Ok, let's go one on one for pieces of evidence supporting our arguments.

I'll go first...

The ice caps are melting.

Either present one piece of evidence that supports your position or refute my first evidence.

4/14/2008 5:00:00 PM

go get a glass of water and ice and watch the ice melt.


now did the water level rise in your glass?

4/14/2008 5:00:49 PM

That's not refutation. The ice is still melting.

4/14/2008 5:02:09 PM

Quote :

"let's go one on one for pieces of evidence supporting our arguments."

you seriously need to take some science courses...hell just re-read through the 2nd grade curriculum about the scientific process...purpose, hypothesis, methods, variables, procedure, results, conclusion...basic shit...look it up

but just to throw out my 2 cents, here we go

we have fairly accurate (arguably) temperature records over the past 100 years (direct observation of empirical evidence with std dev. of thermometer error)...the earth is 4,000,000,000 years old approximately...how can you be so overwhelmingly convinced that a 1.5 degree temp increase over 100 years is so easily explainable when the system we're referring to is over 4 billion years old?

4/14/2008 5:02:29 PM

ZomBCraw only needs to let out a yawn to freeze all the ice caps back up and cause another ice age.

4/14/2008 5:04:23 PM

well, unlike you looking for a government program to save your lily white ass

I can swim and I have a boat... BRING IT ON YOU EARTH DESTROYIN NEOCONS

4/14/2008 5:04:23 PM

neocons believe in global warming?

4/14/2008 5:05:12 PM

Hypothesis: Global Warming is Real.

Experiment: Look at pictures.

Observation: Ice is melting.

Conclusion: Global Warming is Real. You Lose.

4/14/2008 5:05:45 PM

Quote :

"Experiment: Look at pictures."

oh man

4/14/2008 5:06:33 PM

no way, the neocons are the ones causing this catastrophe!

4/14/2008 5:07:01 PM

i can tell.

by the pixels

4/14/2008 5:07:12 PM

Tree, are you arguing that at the present rate or warming we won't have a serious problem on our hands in a mere time frame of decades?

V No has replied to anything you've said in your last 10 posts. I'm doing this because I feel sorry for you. Feel free to continue being ignored.

[Edited on April 14, 2008 at 5:10 PM. Reason : ]

4/14/2008 5:07:51 PM

this thread has provided lots of lols

4/14/2008 5:08:23 PM

does your car go from 61 to 120mph in the same time it takes to go from 0 to 60?

if this morning's localized rate of warming had continued for a few more weeks the temperatures would quickly rise to boiling hot levels...but thats assuming a constant rate of acceleration, which is idiotic, since we all know that daily temperatures flucuate by going up then down...hey i wonder if global temps fluctuate by going up then down and not just going up forever....what a concept

4/14/2008 5:10:11 PM

really, rat just did?


and this is chit chat, it's as serious and real as your opinion on global warming

[Edited on April 14, 2008 at 5:11 PM. Reason : !]

4/14/2008 5:11:23 PM

Yes, because comparing short term data and long term trends is an example of good science.

4/14/2008 5:13:20 PM

short term like 100 years and long term like 4 billion years? i agree

we should never act like we understand 4 billion years based on data from the most recent 100 years

good to see you finally coming around

4/14/2008 5:18:14 PM

The difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying is that my side has evidence and yours does not. You're merely asserting that over 4 billion years the Earth has experienced temperature fluctuations, which it no doubt has. But you assume that they do so at the present rate of warming with no data to back up that assertion. That burden of proof argument you always use is your burden now.

So please, tell me why you're so sure that the rate of warming we're currently experiencing isn't something to worry about?

[Edited on April 14, 2008 at 5:23 PM. Reason : ]

4/14/2008 5:21:28 PM

i dont really have to much of an opinion either way because I think both sides have to many other agendas to worry about than just the matter at hand. Aside from that though I saw a lot of "get a glass of water with ice and watch it melt" arguements. But wouldnt the still frozen ice cubes have already displaced the water when you put them in the glass? Meaning the level could go no higher because it's already at its highest point, regardless of ice melting or not. Shouldn't it be more like fill a glass of water to the top till it can't be filled anymore, now add some ice. What happens? Wouldnt this be more of an accurate description of what would happen on earth since the icecaps are on top of the water and when they melt that water would then cause rise? Once again I really am not convinced either way on this particular subject but it definitely is interesting and I enjoy both sides of the arguement, even if it is on tww

4/14/2008 5:58:15 PM

keep your money.
dont vote democrat.

did anyone hear the results of the annual meteorology discussion in bermuda this year about global warming

and what dr gray said?

