Al Gore coming to Calgary

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

No, it doesn't say that the world cooled off. It said one datapoint was significantly higher. If the Flames scored 2 goals a game every game, then score 10 goals in one game and after that score 4 goals a game it doesn't mean that they are worse goal scorers now than they were in that one game. It just means that game was out of the norm and should be identified. But overall the Flames scored more goals now on average than they did.

So you're saying we should ignore the data from 1998 to 2005 because it is out of the norm?

I realize the temperature is overall going up, but 1998 was a warmer year then 2005, and if anything, we are producing more CO2 in 2005, then we were in 1998.

I realize its a very, very small sample size, and in the big picture it might mean nothing, but I find it intriguing that 1998 was the warmest year EVER, and even the 21st century with all our enviromental problems has not been as warm as 1998.

So you grab the one section for the mid-troposhpere and totally ignore the rest of the summary? You know the part that deals with the globe as a whole (from your link):

Actually, I was only going to post the section that referred to..

The faster rate of recession of tropical mountain glaciers in the last twenty years than might have been expected from the MSU and radiosonde records remains unexplained, though some glaciers may still be responding to the warming indicated by radiosondes that occurred around 1976 to 1981.

[Azure]

http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/...C%3E2.0.CO%3B2

[kevman]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

No.

What he said is that the nature of the "global warming controversy" is overstated in the media. He didn't say that not a single scientific journal published an article questioning the correlation between CO2 and rising mean temperatures. The point he was making was that in a sample of 900+ published articles, none of them disputed that correlation, yet in a similar-sized sample of media reports about global warming, 50-something percent of them cast doubt on the science.

It's no different than the evolution debate. In the media, it's portrayed as if evolution is a highly controversial and widely-disputed subject, and they'll quote a few scientists with pet theories about "intelligent design". Within the scientific community, though, evolution is considered as factual as heliocentricity.

My apologies then, I must have misunderstood him in the movie but judging by quotes in this same thread I'm not the only one.

"In the film he points out that of 958 peer reviewed journals on global warming, not one single article disagrees with the scientific consensus. "

However, I was able to find a peer reviewed journal that disagrees within 5 mins of searching, most of which was spent remembering how to log in to my acount So I question his 958 peer reviewed journals that conviently didn't disagree with him. It's easier to bend the truth to make a point though...ask Michael Moore

Beside decoupling CO2 with warmer temperatures this particular article also examines urbanization as a cause of the increased global average. An interesting approach since we know that urban areas are generally warmer than rural areas and therefore by increasing the urban area on earth you could effectively increase the average temperature a little.
The article also discusses that while the temperature has slightly increased in the lowest atmospheric layer of earth it has actually remained relatively constant in the lower troposhpere since 1979.
These are 2 ideas I've never even thought about discussin global warming.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by josh white

Unquestionably. We burn a lot of fossil fuels, that produces Co2. The trend is as clear as day. That Co2 produces a warmer atmosphere. Levels are higher in the last 50 years than in any time in recordable history.

I would guess that deforestation is a larger cause of rising co2 levels than fossil fuel emissions.

Yes,I realize this is a human caused problem. But it is a different problem altogether.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't really think I was asking the same question over and over, you were just giving me the same answer to different questions. "Powerful people are behind this incredible conspiracy and they want to track us" is pretty much the gist of it.

agenda. not conspiracy.

agendas are outlined by guys like carole quigley (spelling), hg wells, aldous huxley, david rockefeller, zbigniew brizhinsky, and many others - they write books aboot it, auto-biographies, policy documents. this is all open and all public. it's simply not shoved down our gullets by the 6 o'clock news.

there is nothing 'secret' aboot kissinger saying some positively blood-chilling things to lesser-traveled media outlets, check the major financial papers and much of this is in there plain as day.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It's a "crazy concept" because for it to be true me and everyone else (except you and people of like mind) are living in a completely alternate reality than we think we are.

there's nothing alternate aboot banking machinations and governments staging events to precipitate a manipulated reaction, nazi germany for example is an easy study on many of these concepts.

when universities select leading candidates for the fast tracks to major power, there always seems to be forces like the rhodes foundation or other 'old money' that get their candidates on the programs early. they are placed in positions of power and they forward the agendas set for them.

people should really simply read and study everything that comes out of anybody referring to themselves as 'the elite', it is a little stunning how brazen these people are.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Azure

So you're saying we should ignore the data from 1998 to 2005 because it is out of the norm?

I realize the temperature is overall going up, but 1998 was a warmer year then 2005, and if anything, we are producing more CO2 in 2005, then we were in 1998.

It is a TREND. Sure, 1998 was the warmest year on record, followed by 2005. One data point does not invalidate the trend. And you admit that the overall temperature is going up. Is not the bigger issue that the 2 hottest year happened in the last 10? And that there is continuous climbing on the average temperatures?

I accept that there are historical cycles to the climate (note: climate <> weather). But the trends that we are seeing right now are happening faster than they have in the past. They are occuring during a time that there are other man made factors that haven't happened before. The change since the industrial revolution vs the rest of human history is astonishing. I don't want a knee jerk reaction, but I believe no reaction is not the answer either.

