Circulation.

Agree with the second point though, the media is to sensationalist. Its one reason why I didn't like Live Earth, it does more harm than good and discredits the scientific communities hard work.

heywooood
07-08-2007, 10:21 AM
the earth is so vast it has an unlimited capability to manage natural environmental catastophes....true?

there are not enough people on this vast earth, generating enough waste into the limitless atmosphere or into the firmamant of this vast planet to tip the balance of what it can manage vs what it cannot support...true?

The earth has had major challenges and upheavals WRT its climatic environment before we were ever here: volcanic activity as well as large impact events throughout time...but only in the last 100 years have we been generating electrical energy and perfecting food production and distribution on any kind of massive scale...and we are only beginning to measure our impact, after all what is 100 years compared to a millenia?

I guess we'll see won't we?

Personally - I don't see why there should be so much resistance to just looking into it and taking measurements to see just what effect we're having, its too bad that we are so politically polarised now that any result or conclusions reached by reading these measurements one way or the other is going to be construed or skewed as 'bias' and ignored by large percentages of the population thus affecting us all and limiting the success or usefullness of the study almost completely.

Mission accomplished big oil - you win again.

Maybe its possible that we are infact tipping the scales with our waste and byproducts - and if so, don't we have the responsibility to find out?

Are we not as intelligent as that?

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by heywooood:
the earth is so vast it has an unlimited capability to manage natural environmental catastophes....true?

there are not enough people on this vast earth, generating enough waste into the limitless atmosphere or into the firmamant of this vast planet to tip the balance of what it can manage vs what it cannot support...true?

The earth has had major challenges and upheavals WRT is climatic environment before we were ever here: volcanic activity as well as large impact events throughout time...but only in the last 100 years have we been generating electrical energy and perfecting food production and distribution on any kind of massive scale...and we are only beginning to measure our impact, after all what is 100 years compared to a millenia?

I guess we'll see won't we?

Personally - I don't see why there should be so much resistance to just looking into it and taking measurements to see just what effect we're having, its too bad that we are so politically polarised now that any result or conclusions reached by reading these measurements one way or the other is going to be construed or skewed as 'bias' and ignored by large percentages of the population thus affecting us all and limiting the success or usefullness of the study almost completely.

Mission accomplished big oil - you win again.

Maybe its possible that we are infact tipping the scales with our waste and byproducts - and if so, don't we have the responsibility to find out?

Are we not as intelligent as that?

The assumption that the earths atmosphere is a limitless environment, is wrong. Its a finely tuned balance, if one thing goes wrong. Everything goes tits up, and a chain of events happen in which the earth tries to balance itself out. Of course the earth would be fine, but humanity after such an upheaval would not.

If you look at the historical record of such climatic changes, you'd be astonished to realize that were doing what natural phenomenas did in 200,000 thousand years in 100 years.

However Steven Hawking has questioned whether even Earth itself can recover from such rapid climatic change, if left unchecked.

slipBall
07-08-2007, 10:27 AM
Headline........"Targ saves thread from almost certain lock"........ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

heywooood
07-08-2007, 10:31 AM
yes - I didn't think I needed to exlain why the answer 'true ?' has a question mark after it...

The planet is finite and has a finite capability or limit to what emissions it can manage - it is an amazing engine but I don't think it runs well on this much carbon monoxide

I could be wrong ofcourse - I would love to know for sure though.

slipBall
07-08-2007, 10:48 AM
Just one volcanic eruption dumps much higher amounts of carbon monoxide than man has since ihe industrial revolution. We really need to understand that warm, and cold is the history of earth and the universe, just a cycle if you will. Really nothing to worry about, it will warm, then it will get cold, then it will warm once again.

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
Just one volcanic eruption dumps much higher amounts of carbon monoxide than man has since ihe industrial revolution. We really need to understand that warm, and cold is the history of earth and the universe, just a cycle if you will. Really nothing to worry about, it will warm, then it will get cold, then it will warm once again.

Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Siberian Traps, the largest volcanic system the earth has ever seen. Caused an a increase in Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide on a scale about 2000 times slower than current rates.

slipBall
07-08-2007, 10:51 AM
What no "idiot" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif....people will always differ

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
What no "idiot" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif....people will always differ

Edited my post. You need to get some historical perspective of climatic changes in the past.

Your way out of your depth Slipball

SeaFireLIV
07-08-2007, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by heywooood:
yes - I didn't think I needed to exlain why the answer 'true ?' has a question mark after it...

The planet is finite and has a finite capability or limit to what emissions it can manage - it is an amazing engine but I don't think it runs well on this much carbon monoxide

I could be wrong ofcourse - I would love to know for sure though.


The question is not can the Earth survive us. It will.

The real question is can WE survive what the Earth becomes?

Because let`s face it, if it takes 100, 500 or a 1000 years the Earth will recover, in the meantime, Mankind has become extinct because earth stopped providing to us.

It`s in OUR best interests to read the signs and stopping this growing escalation before it`s too late.

As for this `Live Earth` it looks to me like a money-making machine for agents, musicians and anyone else except the planet. Did those agents and popstars (including maddy) arrive by coach or private jet and gas-guzzling limousine?

joeap
07-08-2007, 10:55 AM
When was "the" impact event disproven and what impact event are we talking about? There were many extinction events are there not?


Anyway while the human race may become extinct it's the height of hubris to suggest all life will end.

slipBall
07-08-2007, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
What no "idiot" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif....people will always differ

Edited my post. You need to get some historical perspective of climatic changes in the past.

Your way out of your depth Slipball </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Are you familar with core samples from ice, sea, and land?....the climatic history of earth is well understood by some, ignored by many

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
When was "the" impact event disproven and what impact event are we talking about? There were many extinction events are there not?


Anyway while the human race may become extinct it's the height of hubris to suggest all life will end.

The KT impact killing the dinosaurs was not disproven.

However the theory for the PT extinction was, very recently. Cannot remember the details I'm afraid. I'll try to find them for you, if you wish!

No one said all life, did they. However the PT extinction killed 95 percent of all life.

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
What no "idiot" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif....people will always differ

Edited my post. You need to get some historical perspective of climatic changes in the past.

Your way out of your depth Slipball </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Are you familar with core samples from ice, sea, and land?....the climatic history of earth is well understood by some, ignored by many </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I'm a sedimentologist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

slipBall
07-08-2007, 11:05 AM
Then surely you must know that this is a cycle. Are you familar with drop stones in the equator region? Sometimes the earth has gotten very cold, and very warm as well

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
Then surely you must know that this is a cycle. Are you familar with drop stones in the equator region? Sometimes the earth has gotten very cold, and very warm as well

And are you familiar with the fact that those climatic changes occurred over millions of years?