OMG FUCK U AL GORE

4/14/2008 6:00:00 PM

and when i said a lot i guess i meant one person

double posting is whack

4/14/2008 6:00:51 PM

Quote :

"Well you see sir Hooksaw style day by day polling of temperature is not a trend make."

SandSanta

Can you keep my username out of your figurative mouth for five fucking seconds? I didn't even post in this thread, you nutsack.

Find a new obsession--I'm not interested in being yours.



[Edited on April 14, 2008 at 6:09 PM. Reason : PS: ]

4/14/2008 6:09:16 PM

Quote :

"I SAID THIS SHIT ON PAGE 2.... YET BECAUSE I'M A WOMAN NOBODY LISTENS..."

I got the idea from you... I should've quoted... sry.

Quote :

"haha this guy is trollin the piss out of chit chat in this thread"

This thread began as a troll And I am happy that 4 pages later, I have succeeded.

4/14/2008 7:25:14 PM

Quote :

"GLOBAL COOLING? WHAT? MORE LIKE GLOBAL RETARDATION "

4/14/2008 7:28:40 PM

OK Fellas here are some of the FACTS Im gonna throw down:

1. The largest glacier in the world is actually growing.
2. The #1 cause of CO2 emissions is natural forest fires and #2 is agriculture (NOT industry)...volcanoes also are more than industry when they errupt.
3. The temperature of the earth has been warmer than it is now...before humans where around...the earth goes in cycles (just like everything else in the universe) so their are going to be warming trends.
4. The average temperature in 2007 was cooler than the average temperature 20 years ago.
5. If you look at the "Scientists" that support Al Gore's global warming theory, most of them have degrees in unrelated fields of study.

I love it...Al Gore invented the Internet and Global Warming

4/14/2008 9:09:37 PM

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=438755

4/15/2008 5:20:59 AM

^^ yeah, if you have the opportunity and [educational] resources, it's really cool to go back and look at how many times the media has cried wolf on global warming over the years.

i really wouldnt be concerned with it at all... if it didn't seemed to be followed by some sort of tax hikes/incentives/etc. i can see this "carbon footprint" thing totally relating to tax rate within 10 years

4/15/2008 6:41:54 AM

Quote :

"OK Fellas here are some of the FACTS Im gonna throw down: 1. The largest glacier in the world is actually growing. 2. The #1 cause of CO2 emissions is natural forest fires and #2 is agriculture (NOT industry)...volcanoes also are more than industry when they errupt. 3. The temperature of the earth has been warmer than it is now...before humans where around...the earth goes in cycles (just like everything else in the universe) so their are going to be warming trends. 4. The average temperature in 2007 was cooler than the average temperature 20 years ago. 5. If you look at the "Scientists" that support Al Gore's global warming theory, most of them have degrees in unrelated fields of study. I love it...Al Gore invented the Internet and Global Warming"

You guys are so retarded! DON'T YOU GET IT! WE CAN'T WAIT UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE! I know it's an inconvenient truth but you have to wake up! If you don't buy green credits, the polar bears will die.

4/15/2008 10:13:08 AM

the sun is nice today but that wind is chilly

4/15/2008 10:54:59 AM

I actually let my car idle last night in hopes of precipitating global warming.

4/15/2008 11:32:04 AM

warmest year EVER!

4/15/2008 11:34:27 AM

January 2008 - 4 sources say 'globally cooler' in the past 12 months

Quote :

"Source: Global ?T °C HadCRUT - 0.595 GISS - 0.750 UAH - 0.588 RSS - 0.629 Average: - 0.6405°C For all four metrics the global average ?T for January 2007 to January 2008 is: - 0.6405°C"

Quote :

"This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected. . . ."

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/

[Edited on April 15, 2008 at 11:49 AM. Reason : .]

4/15/2008 11:49:08 AM

so... this whole global warming scare tactic really worked for Al Gore and others.