And as for your second quote, I'm not sure what you are trying to say? That glaciers are receding and it may be related to data gathered by weather balloons reporting there was warming in the late '70's?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Looger

agenda. not conspiracy.

I know it's a loaded term in these discussions, but it does fit the bill. Somebody had to conspire to get all that scientific data rigged or they are all in on it. If the scientists have been duped (which you appear to believe), somebody duped 'em.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I know it's a loaded term in these discussions, but it does fit the bill. Somebody had to conspire to get all that scientific data rigged or they are all in on it. If the scientists have been duped (which you appear to believe), somebody duped 'em.

go back in my posts and show me where i said anything like this.

you can't, because i didn't.

it's not that 'the scientists are in on it'.

it's that media agendas select which data to show and which data to not show.

if you think you're getting the whole picture from people that have other goals then you, well - good luck.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

It is a TREND. Sure, 1998 was the warmest year on record, followed by 2005. One data point does not invalidate the trend. And you admit that the overall temperature is going up. Is not the bigger issue that the 2 hottest year happened in the last 10? And that there is continuous climbing on the average temperatures?

That one data points shows that temperatures have been consistant from 1998-2005, in fact they evem dropped a tiny bit.

Not a big deal, but something.

I accept that there are historical cycles to the climate (note: climate <> weather). But the trends that we are seeing right now are happening faster than they have in the past. They are occuring during a time that there are other man made factors that haven't happened before. The change since the industrial revolution vs the rest of human history is astonishing. I don't want a knee jerk reaction, but I believe no reaction is not the answer either.

How do you know that Earth didn't warm up much faster back when we got rid of the ice age? Again, in order to get out of an ice age, temperatures much more extreme then what we're seeing right now had to be in effect. And we didn't have any SUVs to burn up all those fossil fuels that 'must' be causing this global warming.

And as for your second quote, I'm not sure what you are trying to say? That glaciers are receding and it may be related to data gathered by weather balloons reporting there was warming in the late '70's?

That glaciers are receding based on data from the late '70's, and not data from the 21st century?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Looger

go back in my posts and show me where i said anything like this.

you can't, because i didn't.

it's not that 'the scientists are in on it'.

it's that media agendas select which data to show and which data to not show.

if you think you're getting the whole picture from people that have other goals then you, well - good luck.

I said you believe the scientists have been duped, not that they are in on it. It has be one or the other so take your pick.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Looger

go back in my posts and show me where i said anything like this.

you can't, because i didn't.

it's not that 'the scientists are in on it'.

it's that media agendas select which data to show and which data to not show.

if you think you're getting the whole picture from people that have other goals then you, well - good luck.

Well where's the independent media source that says 90% of scientists don't think we are causing global warming? How many different factions are fighting for control of the world? The Illuminati, Stonecutters, Skulls, who am I missing? I have not encountered many scientific studies that say we don't cause global warming. I did extensive studying of this topic when I was in college debate. We had like 5 big ass tubs full of research we brought to each debate rd and I read most of it. I would have killed to find these credible independent media sources that had all the secret studies that contradicted the studies I read.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Well where's the independent media source that says 90% of scientists don't think we are causing global warming?

independent? for god's sake, how aboot the scientists themselves???
EDIT: we're causing global warming, that's undeniable. there's also other things causing global warming. according to carl sagan in his book 'cosmos' we're also causing SOME global cooling with the change in colour and surface area of the earth, trees -> farmland.

i just don't get it. i say that there are other factors and suddenly i'm saying that 90% of scientists are wrong when i said no such thing. whatever man.

Originally Posted by Sowa

How many different factions are fighting for control of the world?

6 billion or so...

Originally Posted by Sowa

The Illuminati, Stonecutters, Skulls, who am I missing?

the obvious one: the fact that it's all the same group at the top and all that 'the masons' or 'the jesuits' or 'the joooos' or 'the club of malta' or 'the vatican' or 'the black pope' or <insert easy answer here> is a big pile of dog crap, spouted by maniacs and morons that are trotted out to 'represent all those crazy conspiracy theorists' in the mainstream media.

Originally Posted by Sowa

I have not encountered many scientific studies that say we don't cause global warming. I did extensive studying of this topic when I was in college debate. We had like 5 big ass tubs full of research we brought to each debate rd and I read most of it. I would have killed to find these credible independent media sources that had all the secret studies that contradicted the studies I read.

what can i tell you? if you're interested you'll check out more sources, if you're not then you won't.

science is NOT a consensus, but media attention sure can be. simple as that.

pay a bunch of figurehead scientists to explore a limited list of causes and quite soon you'll discover that your suspicions are correct! how amazing!

meanwhile scientists that aren't on the panel that have been studying solar cycles for their careers don't get consulted. hmmmm...

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Looger

independent? for god's sake, how aboot the scientists themselves???