SeaFireLIV
07-08-2007, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
Then surely you must know that this is a cycle. Are you familar with drop stones in the equator region? Sometimes the earth has gotten very cold, and very warm as well

And are you familiar with the fact that those climatic changes occurred over millions of years? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, I was trying to explain this to a m8. Mankind has caused an exponential speed of change never before seen.

Viper2005_
07-08-2007, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
Yeah I'm a sedimentologist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I guess given a few million years that'll rock...

slipBall
07-08-2007, 11:10 AM
No, not true!....through sea core drillings, it has been proven that a ice age can start in the span of a decade. Warming is the oposite, taking much time to eventialy lead to conveyor shutdown + new cool down

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
No, not true!....through sea core drillings, it has been proven that a ice age can start in the span of a decade. Warming is the oposite, taking much time to eventialy lead to conveyor shutdown + new cool down

You've just proven my point

drose01
07-08-2007, 11:12 AM
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2061101070619.gif

reisen52
07-08-2007, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:No, I get tired of repeating stuff to stupid in people in real life. Who seem to fail to even try to understand anything.

I never thought of that, I guess its really tuff being such a brilliant guy having to suffer all the rest of us fools every day.

BTW do you demand that all the companies you must run, being so much smarter then the rest of us, are totally green in their production processes?

slipBall
07-08-2007, 11:16 AM
Would you not agree, that we are in the same warm period that melted away the ice sheets?

reisen52
07-08-2007, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101: I'm in my teens.
I never would have guessed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
Would you not agree, that we are in the same warm period that melted away the ice sheets?

Yes that is fairly obvious, however we were cooling down. That does not mean though, that current temperature rises are natural.

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by reisen52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101: I'm in my teens.
I never would have guessed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well nearly 20

slipBall
07-08-2007, 11:27 AM
I believe that man has an effect, but if man was gone today, along with his abusive's, the earth would still continue to warm at a slightly slower rate, all to make way for the next ice age. There really is nothing that can prevent this from happening, it is earth's history and its future

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 11:27 AM
Nor are Ice ages caused by the collapse of the conveyor belt

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
I believe that man has an effect, but if man was gone today, along with his abusive's, the earth would still continue to warm at a slightly slower rate, all to make way for the next ice age. There really is nothing that can prevent this from happening, it is earth's history and its future

Ice ages are Dependant on the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and the milankovitch cycle. It is perfectly plausible, that we'll screw the entire cycle up for a long while.

The current warm climate without input from Humans, should stay for 50,000 years. It was even cooling down before we started messing with it.

Taylortony
07-08-2007, 11:35 AM
Agriculture puts out more harmful gases than aviation..........

Me, I believe in landfill, I firmly believe all the plastics we are burying will be dug up and recycled in the future when oil is scarer than rocking horse sh+t....... I do not think the technology is sufficently developed today to recycle the stuff to it's best... in the future this will not be the case and the rubbish we have incinerated today will be viewed as a valuable commodity lost for future generations....

we will also reopen the UK coal industry as oil diminishes..... it can be recyled to make oil such as the South Africans did for many a year.

Global warming is not a new thing, it's been going on for hundreds of years...... look at 18th century pics of the likes of London...... you could skate on the Thames......

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Taylortony:
Agriculture puts out more harmful gases than aviation..........

Me, I believe in landfill, I firmly believe all the plastics we are burying will be dug up and recycled in the future when oil is scarer than rocking horse sh+t....... I do not think the technology is sufficently developed today to recycle the stuff to it's best... in the future this will not be the case and the rubbish we have incinerated today will be viewed as a valuable commodity lost for future generations....

we will also reopen the UK coal industry as oil diminishes..... it can be recyled to make oil such as the South Africans did for many a year.

Agree with the second point in a weird way. My advice to everyone is, hoard all your plastic in a barn. It'll make you a fortune in 30 years.

The first point is an interesting one, Aviation tends to dump the pollutants higher up in the atmosphere where they cannot be negated by say trees. Dirt particles are also masking the problem of global warming.

heywooood
07-08-2007, 11:40 AM
this is exactly the same as saying to your kids
" go ahead and throw your trash on the ground - someone will come along eventually and pick it up for you"

lol

slipBall
07-08-2007, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
I believe that man has an effect, but if man was gone today, along with his abusive's, the earth would still continue to warm at a slightly slower rate, all to make way for the next ice age. There really is nothing that can prevent this from happening, it is earth's history and its future



I do not have your education, but have been a student for many years, who's interest is climate. Take a minute to read through this link, I tend to have many of the same beliefs that they put forth.
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455

Ice ages are Dependant on the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and the milankovitch cycle. It is perfectly plausible, that we'll screw the entire cycle up for a long while.

Our climate should, without input from Humans. Stay stable for the next 50,000 years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Matz0r
07-08-2007, 11:44 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
I believe that man has an effect, but if man was gone today, along with his abusive's, the earth would still continue to warm at a slightly slower rate, all to make way for the next ice age. There really is nothing that can prevent this from happening, it is earth's history and its future



I do not have your education, but have been a student for many years, who's interest is climate. Take a minute to read through this link, I tend to have many of the same beliefs that they put forth.
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455

Ice ages are Dependant on the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and the milankovitch cycle. It is perfectly plausible, that we'll screw the entire cycle up for a long while.

Our climate should, without input from Humans. Stay stable for the next 50,000 years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You realize that those guys are heavily involved in the oil industry?

Taylortony
07-08-2007, 11:44 AM
Things I would like seen to be done is companies discharging into rivers must be forced to draw their water downstream from their discharges........... that would clean up the act of a lot of Companies....

Did you know if the UK switched off all the energy consumption for one year in total, and I mean everything from your kids battery operated toy to our nuclear power stations, China would take up the slack from what has been saved in 18 months, such is their consumption growth and pollution...... It's what you get for your cheap Nike trainers and Made in China Products... so we are all at fault as its consumer driven, demanding cheaper prices for goods that then have to be made in third world countries where labour is cheaper and the environment considerations comes in last.........

slipBall
07-08-2007, 11:48 AM
You realize that those guys are heavily involved in the oil industry?



No, explain if you would....they are quite respected

bun-bun195333
07-08-2007, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:


Well nearly 20

Aimail, you haven't been around long enough to experience the crises that are manufactured for us: DDT, Ozone Hole, Red M&M's, Silent Spring, The Coming Ice Age, Unsafe at any Speed - that's just a partial list. I know you probably had Global Warming drummed into your head daily at school but it's just another attempt to spook the herd.

