| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/31/2009 11:06:37 AM · #1 |
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzSzItt6h-s
Only watch if you're objective and not irretrievably brainwashed... |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 11:16:59 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Only watch if you're objective and not irretrievably brainwashed... |
You've eliminated the prerequisites. |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 11:24:36 AM · #3 |
Figured you'd be one of the irretrievably brainwashed. |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 11:33:56 AM · #4 |
That video is aimed squarely at the naiive, and loaded with supposition and misleading claims (see point-by-point analysis of its fraudulent claims and "expert" testimony). It's a complete sham, and an utter joke UNLESS you're trying to fit preconceived notions and irretrievable brainwashed. Take a bow.
Message edited by author 2009-08-31 11:41:52. |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 11:35:12 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
That video is aimed squarely at the naiive, and loaded with supposition and misleading claims (see refutation). It's an utter joke UNLESS you're trying to fit preconceived notions and irretrievable brainwashed. Take a bow. |
What a wonderfully childish argument! I should have given you more credit. |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 11:59:46 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
That video is aimed squarely at the naiive, and loaded with supposition and misleading claims (see refutation). It's an utter joke UNLESS you're trying to fit preconceived notions and irretrievable brainwashed. Take a bow. |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
What a wonderfully childish argument! I should have given you more credit. |
Dude!
I'm as big a fan of Chicken Little syndrome as you'll find anywhere, but that piece is utter garbage.
It doesn't really say a thing.
You ought to read the link that Shannon posted......REALLY!!!
Not the least of which would be post #109..... |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 11:59:47 AM · #7 |
We suspect you have been living your life unaware of the articles by Loehle and McCulloch. The reason is obvious – they found evidence that temperature variations over the past 2,000 years indicate that the earth’s average temperature bounces around naturally to a larger degree than other paleo-reconstructions indicate, and further, that temperatures about 1,000 years ago were not that dissimilar to today’s temperatures. This suggests that the earth’s ecosystems are more resilient (and adaptive) than some pessimists give them credit for—not a favorite topic in the mainstream press.
References:
Loehle, C. 2007. A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. Energy and Environment, 18, 1049-1058.
Loehle, C. and J.H. McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. Energy and Environment, 19, 93-100.
Reference Article |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 12:13:40 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by SDW:
We suspect you have been living your life unaware of the articles by Loehle and McCulloch. The reason is obvious – they found evidence that temperature variations over the past 2,000 years indicate that the earth’s average temperature bounces around naturally to a larger degree than other paleo-reconstructions indicate, and further, that temperatures about 1,000 years ago were not that dissimilar to today’s temperatures. This suggests that the earth’s ecosystems are more resilient (and adaptive) than some pessimists give them credit for—not a favorite topic in the mainstream press. |
True that......and I have been maintaining that we certainly haven't been around long enough to have recorded accurate data.
HOWEVER......Hawkeye's little excursion into the mist isn't exactly proof to the contrary......looks more like a bedtime story to me. |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 12:28:22 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by SDW:
We suspect you have been living your life unaware of the articles by Loehle and McCulloch. The reason is obvious... |
The reason might have more to do with methodology and validity.
More importantly, past variations may be completely irrelevant to the current issue. Of course there have been climate changes in response to natural cycles and events, such as supervolcanoes, asteroid collisions, solar flareups and nearby cosmic events, but we haven't experienced ANY of those things in the past few generations — no devastating meteor impacts, no massive eruptions that block the sun for months, no nearby gamma ray bursts or supernovae, and solar output has been essentially steady. Without the historical triggers for historical climate change, past precedent does not apply. We're in new territory this time... and the one glaring change is human industry.
Message edited by author 2009-08-31 12:29:22. |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 12:41:18 PM · #10 |
| What i don't understand is why anyone is so desparate to establish that the change we all have been observing in the climate is not caused by man. What is to gain, and who is to gain by such a premise? Ahh! Now we see it. It allows those who live excessively and without regard for the earth to continue to do so without having to think about the harm they are causing. And it allows those who destroy the earth for their own monetary gain to continue to do so without objection. Think about THAT when you think about how to attribute global warming. There is never a good reason to NOT be environmentally conscious in all our daily decisions. |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 01:08:37 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by frisca:
What i don't understand is why anyone is so desparate to establish that the change we all have been observing in the climate is not caused by man. What is to gain, and who is to gain by such a premise? Ahh! Now we see it. It allows those who live excessively and without regard for the earth to continue to do so without having to think about the harm they are causing. And it allows those who destroy the earth for their own monetary gain to continue to do so without objection. Think about THAT when you think about how to attribute global warming. There is never a good reason to NOT be environmentally conscious in all our daily decisions. |
Some pretty large suppositions.
1. What is your monthly vehicle fuel bill? Mine is less than $150.00 (for 5 vehicles/motors combined - H3, CTS, Road King, lawn tractor and 40hp outboard).
2. What is your monthly energy bill? Mine is $200 and has been for a decade.
The point is, there are many ways to reduce a carbon footprint. Living close to where you work is one of them. Having modest living quarters is another. Quote There is never a good reason to NOT be environmentally conscious in all our daily decisions.