He made a bajillion dollars off of his movie, started a carbon credit company, won the nobel prize.....


all based on junk science and lies.


I mean, this should've been evident. When Gore was telling us that our use of fossil fuels would destroy us all in our lifetime or our children's lifetime, all the while continuting to heat his mansion, heat his freakin pool in the winter and taking private jets to releases of his film and to accept his nobel prize. I mean, after they awarded Arafat with that award, we all kind of got the idea that it was all political and had nothing to do with actual achievement.


Global Warming: The Biggest Heist of the Past Century

[Edited on April 15, 2008 at 1:33 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2008 1:33:10 PM

4/15/2008 1:34:43 PM

Quote :

"i'm pretty sure his point is that warming/cooling we still don't exactly have the firmest grip on the situation either way."

Gee, imagine that. It ever occur to you that the earth has been warming/cool since the dawn of existance? B/c it has.

4/15/2008 1:53:50 PM

^ If people believed that TKE, Gore wouldn't have his medals and mansions.


Pretty big conflict of interest involving Gore's wallet and the truth.

4/15/2008 1:55:35 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

4/15/2008 1:55:52 PM

so he renames global warming to climate change to climate destabilization.

I mean, if you keep changing the definition, you're bound to get it right... or morph the word into something that may seem applicable... but still not right.

4/15/2008 2:10:34 PM

Hell, Letterman started discussing global cooling some 5 years ago!

4/15/2008 2:35:05 PM

man are you still on that global heating crap

4/15/2008 2:36:10 PM

GLOBAL

CHILLIN'

4/15/2008 2:46:42 PM

Quote :

"so he renames global warming to climate change to climate destabilization. I mean, if you keep changing the definition, you're bound to get it right... or morph the word into something that may seem applicable... but still not right."

this is what proves that your opinion is worth nothing...okay, so we get it - you don't "believe" in global climate changes that spring from anthropogenic activities...you think that there's no possible way that human activities could have any effect on anything, blah blah blah...but this particular argument is stupid, and just proves that you're simply not capable of understanding anything that doesn't have to do with shapes and colors

he didn't "change" anything...he agrees that "global warming" and "global climate change" are misnomers, and he proposes an alternate phrase (he wasn't the first, either) that more accurately describes what's actually going on (i mean, what we stupid science-oriented people THINK is going on...but what you small-minded morons can't possibly fathom)

additionally, were you going to make any useful comments on the video? or, will you continue to focus on semantics because you can't possibly argue with anything he said except for the phrase you so obviously don't understand?

4/15/2008 3:50:06 PM

how in the hell is "global climate change" a misnomer? its a lot more accurate than "global warming" considering the earth both warms and cools

Quote :

"science-oriented people THINK is going on"

i agree and this is often overlooked...science-oriented people realize the limitations of science and the definitiveness required to reach an accurate conclusion...so why do people like Gore dumb it down for the general public by saying "global warming is definitely happening"? misleading your audience by referring to a possible as a definite is a good way to lose your audience and credibility

thats why when someone like myself says "well global mean temperatures have risen slightly over the last century but who knows if its human-induced or natural fluctuations or solar cycles or what", a global warming proponent will always say "omg you're dumb its obviously happening"...because people like Gore mislead the shit out of them

he is a politician not a scientist

4/15/2008 4:04:20 PM

Quote :

"how in the hell is "global climate change" a misnomer? its a lot more accurate than "global warming" considering the earth both warms and cools"

because the climate "changes" over millions of years...yes, it's a better term than global warming, but the whole argument about using global climate change as the "official" term stems from the tiny handful of scientists (and large handful of laymen) who point out that geologic history is full of evidence regarding climate extremes in fluctuation

the reason global climate destabilization is a MUCH better term is because it takes into account the changes that are not natural occurring, specifically those that are the results of anthropogenic activities

Quote :

" agree and this is often overlooked...science-oriented people realize the limitations of science and the definitiveness required to reach an accurate conclusion...so why do people like Gore dumb it down for the general public by saying "global warming is definitely happening"? misleading your audience by referring to a possible as a definite is a good way to lose your audience and credibility"

i agree with you...gore has done something that was necessary, in my mind - brought it to the forefront of consideration...i do not, however, really care for the way he's done it, because he relies on shock value and fear and only barely-correct facts that are taken a bit out of context

but he was (still is) effective at making people pay attention, and to me, that's more important...sure, people will rant and rave about his method, but those people who can't get past it aren't worth convincing anyway, because they've already made up their minds in the opposite direction, IMO

[Edited on April 15, 2008 at 4:15 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2008 4:12:18 PM

i thought evidence of global warming could be hot or cold weather? just any kind of extreme weather?? i guess that goes with ^ climate destabilization probably makes more sense.