If you look at how grant money is handed out to colleges you'll find that anything that supports Global Warming gets priority. Climatologists are equally divided in opinion about whether man has any effect on the climate. That's not what I would call settled science.

Mars is warming up. This would seem to indicate that our warming has more to do with changes in solar output than my F-250 or Harley.

I'm fifty-three - the average age on this board is forty. I would suggest that you look in the mirror before popping off about being surrounded by idiots.

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by bun-bun195333:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:


Well nearly 20

Aimail, you haven't been around long enough to experience the crises that are manufactured for us: DDT, Ozone Hole, Red M&M's, Silent Spring, The Coming Ice Age, Unsafe at any Speed - that's just a partial list. I know you probably had Global Warming drummed into your head daily at school but it's just another attempt to spook the herd.

If you look at how grant money is handed out to colleges you'll find that anything that supports Global Warming gets priority. Climatologists are equally divided in opinion about whether man has any effect on the climate. That's not what I would call settled science.

Mars is warming up. This would seem to indicate that our warming has more to do with changes in solar output than my F-250 or Harley.

I'm fifty-three - the average age on this board is forty. I would suggest that you look in the mirror before popping off about being surrounded by idiots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No m8, Ive been there. The grants go to universities who's grads end up going to Haliburton, Shell, or BP. Ive studied all the past scares, and again they were not caused by the scientific community but the media taking ONE article in some cases and exploding them out of all proportion.

They were discreditied by scientific objectivity. However, global warming has not been. And your only answer to it, is a rhetorical one. Nor are climatologists particularly divided on the issue of whether its man causing the problems. They are divided on many other issues, but there is consensus amongst all but the oil guys.

Slipball, they're oceanographers....believe me they take it up the *** from dozens of Oil companies. But give me a bit of time and I'll find some proof for you.

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 12:10 PM
Theres the proof they take it up the *** from Oil companies

http://dynatog.whoi.edu/docs/GBRN/corp-private.html

heywooood
07-08-2007, 12:14 PM
'spook the herd'

all I get out of it is that some people who know a little bit about the volume of waste we are generating want me to change my light bulbs to mini fluorescent and remember to turn them off when I leave a room - ride my bike or walk once in awhile instead of driving and maybe get a more efficient car next time I buy one - fly in a plane only when I absolutely have to - turn my thermostat down one or two degrees - and recycle more instead of throwing everything in the trash for landfil....

Thats all - I'm thinking thats all doable and in no way anything to panic over or dig my heels in about.

Whats the reason for arguement? Is it THAT invasive...after all - you gave up the right to privacy by allowing the government to impose the 'Patriot Act' without any resistance whatsoever.

I should think that curbing energy and material waste is far less invasive of your rights as an American or your liberties as a citizen of the west.

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 12:14 PM
Bun-Bun your theory that the sun is causing such changes is entirely wrong as well. Solar insolation will only gradually increase over the next 25,000 years.

It has been proven to have next to no effect on current warming rates.

jensenpark
07-08-2007, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
Bun-Bun your theory that the sun is causing such changes is entirely wrong as well. Solar insolation will only gradually increase over the next 25,000 years.

It has been proven to have next to no effect on current warming rates.

LOL...proven by who?

Problem with the whole debate is for every scientist who is trotted out pushing the climate change crisis there is proof the other way.

(notice how it is no longer 'global warming'? Seeing how mean temperature has been dropping since 2001. Oops! Quick Al - switch the theme to climate change).

What scares me most is how anyone is tries to disagree with this 'new religion' is branded a 'denier' and shouted down by the crisis mongers.

Bun is right about the grant money. It's the same in Canada. Grants go to those trying their darndest to prove this man-made calamity. Got a counter-opinion? No money for you!

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 12:57 PM
LOLZ what a brilliant way to discredit anything their own research

http://dynatog.whoi.edu/docs/GBRN/corp-oil.html

EDCF_Rama
07-08-2007, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
Nor are climatologists particularly divided on the issue of whether its man causing the problems. They are divided on many other issues, but there is consensus amongst all but the oil guys.

You're absolutly wrong on this one.... there are hundreds of article of well known climatologists contesting the human release of CO2 to be the MAIN cause of the global warming (and most of them are not paid or subsidized by oil companies).
One of the main argument beiing that the lower troposphere should heat at least at the same rate, and even faster if the greenhouse effect was the major component of the current global warming.... which isn't the cas (as shown in a lot of studies of NOAA vertical sounder measurements).

You can say wathever you want about the pretenduous "scientific consensus"... it's just an argument with no real background..... and using it over and over in all medias doesn't make it more real.


Bun-Bun your theory that the sun is causing such changes is entirely wrong as well. Solar insolation will only gradually increase over the next 25,000 years

This just show you know nothing about this theory. The theory isn't about increase of decreas of Solar insolation, but about decrease/increase of Solar storms/activities (the infamous solar spots).
The solar storms deviate the flow of space ionized particles toward atmosphères, and the lessening of theses particles has an effect on the water condensation, so on the cloud forming, so on the global albedo)
There are hundreds of articles about, including articles about historical "sun spots" observations that correlate quite well with historical climate changes.
Of course it's just a theory, and as much unprooved as the one giving all the global warming fault to antropological CO2 rejects.

This is just to show you, that inspite what you believe and tell over and over, there are many theories around, and those theories are studied and publicized by knowed scientists all around the world in numerous serious scientific reviews.

Just ask yourself something: why does actually NASA, CNES and other space research institutes work on the A-train experiment, with a series of satellites to study the effects of different atmospheric components on climate and on differenc climate interactions?
.... like for example the PARASOL satellite, which main goal is to study atmospheric aerosols (the different kind), wich are supposed to have a strong effect on cloud forming... and so on climate.
Take a look at the PARASOL website... and read the presentation and expectations.

The reality about climate sciences is not what the medias says. The reality is that 50% of the effects and interactions are mostly unknown, and that telling that anthropic CO2 is the major cause is just an oppinion.
Abnd an oppinion, even if shared by 2000 scientists (but not by many others).... is NOT a scientific TRUTH.

Now say what you want (btw... I did my share of publications on climate... and never got a penny from any oil company)..... but be conscient that peoples with a minimum of scientific curiosity and searching informations in the scientific publications may easilly make teh difference between a "scientific truth" and a scientific oppinion.... and will find that the climatic research is still in infancy, and that nothing can be prooved today..
And a earth music evenment isn't changing this fact.