6 billion or so...

the obvious one: the fact that it's all the same group at the top and all that 'the masons' or 'the jesuits' or 'the joooos' or 'the club of malta' or 'the vatican' or 'the black pope' or <insert easy answer here> is a big pile of dog crap, spouted by maniacs and morons that are trotted out to 'represent all those crazy conspiracy theorists' in the mainstream media.

what can i tell you? if you're interested you'll check out more sources, if you're not then you won't.

science is NOT a consensus, but media attention sure can be. simple as that.

pay a bunch of figurehead scientists to explore a limited list of causes and quite soon you'll discover that your suspicions are correct! how amazing!

meanwhile scientists that aren't on the panel that have been studying solar cycles for their careers don't get consulted. hmmmm...

I don't think you get it I didn't just read newspaper articles I did in depth study for like a year on human effects on global warming I was at college libraries pulling studies and reading them. Sure I did read some media articles, but I was doing all I could to find sources that said we don't cause global warming because 1/2 the time that was the side of the debate I was on. Sure there were some studies out there, but if I went by a study by study basis I would say the ratio was somewhere around 30 to 1 for human caused warming. Now I understand that some might lean towards the consensus just to be in that position but it wouldn't account for that kind of discrepancy...

[Looger]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I said you believe the scientists have been duped, not that they are in on it. It has be one or the other so take your pick.

wow, such a simple set of circumstances.

this is the entire problem, right here.

if you're anti-kyoto you MUST be anti-environment.

if you're against chipping children you MUST be a child molestor.

if i ask a bunch of scientists if humans are warming the planet with our activity, something tells me they'll say, yes.

that must mean that we're the #1 runaway factor!

put it in the books, we've solved global warming!

GIVE ME A BREAK.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Sowa

I don't think you get it I didn't just read newspaper articles I did in depth study for like a year on human effects on global warming I was at college libraries pulling studies and reading them. Sure I did read some media articles, but I was doing all I could to find sources that said we don't cause global warming because 1/2 the time that was the side of the debate I was on. Sure there were some studies out there, but if I went by a study by study basis I would say the ratio was somewhere around 30 to 1 for human caused warming. Now I understand that some might lean towards the consensus just to be in that position but it wouldn't account for that kind of discrepancy...

i don't think you get it either.

humans ARE coausing global warming.

holy moley.

but you know what?

so is the sun.

so are volcanoes.

so are mid-atlantic ridge gas emissions.

so are many other things i can't even think of right now.

don't get me wrong here - we're definitely (and i've said this elsewhere in this thread) having a measured effect in recent history on the cycles of CO2.

but compared to the activity of the sun and the KNOWN and MEASURABLE cycles and trends, we are a smaller factor in my opinion.

were any of those '90% of scientists' asked that question specifically?

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Looger

wow, such a simple set of circumstances.

this is the entire problem, right here.

if you're anti-kyoto you MUST be anti-environment.

if you're against chipping children you MUST be a child molestor.

if i ask a bunch of scientists if humans are warming the planet with our activity, something tells me they'll say, yes.

that must mean that we're the #1 runaway factor!

put it in the books, we've solved global warming!

GIVE ME A BREAK.

It must be nice to take a stance on every issue that requires no logical debate or evidence. All you have to is say the "man" wants us to think the wrong way and thus all of us our wrong. Then, come out with a ridiculous and sarcastic comment about how your being painted as a child molester, murderer, etc... Repeat as needed...

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Looger

i don't think you get it either.

humans ARE coausing global warming.

holy moley.

but you know what?

so is the sun.

so are volcanoes.

so are mid-atlantic ridge gas emissions.

so are many other things i can't even think of right now.

don't get me wrong here - we're definitely (and i've said this elsewhere in this thread) having a measured effect in recent history on the cycles of CO2.

but compared to the activity of the sun and the KNOWN and MEASURABLE cycles and trends, we are a smaller factor in my opinion.

were any of those '90% of scientists' asked that question specifically?

No but the majority would say that we have a "significant" effect that could be catastrophic...

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Sowa

It must be nice to take a stance on every issue that requires no logical debate or evidence. All you have to is say the "man" wants us to think the wrong way and thus all of us our wrong. Then, come out with a ridiculous and sarcastic comment about how your being painted as a child molester, murderer, etc... Repeat as needed...

well it's aboot as ridiculous as the conclusions rouge was coming to, i figured.

apparently i was saying 'all the scientists' were duped or 'all the scientists' were 'in on it', same logic - none at all.

'the man'?

i think the main factor behind all this stupidity is us, the groupthink phenomenon.

we think short-term, us people. we see temperatures rising, and the main message in the media is pointing fingers, and 'all these scientists' agree, even though the entire debate is framed. we parrot, we repeat, we demand.

we don't need 'the man' making all our decisions, we just need a nudge off the cliff.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Sowa

No but the majority would say that we have a "significant" effect that could be catastrophic...

great.

this is just amazing. i posted earlier in the thread that i read an article in sciam a couple years back saying humanity averted a minor ice age with our activity, and now apparently i'm 'disagreeing with 90% of scientists'.

this is just unbelievable.

i'm out.

[Azure]

Quick question...say we can reduce the amount of global warming humans cause by a significant value...will that solve our problems?

If 10% is caused by humans...what the heck are we supposed to do about the other 90%?

Ignore it because we can't make money from making a documentary about it?