Is one who lives 40 miles from work less enviornmentaly conscious than one who chooses to live 1 mile away? Is one who chooses to live in a LARGE house/mansion (think AG) less enviornmentally conscious than someone who chooses to live in a 1200 sq ft home? Is one who decides to live in an older turn of the century farm house less enviornmentally conscious that someone who builds an energy efficient dwelling with brick and stone, orients the home to best take advantage of the sun's path and places the garage strategically to block the NW winter winds?
Posts like yours are the ones that immediately make me think of a large government panel that will one day dictate what vehicle a person can drive, what size house they must live in and how many children they can have. There are many factors impacting a person's carbon footprint and they are not necessarily mandated by their vehicle or housing choice. A person who drives an "evil" vehicle yet enjoys outdoor pursuits (hiking, bicycle riding, canoeing) can have a smaller carbon footprint than another who preaches GW alarmism but commutes 100 miles a day, takes vacations via airlines, lives in a 4000 sq foot home, and has 5 drivers in the household. |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 01:23:20 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Flash:
A person who drives an "evil" vehicle yet enjoys outdoor pursuits (hiking, bicycle riding, canoeing) can have a smaller carbon footprint than another who preaches GW alarmism but commutes 100 miles a day, takes vacations via airlines, lives in a 4000 sq foot home, and has 5 drivers in the household. |
I totally agree that it's more "eco-friendly" to take vacation closer to home, but if you do travel far, airplanes have the best fuel/passenger ratio. Let's say you go from New-York to Orlando, you'd be better to take a plane than go by car. It's like the buses. A bus take a lot more fuel than a car to operate, but have 40 passengers instead of 2, the plane have 250 passengers. I work for a vacation-oriented airline and we are very carefull about our carbon footprint (maximized fuel efficiency, constant renewal of the fleet to insure newer and cleaner airplanes, etc).
But yes, the best still is to go on vacation near you.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2009 01:33:40 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Flash:
A person who drives an "evil" vehicle yet enjoys outdoor pursuits (hiking, bicycle riding, canoeing) can have a smaller carbon footprint than another who preaches GW alarmism... |
Interesting how you apparently don't think humans cause global warming, yet are so defensive about your own environmental impact. If you truly believed the first, the second wouldn't be part of the conversation. |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 01:38:54 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by frisca:
What i don't understand is why anyone is so desparate to establish that the change we all have been observing in the climate is not caused by man. What is to gain, and who is to gain by such a premise? Ahh! Now we see it. It allows those who live excessively and without regard for the earth to continue to do so without having to think about the harm they are causing. And it allows those who destroy the earth for their own monetary gain to continue to do so without objection. Think about THAT when you think about how to attribute global warming. There is never a good reason to NOT be environmentally conscious in all our daily decisions. |
What is the desperation to establish that man is a blight on the planet and causing its destruction?
I don't live excessively, nor do I wish to be punished by anti-science fairy tales like man-made climate change. |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 01:47:57 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
A person who drives an "evil" vehicle yet enjoys outdoor pursuits (hiking, bicycle riding, canoeing) can have a smaller carbon footprint than another who preaches GW alarmism... |
Interesting how you apparently don't think humans cause global warming, yet are so defensive about your own environmental impact. If you truly believed the first, the second wouldn't be part of the conversation. |
I can't speak for him but for me, I think, we are a contributing factor but not the cause. The human aspect of this is just one tree in a forest of things that has caused a slight warming trend.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2009 01:50:45 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by frisca:
What i don't understand is why anyone is so desparate to establish that the change we all have been observing in the climate is not caused by man. What is to gain, and who is to gain by such a premise? Ahh! Now we see it. It allows those who live excessively and without regard for the earth to continue to do so without having to think about the harm they are causing. And it allows those who destroy the earth for their own monetary gain to continue to do so without objection. Think about THAT when you think about how to attribute global warming. There is never a good reason to NOT be environmentally conscious in all our daily decisions. |
What is the desperation to establish that man is a blight on the planet and causing its destruction?
I don't live excessively, nor do I wish to be punished by anti-science fairy tales like man-made climate change. |
anti-science ?? Maybe I missed something but I thought it was scientists that were saying that climat change is man-made? When I watch "GW alarmist" documentaries, I see a lot more people in lab coats than hippies. Man-MAde global warming speach isn't anti-science, it's anti-unefficient-science. |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 02:08:40 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
A person who drives an "evil" vehicle yet enjoys outdoor pursuits (hiking, bicycle riding, canoeing) can have a smaller carbon footprint than another who preaches GW alarmism... |
Interesting how you apparently don't think humans cause global warming, yet are so defensive about your own environmental impact. If you truly believed the first, the second wouldn't be part of the conversation. |
I won't speak for Flash, but I consider myself a GW skeptic. I'm not saying it isn't man made, I'm saying I'm skeptical that it's man made as there are a lot of holes in the science. Thus, I try to minimize where I can just in case.
And even if it's proven that we're not to blame for the recent tick up in temps, it's still a good idea to try to live cleaner.