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by jensenpark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Bun-Bun your theory that the sun is causing such changes is entirely wrong as well. Solar insolation will only gradually increase over the next 25,000 years.

It has been proven to have next to no effect on current warming rates.

LOL...proven by who?

Problem with the whole debate is for every scientist who is trotted out pushing the climate change crisis there is proof the other way.

(notice how it is no longer 'global warming'? Seeing how mean temperature has been dropping since 2001. Oops! Quick Al - switch the theme to climate change).

What scares me most is how anyone is tries to disagree with this 'new religion' is branded a 'denier' and shouted down by the crisis mongers.

Bun is right about the grant money. It's the same in Canada. Grants go to those trying their darndest to prove this man-made calamity. Got a counter-opinion? No money for you! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay I'll find the Scientific Article.

ANd its total bollocks that the majority of grants come from eco hippies. The Majority come from the oil buisness, I'm involved with the freaking industry.

The only crisis mongers are the media, I have already made my point about why I don't like these people. They discredit the scientific research, by giving weight to people like you.

And your TOTALLY wrong with mean temperature.

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Nor are climatologists particularly divided on the issue of whether its man causing the problems. They are divided on many other issues, but there is consensus amongst all but the oil guys.

You're absolutly wrong on this one.... there are hundreds of article of well known climatologists contesting the human release of CO2 to be the MAIN cause of the global warming (and most of them are not paid or subsidized by oil companies).
One of the main argument beiing that the lower troposphere should heat at least at the same rate, and even faster if the greenhouse effect was the major component of the current global warming.... which isn't the cas (as shown in a lot of studies of NOAA vertical sounder measurements).

You can say wathever you want about the pretenduous "scientific consensus"... it's just an argument with no real background..... and using it over and over in all medias doesn't make it more real.


Bun-Bun your theory that the sun is causing such changes is entirely wrong as well. Solar insolation will only gradually increase over the next 25,000 years

This just show you know nothing about this theory. The theory isn't about increase of decreas of Solar insolation, but about decrease/increase of Solar storms/activities (the infamous solar spots).
The solar storms deviate the flow of space ionized particles toward atmosphères, and the lessening of theses particles has an effect on the water condensation, so on the cloud forming, so on the global albedo)
There are hundreds of articles about, including articles about historical "sun spots" observations that correlate quite well with historical climate changes.
Of course it's just a theory, and as much unprooved as the one giving all the global warming fault to antropological CO2 rejects.

This is just to show you, that inspite what you believe and tell over and over, there are many theories around, and those theories are studied and publicized by knowed scientists all around the world in numerous serious scientific reviews.

Just ask yourself something: why does actually NASA, CNES and other space research institutes work on the A-train experiment, with a series of satellites to study the effects of different atmospheric components on climate and on differenc climate interactions?
.... like for example the PARASOL satellite, which main goal is to study atmospheric aerosols (the different kind), wich are supposed to have a strong effect on cloud forming... and so on climate.
Take a look at the PARASOL website... and read the presentation and expectations.

The reality about climate sciences is not what the medias says. The reality is that 50% of the effects and interactions are mostly unknown, and that telling that anthropic CO2 is the major cause is just an oppinion.
Abnd an oppinion, even if shared by 2000 scientists (but not by many others).... is NOT a scientific TRUTH.

Now say what you want (btw... I did my share of publications on climate... and never got a penny from any oil company)..... but be conscient that peoples with a minimum of scientific curiosity and searching informations in the scientific publications may easilly make teh difference between a "scientific truth" and a scientific oppinion.... and will find that the climatic research is still in infancy, and that nothing can be prooved today..
And a earth music evenment isn't changing this fact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most. During the initial discovery period of global warming, the magnitude of the influence of increased activity on the Sun was not well determined.

sun image EIT Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


If your argument is nothing can be proven, then you should realize that you don't F*** with something until you know the consequences.

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 01:11 PM
Researchers have also examined temperature data from 1979 to 1999, and have discovered that large volcanic eruptions cooled the lower troposphere more than the surface, and likely masked the actual warming of the troposphere.

carguy_
07-08-2007, 01:15 PM
I`d love to be as brilliant as Aimail but if this means sharing his pain of existence I think I`ll pass.

slipBall
07-08-2007, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
Theres the proof they take it up the *** from Oil companies

http://dynatog.whoi.edu/docs/GBRN/corp-private.html



Doh! you got them!

no seriously, I'm sure that the connection is for sediment findings, to help lead the way to oil reserves. They are not funded by big oil....have you found allegations to discredit them

SeaFireLIV
07-08-2007, 01:20 PM
Man talks his ****, while Nature Acts.

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Theres the proof they take it up the *** from Oil companies

http://dynatog.whoi.edu/docs/GBRN/corp-private.html



Doh! you got them!

no seriously, I'm sure that the connection is for sediment findings, to help lead the way to oil reserves. They are not funded by big oil....have you found allegations to discredit them </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh if they're helping oil companies to find oil through research and sedimentary work, you can be sure they are under the pay of them as well.

I could get in touch with an insider. Check the other link as well.

EDCF_Rama
07-08-2007, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun.

"It looks like only a quarter..."
Super-scientific statement.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


sun image EIT Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. .../... The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues.

Again.... You don't know the theory about the Sun Storms and deviation of ionized particles.... it has nothing to do with solar irradiance (or brightness).
There are numerous articles, like This one (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JA010866.shtml) for exemple.


If your argument is nothing can be proven, then you should realize that you don't F*** with something until you know the consequences.

You got it right... this is exactly my argument.

And there are so much thing you do everyday in your life that you don't really know the consequences.... the only possibility to be sure to never F**** something is to get a gun and to shoot a bullet in your head.

BTW.... it would actually help to reduce the Greenhouse gaz.... since as long you breath, you produce a lot of CO2 and Water Vapor... the 2 most important greenhouse gaz.

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun.

"It looks like only a quarter..."
Super-scientific statement.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


sun image EIT Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. .../... The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues.

Again.... You don't know the theory about the Sun Storms and deviation of ionized particles.... it has nothing to do with solar irradiance (or brightness).
There are numerous articles, like This one (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JA010866.shtml) for exemple.


If your argument is nothing can be proven, then you should realize that you don't F*** with something until you know the consequences.

You got it right... this is exactly my argument.

And there are so much thing you do everyday in your life that you don't really know the consequences.... the only possibility to be sure to never F**** something is to get a gun and to shoot a bullet in your head.