4/15/2008 4:13:37 PM

"destabilization" also implies that humans are definitely having an impact to destabilize the environment

so while that might be accurate when referring to impacts of anthro co2, its already making the assumption that humans are having an effect in the current warming trend, which we still dont know, so its again misleading

wtf is wrong with calling it "climate change"?

Quote :

"i thought evidence of global warming could be hot or cold weather? just any kind of extreme weather??"

one day's weather doesnt mean global warming or global cooling...we have to look at longer term temperature fluctuations of global average temperature...this will naturally fluctuate some due to seasonal variations, but the more data we have the better idea we get of whats going on

the last 100 years or so we've seen about a 1.5 degree celsius rise in global average temperature...this isnt debatable...what continues to be debatable however is how much if any effect humans have had, versus natural fluctuations like solar intensity, seasonal weather, and other fluctuations that we dont fully understand

and while 100 years seems like a long time to you or i (i would love to live to be 100), its miniscule when looking at the age of the earth (4 billion years plus)...hence why some people like myself are skeptical of the 100 year 1.5 degree increase, and are hesitant to immediately say "omg eliminate all emissions immediately"

4/15/2008 4:14:49 PM

Quote :

""destabilization" also implies that humans are definitely having an impact to destabilize the environment so while that might be accurate when referring to anthro co2, its already making the assumption that humans are having an effect, which we still dont know, so its again misleading wtf is wrong with calling it "climate change""

and this is where scientists start to argue...i, personally, have absolutely no problem understanding (and, to an extent, "believing") that humans are having both a large and negative effect (though negative is subjective) on global climate...anthropogenic CO2 is the hot topic, but it's more than just that...methane levels due to decomposition (or hell, even increased beef production) have sky-rocketed, and methane is 21 times the greenhouse gas that CO2 is

i spent the summer north of the arctic circle, where we were doing a study on the effects of global climate change (or so we assumed) on arctic ecosystems...in less than a decade, the amount of permafrost has decreased at a completely unnatural and never-before-seen rate (from what we've been able to gather using geologic research)...why does this matter? mostly because permafrost generally occurs in areas that, without being frozen, are actually giant bogs...what happens in bogs? MASSIVE amounts of decomposition...what's a byproduct of decomp? methane

that's just one small example, though

[Edited on April 15, 2008 at 4:19 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2008 4:17:23 PM

Besides not being sold on the "humans are causing global warming" evidence, I have a big problem with the government being more than happy to take more control of our lives in the name of "the environment" while there are plenty of ways to reduce our impact on the environment without exerting more control on the general populace.

4/15/2008 7:17:01 PM

^ in what way are they taking more control? greater restrictions on car emissions? greater restrictions on commodities that we all share (like water)? tax credits to those who purchase and/or install "green" technologies? honestly, this is the first i've heard someone complain about the government being too much in the business of the population, UNLESS you're pulling the "i should be able to pollute and waste as much as i want" bit, in which case you can just stop posting now because you're too obviously beneath me as a human being (if that's NOT what you're referring to, however, i'm interested in knowing what you're afraid of)

4/16/2008 9:05:51 AM

Quote :

"additionally, were you going to make any useful comments on the video? or, will you continue to focus on semantics because you can't possibly argue with anything he said except for the phrase you so obviously don't understand?"

Sure.

It was a well executed amateur video that was entertaining and informative. That being said, I believe he did the video a favor by playing devil's advocate with himself. In this sense, however, he was able to appear fair while concluding that his devil's advocate persona was incorrect, while the devil's advocate persona actually brought up compelling arguments... especially the one arguing that we should build space invader hamster destroyers in case space age hamsters decide to invade earth.

I mean, with any type of doom and gloom prophetic teaching (Gore), you will be able to lead the masses to do a lot of things... like give you meals and money for carbon credits.

4/16/2008 9:33:33 AM