Being a skeptic and trying to live cleaner are not mutually exclusive. |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 02:17:29 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by frisca:
What i don't understand is why anyone is so desparate to establish that the change we all have been observing in the climate is not caused by man. What is to gain, and who is to gain by such a premise? Ahh! Now we see it. It allows those who live excessively and without regard for the earth to continue to do so without having to think about the harm they are causing. And it allows those who destroy the earth for their own monetary gain to continue to do so without objection. Think about THAT when you think about how to attribute global warming. There is never a good reason to NOT be environmentally conscious in all our daily decisions. |
Some pretty large suppositions.
1. What is your monthly vehicle fuel bill? Mine is less than $150.00 (for 5 vehicles/motors combined - H3, CTS, Road King, lawn tractor and 40hp outboard).
2. What is your monthly energy bill? Mine is $200 and has been for a decade.
The point is, there are many ways to reduce a carbon footprint. Living close to where you work is one of them. Having modest living quarters is another. Quote There is never a good reason to NOT be environmentally conscious in all our daily decisions.
Is one who lives 40 miles from work less enviornmentaly conscious than one who chooses to live 1 mile away? Is one who chooses to live in a LARGE house/mansion (think AG) less enviornmentally conscious than someone who chooses to live in a 1200 sq ft home? Is one who decides to live in an older turn of the century farm house less enviornmentally conscious that someone who builds an energy efficient dwelling with brick and stone, orients the home to best take advantage of the sun's path and places the garage strategically to block the NW winter winds?
Posts like yours are the ones that immediately make me think of a large government panel that will one day dictate what vehicle a person can drive, what size house they must live in and how many children they can have. There are many factors impacting a person's carbon footprint and they are not necessarily mandated by their vehicle or housing choice. A person who drives an "evil" vehicle yet enjoys outdoor pursuits (hiking, bicycle riding, canoeing) can have a smaller carbon footprint than another who preaches GW alarmism but commutes 100 miles a day, takes vacations via airlines, lives in a 4000 sq foot home, and has 5 drivers in the household. |
I think you've completely misunderstood what I was saying. I am not advocating any "standards", simply saying we can all think of ways to care for the environment as we carry on with our daily activities. I never ONCE mentioned homes or vehicles. I don't know where you are getting that from, but its not me.
My point: What has happened cannot be changed, whether caused by us or by "act of nature", but why are there so many who are hell-bent on establishing that the damage to the earth was not caused by us? I say it is because they have other, monetary interests they are serving and not the truth nor the earth. That's all. |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 02:31:58 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by SDW:
...we are a contributing factor but not the cause. |
Alrighty then, what do YOU think is the cause? We know what it's NOT: changes in the sun, major volcanic eruptions, meteor impacts, nearby cosmic events or any of the "historical" causes. What's left? What has changed within the past 150 years or so that could affect climate?
Message edited by author 2009-08-31 14:41:58. |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 02:37:06 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... What's left? |
I had beans for dinner.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2009 02:40:37 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I had beans for dinner. |
That would be among the things we rule out as unchanged. ;-P |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 02:54:32 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by SDW:
...we are a contributing factor but not the cause. |
Alrighty then, what do YOU think is the cause? We know what it's NOT: changes in the sun, major volcanic eruptions, meteor impacts, nearby cosmic events or any of the "historical" causes. What's left? What has changed within the past 150 years or so that could affect climate? |
Referring back to the chart I posted above; what is the cause for the elevated spike in temperature. An average we have not reached today? I have looked trough many sites, articles, and meteorological data and cannot find one of the historical causes you talk about when the earths temperature rose around 1000 to 1200 years ago.
So I will ask you, why did it rise then? We do know there were no cars, trains, or plans. No electricity or drilling for oil.
Message edited by author 2009-08-31 14:55:17. |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 03:16:31 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by SDW:
...I have looked trough many sites, articles, and meteorological data and cannot find one of the historical causes you talk about when the earths temperature rose around 1000 to 1200 years ago. |
A: The earth's temperature DIDN'T rise. Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented. It was initially believed that the temperature changes were global. However, this view has been questioned: "â€Â¦current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries". |
|
|
|
08/31/2009 03:24:13 PM · #24 |
I do believe that we should help our environment out as much as possible. i.e. recycling, cleaning up our streams and rivers, and investing in renewable energy (solar panels, hydrogen power etc.) However it has already been proven that weather patterns and global temp is on a cycle. Every once in a while there is an iceage then there is warming then there is another iceage.(It is more in depth than that) The earth as a whole is actually due for another iceage. The question is can we keep one from happening by reducing the carbon footprint of every living thing on the planet. It is a tough task.
Oh and by the way I am not a "tree hugger", "flaming liberal", or anything of the sort.
Message edited by author 2009-08-31 15:25:15.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2009 03:28:14 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
it has already been proven that weather patterns and global temp is on a cycle. |
It has NOT been proven that the current warming trend is part of that cycle. Evidence points strongly to the contrary.
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
The earth as a whole is actually due for another iceage. The question is can we keep one from happening by reducing the carbon footprint of every living thing on the planet. |
That doesn't even make sense. Preventing an ice age would require increasing carbon emissions. |
|