BTW.... it would actually help to reduce the Greenhouse gaz.... since as long you breath, you produce a lot of CO2 and Water Vapor... the 2 most important greenhouse gaz. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO your arguing with a NASA based report, okay let me get together a retort for that

You realize AGU are also in bed with the oil business?

Your argument to that to stop global warming one should shoot oneself in the head is also incredibly stupid. As the whole point in trying to slow or stop the process is to ensure the survival of the human race.

EDCF_Rama
07-08-2007, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
Researchers have also examined temperature data from 1979 to 1999, and have discovered that large volcanic eruptions cooled the lower troposphere more than the surface, and likely masked the actual warming of the troposphere.

This is quite funny.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
If the lower troposphere temperature was cooled that much to mask its warning, it means (whatever the reasons for this cooling) that it counteracted all the greenhouse effect... and thus that the current surface warming (which is real) has nothing to do with greenhouse gaz.

Read again the greenhouse theory please.

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Researchers have also examined temperature data from 1979 to 1999, and have discovered that large volcanic eruptions cooled the lower troposphere more than the surface, and likely masked the actual warming of the troposphere.

This is quite funny.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
If the lower troposphere temperature was cooled that much to mask its warning, it means (whatever the reasons for this cooling) that it counteracted all the greenhouse effect... and thus that the current surface warming (which is real) has nothing to do with greenhouse gaz.

Read again the greenhouse theory please. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just incase you don't read, AGU take it up the *** from oil companies as well.

Okay that datas out of date lol

Increasing levels of greenhouse gases should warm the Earth's surface and the lower atmosphere, and cool the upper layer. So is this happening as the theory and models predict?

Satellites and weather balloon measurements show that the stratosphere, the layer from 10 to 50 kilometres above the Earth, is indeed cooling (although this is partly due to the depletion of the ozone layer).

In 1992, however, an analysis of satellite data by John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, US, concluded that the lower part of the troposphere – the first 10 kilometres of atmosphere – had cooled relative to the surface since 1979, when the first satellites capable monitoring temperature measurements were launched. This trend seemed to continue into the late 1990s and also seemed to be supported by balloon measurements.

This was not quite the "nail in the coffin" for global warming that some sceptics claimed. If the satellite data was correct, it meant there was something wrong with the existing models of climate change. But it made little sense for the lower atmosphere to be cooling even as the surface warmed, suggesting the problem lay with the data. The jury was out until the issue could be resolved one way or another.
Slowing satellites

The answer came in a series of studies published in 2005 (see Sceptics forced into climate climbdown).

One study in Science revealed errors in the way satellite data had been collected and interpreted. For instance, the orbit of satellites gradually slows, which has to be taken into account because it affects the time of day at which temperature recording are taken. This problem was always recognised, but the corrections were given the wrong sign (negative instead positive and vice versa).

A second study, also in Science, looked at the weather balloon data. Measurements of the air temperature during the day can be skewed if the instruments are heated by sunlight. Over the years the makers of weather balloons had come up with better methods of preventing or correcting for this effect, but because no one had taken these improvements into account, the more accurate measurements appeared to show daytime temperatures getting cooler.

The corrected temperature records show that tropospheric temperatures are indeed rising at roughly the same rate as surface temperatures. Or, as a 2006 report by the US Climate Change Science Program (pdf) puts it: "For recent decades, all current atmospheric data sets now show global-average warming that is similar to the surface warming." This one appears settled.

There is still some ambiguity in the tropics, where most measurements show the surface warming faster than the upper troposphere, whereas the models predict faster warming of the atmosphere. However, this is a minor discrepancy compared with cooling of the entire troposphere and could just be due to the errors of margin inherent in both the observations and the models.

EDCF_Rama
07-08-2007, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
You realize AGU are also in bed with the oil business?

There are 100 of articles about the subject... I just took the first under my hand.

This article is of highly interest, and if AGU get some subsidies from oil companies, it doesn't change the interest of the study... which can be taken over and verified by other scientists... which is allways the case with interesting theories.
telling that "AGU are also in bed with the oil business" isn't an argument by itself..... it just show you don't want to read and evaluate the article because you don't want to confrontate to anything that don't go exactly in the direction of the theories you BELIEVE in.

Give me some references of real scientific articles.... the rest is just... you know what...

EDCF_Rama
07-08-2007, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:

The research is presented in "Accounting for the Effects of Volcanoes and ENSO in Comparisons of Modeled and Observed Temperature Trends," in the November edition of the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres. LLNL researchers Benjamin Santer, Charles Doutriaux, James Boyle, Sailes Sengupta and Karl Taylor teamed with scientists from the National Center for Atmosphere Research, NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, and the Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology in Germany.


I did read this paper (and some other trying to explain the discrepancies with other causes).
... and many other not in agreement with this paper about the analyse of lower tropospheric temperature variations.


There is still some ambiguity in the tropics, where most measurements show the surface warming faster than the upper troposphere, whereas the models predict faster warming of the atmosphere. However, this is a minor discrepancy compared with cooling of the entire troposphere and could just be due to the errors of margin inherent in both the observations and the models.

errors of margin are very conveniently used to try to explain a major theory discrepancy.... too bad they are largelly ignored when presenting IPCC results ot this same theory.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
You realize AGU are also in bed with the oil business?

There are 100 of articles about the subject... I just took the first under my hand.

This article is of highly interest, and if AGU get some subsidies from oil companies, it doesn't change the interest of the study... which can be taken over and verified by other scientists... which is allways the case with interesting theories.
telling that "AGU are also in bed with the oil business" isn't an argument by itself..... it just show you don't want to read and evaluate the article because you don't want to confrontate to anything that don't go exactly in the direction of the theories you BELIEVE in.

Give me some references of real scientific articles.... the rest is just... you know what... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check the IPCC out then or New Scientist

I also edited my last post, I don't particularly like that paper either.

EDCF_Rama
07-08-2007, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
Check the IPCC out then or New Scientist

I do. A lot ot of very interesting articles are used (I'm not talking about the synthesis... but about the source articles)

But it's not my only source of information.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif...

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:

The research is presented in "Accounting for the Effects of Volcanoes and ENSO in Comparisons of Modeled and Observed Temperature Trends," in the November edition of the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres. LLNL researchers Benjamin Santer, Charles Doutriaux, James Boyle, Sailes Sengupta and Karl Taylor teamed with scientists from the National Center for Atmosphere Research, NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, and the Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology in Germany.


I did read this paper (and some other trying to explain the discrepancies with other causes).
... and many other not in agreement with this paper about the analyse of lower tropospheric temperature variations.


There is still some ambiguity in the tropics, where most measurements show the surface warming faster than the upper troposphere, whereas the models predict faster warming of the atmosphere. However, this is a minor discrepancy compared with cooling of the entire troposphere and could just be due to the errors of margin inherent in both the observations and the models.

errors of margin are very conveniently used to try to explain a major theory discrepancy.... too bad they are largelly ignored when presenting IPCC results ot this same theory.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doesn't really disprove the theory does it though

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Check the IPCC out then or New Scientist

I do. A lot ot of very interesting articles are used (I'm not talking about the synthesis... but about the source articles)

But it's not my only source of information.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nor is it mine, but I steer well clear of anything thats even slightly related with the oil business http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I have mates who are quite high up in it, you'd be surprised about the disinformation campaigns the oil companies wage

MR.Reah
07-08-2007, 02:03 PM
Fascinating thread here. Not having the expertise
or extensive background required to evalulate the 'evidence' I can only form an opinion after sifting through the hype - thus I must humbly agree with this prediction:

"The sun's current active phase is expected to wane in 20 to 40 years, at which time the planet will begin cooling. Since that is when most of the greenhouse emission reductions proposed by the UN and others are slated to come into full effect, the "greens" will see that cooling and claim, "See, we warned you and made you take action, and look, we saved the planet."

Of course, they will have had nothing to do with it.

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by MR.Reah:
Fascinating thread here. Not having the expertise
or extensive background required to evalulate the 'evidence' I can only form an opinion after sifting through the hype - thus I must humbly agree with this prediction:

"The sun's current active phase is expected to wane in 20 to 40 years, at which time the planet will begin cooling. Since that is when most of the greenhouse emission reductions proposed by the UN and others are slated to come into full effect, the "greens" will see that cooling and claim, "See, we warned you and made you take action, and look, we saved the planet."

Of course, they will have had nothing to do with it.

Its an 11 year cycle for starters, and global warming continued once that cycle ended

If you dont have much Scientific Background, this is a good article to read!!!

"Switch off the Sun and Earth would become a very chilly place. No one denies our star's central role in determining how warm our planet is. The issue today is how much solar changes have contributed to the recent warming, and what that tells us about future climate.

The total amount of solar energy reaching Earth can vary due to changes in the Sun's output, such as those associated with sunspots, or in Earth's orbit. Orbital oscillations can also result in different parts of Earth getting more or less sunlight even when the total amount reaching the planet remains constant – similar to the way the tilt in Earth's axis produces the hemispheric seasons. There may also be more subtle effects (see Climate myths: Cosmic rays are causing climate change), but these remain unproven.

On timescales that vary from millions of years through to the more familiar 11-year sunspot cycles, variations in the amount of solar energy reaching Earth have a huge influence on our atmosphere and climate. But the Sun is far from being the only player.

How do we know? According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason: higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the sun's heat.
Amplified effect

Nearer our own time, the coming and going of the ice ages that have gripped the planet in the past two million years were probably triggered by fractional changes in solar heating (caused by wobbles in the planet's orbit, known as Milankovitch cycles).

The cooling and warming during the ice ages and interglacial periods, however, was far greater than would be expected from the tiny changes in solar energy reaching the Earth. The temperature changes must have been somehow amplified. This most probably happened through the growth of ice sheets, which reflect more solar radiation back into space than darker land or ocean, and transfers of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere and the ocean.

Analysis of ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica shows a very strong correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and temperatures. But what causes what? Proponents of solar influence point out that that temperatures sometimes change first. This, they say, suggest that warming causes rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, not vice versa. What is actually happening is a far more complicated interaction (see Ice cores show CO2 only rose after the start of warm periods).
Sunspot trouble

So what role, if any, have solar fluctuations had in recent temperature changes? While we can work out how Earth's orbit has changed going back many millions of years, we have no first-hand record of the changes in solar output associated with sunspots before the 20th century.

It is true that sunspot records go back to the 17th century, but sunspots actually block the Sun's radiation. It is the smaller bright spots (faculae) that increase the Sun's output and these were not recorded until more recently. The correlation between sunspots and bright faculae is not perfect, so estimates of solar activity based on sunspot records may be out by as much as 30%.

The other method of working out past solar activity is to measure levels of carbon-14 and beryllium-10 in tree rings and ice cores. These isotopes are formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, and higher sunspot activity is associated with increases in the solar wind that deflect more galactic cosmic rays away from Earth. Yet again, though, the correlation is not perfect. What is more, recent evidence suggests that the deposition of beryllium-10 can be affected by climate changes, making it even less reliable as a measure of past solar activity.
Recent rises

Despite these problems, most studies suggest that before the industrial age, there was a good correlation between natural "forcings" – solar fluctuations and other factors such as the dust ejected by volcanoes – and average global temperatures. Solar forcing may have been largely responsible for warming in the late 19th and early 20th century, levelling off during the mid-century cooling (see Global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1980).

The 2007 IPCC report halved the maximum likely influence of solar forcing on warming over the past 250 years from 40% to 20%. This was based on a reanalysis of the likely changes in solar forcing since the 17th century.

But even if solar forcing in the past was more important than this estimate suggests, as some scientists think, there is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this is the case have not stood up to scrutiny (pdf document).

Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend .

Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun's ultraviolet output and in cosmic rays. So for the period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity."


A good place to start for knewbs is "26 myths of global warming" http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

However, don't just read from one source.

EDCF_Rama
07-08-2007, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
Nor is it mine, but I steer well clear of anything thats even slightly related with the oil business http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I have mates who are quite high up in it, you'd be surprised about the disinformation campaigns they wage

Well... You probably know that in Europe, most of the scientific founding is by state (not by private sector)
I have mates (more than a few...) in scientific laboratory that publish "IPCC correct" papers, just to ensure they get proper founding.
Now talk to them privatelly, and the music isn't the same...

The next progress of climatic science will come from the understanding of aerosols comportement and interaction with other effects (they also participate to greenhouse effect, but also to cloud forming, etc...)... something we know almost nothing about today.

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 02:21 PM
This ones for you Rama

"Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol.

This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired.

Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of scientists, the consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition condemning the Bush administration's stance on climate science.

The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing.

Even the position of perhaps the most respected sceptic, Richard Lindzen of MIT, is not that far off the mainstream: he does not deny it is happening but thinks future warming will not be nearly as great as most predict.

Of course, just because most scientists think something is true does not necessarily mean they are right. But the reason they think the way they do is because of the vast and growing body of evidence. A study in 2004 looked at the abstracts of nearly 1000 scientific papers containing the term "global climate change" published in the previous decade. Not one rejected the consensus position. One critic promptly claimed this study was wrong – but later quietly withdrew the claim."

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by EDCF_Rama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Nor is it mine, but I steer well clear of anything thats even slightly related with the oil business http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I have mates who are quite high up in it, you'd be surprised about the disinformation campaigns they wage

Well... You probably know that in Europe, most of the scientific founding is by state (not by private sector)
I have mates (more than a few...) in scientific laboratory that publish "IPCC correct" papers, just to ensure they get proper founding.
Now talk to them privatelly, and the music isn't the same...

The next progress of climatic science will come from the understanding of aerosols comportement and interaction with other effects (they also participate to greenhouse effect, but also to cloud forming, etc...)... something we know almost nothing about today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL you forget that many of the the labs doing leading work are University based and in fact get most of their funding privately. Even dare I say it....Oxford http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Do not forget, that many researchers and labs involved with the IPCC have been outraged as their work has been watered down and been made less damning of current events to satisfy certain political agendas.

slipBall
07-08-2007, 02:35 PM
Well the earth is warming, If man can reduce his impact, all the better. All goverments need to encourage a negative population growth, we just can't double population every so years. I wish that this subject would catch on, as the warming issue has. The whole world population for man should be 2 billion or less, maybe then starvation and fuel concerns, would be a thing of the past.

Airmail109
07-08-2007, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
Well the earth is warming, If man can reduce his impact, all the better. All goverments need to encourage a negative population growth, we just can't double population every so years. I wish that this subject would catch on, as the warming issue has. The whole world population for man should be 2 billion or less, maybe then starvation and fuel concerns, would be a thing of the past.

I heard it was about 4 billion http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

China versus America no?

EDCF_Rama
07-08-2007, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
LOL you forget that many of the the labs doing leading work are University based and in fact get most of their funding privately. Even dare I say it....Oxford

What is the case for Oxford.... isn't the case for most European universities...
Europe ain't US... even if UK is close...

slipBall
07-08-2007, 02:51 PM
Do you recall the Star trek eposode, where they visit a planet, and the people there must stand becaust there are so many of them. There was no room for them to lay down. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif That will be earth someday....way too many of us! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

SeaFireLIV
07-08-2007, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
Do you recall the Star trek eposode, where they visit a planet, and the people there must stand becaust there are so many of them. There was no room for them to lay down. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif That will be earth someday....way too many of us! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

If it gets to that point we`ll simply start having urban wars (or maybe bigger nation wars). Like crazy rats that are too crowded. That`s how the space would happen if it goes that far.

drose01
07-08-2007, 03:33 PM
http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/06/2007-06-22GlobalWarming.gif

Viper2005_
07-08-2007, 05:13 PM
Things we can probably mostly agree on:

#1 The global climate is changing.

#2 This will inevitably have consequences.

#3 Some of those consequences will inevitably be negative.

But that doesn't mean that I like the green lobby's idea of attempting to revert to pre-industrial CO2 emission levels. Even if we stopped emitting tomorrow the CO2 already emitted would still be in the atmosphere and would remain there for a few centuries, during which time the climate would keep on changing.

Even when CO2 levels reached the pre-defined target level (which would inevitably be an arbitrary one), assuming that the climate is a stable system we might then expect global temperatures to oscillate for perhaps a millennium or two.

Turning out the lights and hanging on for the ride doesn't appeal to me very much...

I think that a more pro-active approach is needed:

- Define an ideal climate
- Research climate control technologies
- Set the world's thermostat to attain and hold said ideal climate despite human emissions and external factors

Anyway I wasn't that impressed with Live Earth. I really just wanted to see Spinal Tap but either I wasn't watching when they were on or the BBC decided to cut elsewhere instead...

joeap
07-08-2007, 05:22 PM
Aimail found some good articles on the PT event, this one needs a subscription though.

PALEONTOLOGY: Whiff of Gas Points to Impact Mass Extinction (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5508/1469)

and this one...

End Permian Extinction (http://www.geology.wmich.edu/haas/geos2000/15s.pdf)

jensenpark
07-08-2007, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jensenpark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Bun-Bun your theory that the sun is causing such changes is entirely wrong as well. Solar insolation will only gradually increase over the next 25,000 years.

It has been proven to have next to no effect on current warming rates.

LOL...proven by who?

Problem with the whole debate is for every scientist who is trotted out pushing the climate change crisis there is proof the other way.

(notice how it is no longer 'global warming'? Seeing how mean temperature has been dropping since 2001. Oops! Quick Al - switch the theme to climate change).

What scares me most is how anyone is tries to disagree with this 'new religion' is branded a 'denier' and shouted down by the crisis mongers.

Bun is right about the grant money. It's the same in Canada. Grants go to those trying their darndest to prove this man-made calamity. Got a counter-opinion? No money for you! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay I'll find the Scientific Article.

ANd its total bollocks that the majority of grants come from eco hippies. The Majority come from the oil buisness, I'm involved with the freaking industry.

The only crisis mongers are the media, I have already made my point about why I don't like these people. They discredit the scientific research, by giving weight to people like you.

And your TOTALLY wrong with mean temperature. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When I'm referring to grants, note I mention in Canada - where the grants come from our various levels of government and universities (funded most by our government). Hippies generally don't have their own money to give to research - that is the whole point of being a hippy hypocrite - let others do the heavy lifting for you (Like Bono calling for the G8 to spend more of it citizen's taxes on Africa - all the while avoiding taxes himself through various ways - or the great Live Earth concert - "private jets for climate change". Laughable.
Didn't insinuate it was coming from hippies. I know in the US some contradictory research comes from funding from industry - but so what? Are they not allowed to fund science? By this same thought, car company research on seat-belts or air-bags must be disavowed as it is from big business?
This goes back to my point of one side shouting down any attempt to present their views. Dangerous (and childish/stupid) in my view.

As to the "totally wrong" on the warming - no I'm not - so there! LOL.

You can look it up from various sources - the globe has actually been cooling the past several years. But you know what? I'm sure you can find a stat showing otherwise, just like I can line up stats backing my info.

Only crisis mongers are the media? Al Gore not a crisis monger? David Suzuki not a crisis monger? Please...spare me.

They need to keep the whole schtick going and repressing open debate in order to get their heroin fix (media attention) and grants.

All a bunch of hypocrites.

But sorry to rant on. Really what I am trying to say/promote is that there is equal science by some pretty heavy hitters showing info opposite to the new enviro-crusaders...

If we want the truth - everything must be taken into account...and I see just the enviro-jihadists screaming when someone tries to put forward their evidence.

SeaFireLIV
07-08-2007, 07:11 PM
Paralysis through analysis or rather doing nothing by always banging on about the subject! I wonder what other buzz sayings I can come up with that no one will listen to?

ah yes...

The tit-for-tat arguing is simply a microcosm of the inabilty to agree to threat because no one really wants to face what really scares the **** out of them. Better to deny what`s happening in front of their own faces and argue a thousand other dodge-moves instead while driving that nice car. woohoo guess I`ll be called a tree-hugging jihadist enviro nut of chatocratic proportions! whatever that means.

Man is his own fool cos he`ll listen only to what he wants to believe. I`m sure Socrates said that one.

jensenpark
07-08-2007, 07:37 PM
just make sure to buy some off-setting carbon credits for the energy used up by your computer in posting to this thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

PS: OT of this thread, but when are we going to see more new artwork from you SeaFire? It seems like it's been a while - unless I've missed it.

Xiolablu3
07-08-2007, 08:33 PM
Of COURSE all the polution man churns out is killing off the ecosystem.

Its just darn common sense...

ANyone trying to say its not having a bad effect can go and live in an industrial chimney for a month and see how they are when they come out.

Badsight-
07-09-2007, 02:26 AM
whats never happened before is : CO2 rising as much as it is , as fast as it is

only difference last 150 years is :
1) industrialisation
2) deforestation
3) non-natural gas creation
4) water cycle pollution

nature existed for over a billion years as a controlled cycle

man is upsetting the natural balance beyond his means

OMK_Hand
07-09-2007, 03:19 AM
Wow, busy day yesterday.

A few months ago, the BBC here in blighty broadcast it's annual Reith Lectures. The 2007 lectures were given by Jeffrey Sachs;

"Jeffrey D. Sachs is the Director of The Earth Institute, Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development, and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University. From 2002 to 2006 he was also Director of the UN Millennium Project and Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on the Millennium Development Goals, the internationally agreed goals to reduce extreme poverty, disease, and hunger by the year 2015. Sachs is also President and Co-Founder of Millennium Promise Alliance, a non-profit organization aimed at ending extreme global poverty.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs is widely considered to be the leading international economic advisor of his generation."

His full BBC C.V. is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2007/lecturer.shtml

Titled 'Bursting at the seams', the subject of the lectures is, basically, survival.
He offers his thoughts on the problems, and a full package of solutions which he thinks will enable us to survive intact.

I'm glad I heard them, and I recommend them to anyone with an open interest in the problems we most definitely have to address one way or another.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2007/lectures.shtml

Badsight-
07-09-2007, 03:26 AM
Jeffery Sachs articles are printed in mags & newspapers worldwide

EDCF_Rama
07-09-2007, 03:31 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Man is his own fool cos he`ll listen only to what he wants to believe. I`m sure Socrates said that one.

I totally agree with this statement... that's the reason religions and ideologies exist and prosper...

scepticism isn't an ideology... it's just not taking everything said in the medias as truth...
On the other side... "green" is becoming a real ideology, with its "truth", gurus, fanaticists (green terrorists and extreme groups allready exist), etc....

Considering the actual knowing of science about climate, a reasonable attitude would be to say that anthropic CO2 does contribute to the climate changes, but that the extent of this contribution is mostly unknown.

The ideologic attitude is to say man is responsible for everything in the climate change , and that he should believe in green solutions to save his soul.

SeaFireLIV
07-09-2007, 06:23 AM
I must be visiting this thread too much...

Had a slightly disturbing dream about 10 years in the future where I saw loads of people (ordinary people, business men/women) all in a smart business company-type building suddenly having to rush into lifts and head to the emergency shelters at the building`s base.

I decided to use the stairs cos I didn`t like the scrum. Got to the bottom which was nearly deserted, but for a security guard who told me to hurry up cos the SOLAR FLARE will arrive soon.

Seems like there were now regular weather dangers like solar flares that actually harmed people seriously and had to run to the shelters until the flare was over. It might not have been a solar flare exactly, but it was definitely some recurrent very dangerous weather phenomenon.

I hope my dream wasn`t a prediction. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Great, now I sound like a nut! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

slipBall
07-09-2007, 11:13 AM
I think we all have taken a break...Aimale101 has been discredited, and shamed beyond human tolerence, never to post here again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif...long live carbon big feet! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

DuxCorvan
07-09-2007, 01:18 PM
I don't mind at all if climate is changing or not. I just want it to be slow enough not to affect me. As for the next generations,
http://riannanworld.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/tree_giving_finger.jpg

I'll be dead by then, so I don't give a d*mn. Not my problem. I'm not blaming my ancestors for chopping trees or pi$sing in the rivers, am I?

thefruitbat
07-09-2007, 02:01 PM
plankton creates more co2 than anything else singularly on the planet, i think we should just kill it all, problem solved.

cheers fruitbat

slappedsilly
07-09-2007, 04:48 PM
This whole global warming thing can be fixed very easily, everybody just send me $50. That would be a good start.

Airmail109
07-09-2007, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
I think we all have taken a break...Aimale101 has been discredited, and shamed beyond human tolerence, never to post here again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif...long live carbon big feet! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LMAO how so?

There were NO rebuttals which made any of my points invalid

There were a few interesting points put across by certain individuals, but they dont hold enough weight to bring anything I said tumbling to the floor.

However, I discredited your oceanographers quite nicely didn't I?

Airmail109
07-09-2007, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
I don't mind at all if climate is changing or not. I just want it to be slow enough not to affect me. As for the next generations,
http://riannanworld.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/tree_giving_finger.jpg

I'll be dead by then, so I don't give a d*mn. Not my problem. I'm not blaming my ancestors for chopping trees or pi$sing in the rivers, am I?

Well once global warmings 99.999 percent proven, I hope you dont mind the people lynching you! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

*****

Jaws2002
07-09-2007, 05:00 PM
Well I'd say let it come. The sooner the better. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif



I live in Canada and we could use more summer days up here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ob.Emann
07-09-2007, 07:26 PM
Global warming or no global warming, Kanye West sucks. When he popped onstage during the last few minutes of the Police's set to do his "yeah" and "uh-huh" routine and strut around like an idiot, I wanted to chuck the TV across the room. Message in a Bottle would have been great without that talentless hack smothering it with unintelligible hip-hop bull$hit.

I'm sorry, but when you share the stage with the likes of Stuart Copeland, you'd better have some f***ing talent. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif