Global warming?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » August 14, 2007, 3:05 pm

I've never bought it. I'm so glad to see evidence released showing the other side of this fairytale argument.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/246027

Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder
TheStar.com - sciencetech - Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder

Agency roasted after Toronto blogger spots `hot years' data fumble

August 14, 2007
DANIEL DALE
STAFF REPORTER

In the United States, the calendar year 1998 ranked as the hottest of them all – until someone checked the math.

After a Toronto skeptic tipped NASA this month to one flaw in its climate calculations, the U.S. agency ordered a full data review.

Days later, it put out a revised list of all-time hottest years. The Dust Bowl year of 1934 now ranks as hottest ever in the U.S. – not 1998.

More significantly, the agency reduced the mean U.S. "temperature anomalies" for the years 2000 to 2006 by 0.15 degrees Celsius.

NASA officials have dismissed the changes as trivial. Even the Canadian who spotted the original flaw says the revisions are "not necessarily material to climate policy."

But the revisions have been seized on by conservative Americans, including firebrand radio host Rush Limbaugh, as evidence that climate change science is unsound.

Said Limbaugh last Thursday: "What do we have here? We have proof of man-made global warming. The man-made global warming is inside NASA ... is in the scientific community with false data."

However Stephen McIntyre, who set off the uproar, described his finding as a "a micro-change. But it was kind of fun."

A former mining executive who runs the blog ClimateAudit.org, McIntyre, 59, earned attention in 2003 when he put out data challenging the so-called "hockey stick" graph depicting a spike in global temperatures.

This time, he sifted NASA's use of temperature anomalies, which measure how much warmer or colder a place is at a given time compared with its 30-year average.

Puzzled by a bizarre "jump" in the U.S. anomalies from 1999 to 2000, McIntyre discovered the data after 1999 wasn't being fractionally adjusted to allow for the times of day that readings were taken or the locations of the monitoring stations.

McIntyre emailed his finding to NASA's Goddard Institute, triggering the data review.

"They moved pretty fast on this," McIntyre said. "There must have been some long faces."

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 14, 2007, 3:32 pm

So you're siding with Rush Limbaugh on this and expecting to be taken seriously?

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » August 14, 2007, 3:40 pm

Yep. This clearly proves that there's nothing to worry about.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » August 14, 2007, 3:50 pm

Nick wrote:So you're siding with Rush Limbaugh on this and expecting to be taken seriously?

Sorry Nick. I don't write off entire people. I can agree with a persons stance on one issue while disagreeing on others. You really need to grow up man.

Post by **Sylvus** » August 14, 2007, 4:00 pm

A very small calculation error, referred to by its discoverer as a "micro change", is enough evidence for Rush Limbaugh to attribute global warming to being fabricated by NASA and the scientific community and to for you to completely discount the evidence for global warming as a fairytale?

That sounds about right.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 14, 2007, 4:07 pm

I really want hard, irrefutable evidence posted in this thread PROVING beyond a reasonable doubt that it is global warming, and not Earth's natural cycle that is at work nowadays. I also want PROOF that what we are doing is speeding up the natural process of the next ice age coming around by a significant number (10k + years) because really in the grand scheme of things, if we are speeding the process up by less than that - it's not going to mean much.. humankind will kill itself off long before another 50-100k years pass by.

If you can't give that proof, please save your "theories" for somewhere else, I'm sick of loose theories being tossed around and people backing them coughalgorecough like they are proven scientific fact.

IMO the real choices are:

1- Global warming does not exist.

2- It does, but it's not speeding up the process of the next ice age coming around by enough to matter.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » August 14, 2007, 4:29 pm

how is adjusting the hottest year on record 64 years backwards a 'micro-change'?... perhaps it is their bias in support of global warming that has them minimizing this change when it seems pretty serious at face value?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » August 14, 2007, 5:04 pm

Fash wrote:how is adjusting the hottest year on record 64 years backwards a 'micro-change'?... perhaps it is their bias in support of global warming that has them minimizing this change when it seems pretty serious at face value?

They want to save face. By putting out the phrase "micro-change" diehard supporters of the global warming religion will latch unto it and use it to solidify their blind faith. Changing the highest record temperature year back 70 years is a huge deal and hurts their cause. If we are experiencing this "global warming" shouldn't it be even hotter now than it was 70 years ago?

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 14, 2007, 5:20 pm

Fash wrote:how is adjusting the hottest year on record 64 years backwards a 'micro-change'?... perhaps it is their bias in support of global warming that has them minimizing this change when it seems pretty serious at face value?

The problem is - you are thinking logically, and they are not. Ever.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » August 14, 2007, 5:27 pm

"Micro change" is the description applied by the individual who discovered and reported the error, who happens to be a climate change skeptic. From what I've read about this specific issue, the adjustment of the "mean temperature anomalies" statistics for the last 6 years by .15 degrees C is what's being described as the "micro change" by McIntyre (again, the fellow that pointed out the error).

An issue that is typically ignored by climate change deniers is that "global warming" has to do with long term trends, not isolated weather anomalies. A hot (or cold) spell 74 years ago (not 64 or 70, btw) does not invalidate the trend that has been observed. Occasional observations of hotter or colder than normal readings are not significant compared to the overall, longterm warming trend.

All this aside, both sides of the argument agree that there's "global warming," i.e. the earth is getting warmer. The point of contention is whether or not the observed warming is caused by human activity. The overwhelming consensus of climate scientists is that the climate change is caused (or at least exacerbated) by human activity. An insignificant number of opposing views are being propped up by corporate (primarily oil, coal and automotive) interests, their astroturf organizations and right-wing media as "proof" that there's no consensus on climate change which helps to discredit their opponents.

Funk, you're not going to get the 100% irrefutable proof that you demand from either side of the argument. It's foolish to demand it. What you can get, and there's plenty of it out there, is abundant evidence supporting the conclusion that climate change due to human activities is real. I don't see a point in quoting them for you here. The information isn't hiding. It's there if you want to look at it, which clearly you don't.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » August 14, 2007, 5:31 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:2- It does, but it's not speeding up the process of the next ice age coming around by enough to matter.

By the cycle that exists, we're about 5,000 overdue for the beginning of a marked cooling of the climate. It should have begun about the time human civilization began from what I recall.

You aren't going to get "proof". If it is true we're screwed on our current path. If it isn't true and we do something sensible about it, no harm done. In either case we'll never know since we don't have another earth handy to use as a control.

Does the argument that global warming is happening make sense? Once you cut through the political crap in many respects yes. The things that point to to the fact that it's happening outweigh the ones that don't.

In the long run it really doesn't matter, our current path isn't sustainable. We'll solve our problem or it will be solved for us, one way or the other.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » August 14, 2007, 5:50 pm

It's real... warming, cooling, extremes, all of it.

But instead of spending trillions to merely slow down the inevitable, I favor spending trillions establishing human presence in space and on other planets. Earth WILL go to shit someday, I do not want humankind to go with it.

The impact of interstellar travel upon science and engineering, among others, is just a bonus.

Neost · Post by **Neost** » August 14, 2007, 7:15 pm

I think what most people that argue against global warming don't think about is the fact that we will not know when we've tipped the scales and it is too late to recover so why take the chance?

I guess this has to do with the idea that humans are affecting the climate. Personally, I just don't see how you can believe that we are not having a detrimental effect with all the emissions that have been let into the air in the last century+. All you have to do is look at any modern manufacturing area that has smokestacks, any vehicle that runs on gasoline and any area that has been contaminated by runoff from various processes. Any one incident alone might not be that much but the cumulative affect has to be devastating.

I really haven't paid much attention to the arguments on either side, the above is my opinion and I probably wouldn't even express it, it just strikes me as short-sighted to think we don't change the environment around us as we progress technologically.

If you still can't fathom it, go lay down at the back of your vehicle with your head right below the tail pipe and breath deep for a while, you'll get the picture.

EDIT: I decided to come back and comment on the interstellar travel idea. With our current state of technology we obviously cannot travel outside our solar system and sustain life for the amount of time required to make a trip. That means generational travel and there is no known way to keep generations alive while tripping through space. I doubt you could build a large enough ship to house and feed everyone and still propel it. And with the fastest known PARTICLES only nearing the speed of light there is nothing that promises to offer a warp drive that will allow interstellar travel. I'm just as big a sci-fi geek as the next VV'er but i just don't see a miracle breakthrough on the horizon that will allow it. Even if you do come up with the propulsion system you still have the laws if inertia working against you. Once you get moving SOMETHING has to put on the brakes and that is typically propulsion in the opposite direction and it takes a long time or a lot more thrust than we can stand to stop once you get started.

Oh wait, I forgot if we beat the speed of light we'll be able to produce gravity generators and dampeners.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » August 14, 2007, 11:31 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:I really want hard, irrefutable evidence posted in this thread PROVING beyond a reasonable doubt that it is global warming, and not Earth's natural cycle that is at work nowadays. I also want PROOF that what we are doing is speeding up the natural process of the next ice age coming around by a significant number (10k + years) because really in the grand scheme of things, if we are speeding the process up by less than that - it's not going to mean much.. humankind will kill itself off long before another 50-100k years pass by.

If you can't give that proof, please save your "theories" for somewhere else, I'm sick of loose theories being tossed around and people backing them coughalgorecough like they are proven scientific fact.

IMO the real choices are:

1- Global warming does not exist.

2- It does, but it's not speeding up the process of the next ice age coming around by enough to matter.

Ok, I have proof for you. Go to your garage and close all windows and doors to where no fresh air is coming in or out. Turn on your car and wait there for about 10 hours. I promise you that you will have your proof, fucktard.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 15, 2007, 11:20 am

Neost wrote:I think what most people that argue against global warming don't think about is the fact that we will not know when we've tipped the scales and it is too late to recover so why take the chance?

I guess this has to do with the idea that humans are affecting the climate. Personally, I just don't see how you can believe that we are not having a detrimental effect with all the emissions that have been let into the air in the last century+. All you have to do is look at any modern manufacturing area that has smokestacks, any vehicle that runs on gasoline and any area that has been contaminated by runoff from various processes. Any one incident alone might not be that much but the cumulative affect has to be devastating.

I really haven't paid much attention to the arguments on either side, the above is my opinion and I probably wouldn't even express it, it just strikes me as short-sighted to think we don't change the environment around us as we progress technologically.

If you still can't fathom it, go lay down at the back of your vehicle with your head right below the tail pipe and breath deep for a while, you'll get the picture.

EDIT: I decided to come back and comment on the interstellar travel idea. With our current state of technology we obviously cannot travel outside our solar system and sustain life for the amount of time required to make a trip. That means generational travel and there is no known way to keep generations alive while tripping through space. I doubt you could build a large enough ship to house and feed everyone and still propel it. And with the fastest known PARTICLES only nearing the speed of light there is nothing that promises to offer a warp drive that will allow interstellar travel. I'm just as big a sci-fi geek as the next VV'er but i just don't see a miracle breakthrough on the horizon that will allow it. Even if you do come up with the propulsion system you still have the laws if inertia working against you. Once you get moving SOMETHING has to put on the brakes and that is typically propulsion in the opposite direction and it takes a long time or a lot more thrust than we can stand to stop once you get started.

Oh wait, I forgot if we beat the speed of light we'll be able to produce gravity generators and dampeners.

The reason we haven't made any big pushes forward in space travel is directly related to the lack of money (yes I know there is a fair amount being spent) and skepticism towards the ideas that some scientists have. I can't remember the dudes names, but he was the one that basically has an infallible plan to get people on mars, but people just don't want to spend the money (even though nasa has approved his plan.)

With rich people starting to invest in private space development companies (the guy doing the commercial space flights), I think we will start to see development there faster then some might expect.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 15, 2007, 11:39 am

Xyun,
Amusingly enough, that doesn't actually prove global warming. What that proves is that carbon monoxide is hazardous to humans in large quantities. Its a lot like saying; Salt is the number one killer of people in the US, I can prove this by pouring it on a slug and watching it shrivel up.

I've heard and read arguments on both sides of this coin. The evidence itself is inconclusive, but there are still a lot of good reasons to explore alternative energy sources and increases in efficiencies beyond that of global warming.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · August 15, 2007, 11:51 am

Somali wrote:Xyun,
Amusingly enough, that doesn't actually prove global warming. What that proves is that carbon monoxide is hazardous to humans in large quantities. Its a lot like saying; Salt is the number one killer of people in the US, I can prove this by pouring it on a slug and watching it shrivel up.

I've heard and read arguments on both sides of this coin. The evidence itself is inconclusive, but there are still a lot of good reasons to explore alternative energy sources and increases in efficiencies beyond that of global warming.

Wise words. The evidence is very inconclusive. For some reason these people can't do anything without labeling it a crisis and trying to scare the shit out of people with inconclusive evidence. Two words for ya....Bird Flu.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 15, 2007, 12:10 pm

Somali wrote:Xyun,
Amusingly enough, that doesn't actually prove global warming. What that proves is that carbon monoxide is hazardous to humans in large quantities.

I'm pretty sure that's the point he was trying to make. I could be wrong!

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 15, 2007, 2:06 pm

How does the hazard to humans impact global warming? Or are you saying he just felt like going off topic and telling Funk to die?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 15, 2007, 2:23 pm

Somali wrote:Or are you saying he just felt like going off topic and telling Funk to die?

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 15, 2007, 3:02 pm

Somali wrote:How does the hazard to humans impact global warming? Or are you saying he just felt like going off topic and telling Funk to die?

I have an unmatched ability to get people to go off topic and tell me to die

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 15, 2007, 3:21 pm

It's obviously all a Jewish Liberal conspiracy to stop people from driving SUV's. It's all right there in the video "Loose climate change".

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » August 15, 2007, 6:05 pm

Nick wrote:It's obviously all a Jewish Liberal conspiracy to stop people from driving SUV's. It's all right there in the video "Loose climate change".

Alright already! We get it! You're bitter.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 15, 2007, 6:09 pm

Yes, and we get that you're a fucking idiot, but it doesn't stop you.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » August 15, 2007, 7:38 pm

All I know is my fucking electric bill was $710 last month and our A/C is set at 78 degrees!!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » August 15, 2007, 8:26 pm

Nick wrote:Yes, and we get that you're a fucking idiot, but it doesn't stop you.

You're a 12 year old.

Go fight a cause some where. Go stand some where with a sign and yell clever little delusional chants. I can't wait until you have to join the adult world. Try being a bitter fuck to your kids. You will change. I'm a patient man. I'll wait. Now come here and I'll tussle your hair little fella.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 15, 2007, 8:30 pm

The 12 year old that had to sit you down when you were crying about how everyone was a bully on VV and explain to you that it was just a bit of fun and to grow up? Your misplaced sense of superiority is quite amusing.

Still, you were only 11 years off, which makes your last post about the most accurate thing you've posted here this year.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » August 15, 2007, 9:11 pm

Nick wrote:The 12 year old that had to sit you down when you were crying about how everyone was a bully on VV and explain to you that it was just a bit of fun and to grow up? Your misplaced sense of superiority is quite amusing.

Still, you were only 11 years off, which makes your last post about the most accurate thing you've posted here this year.

Nods. Sometimes a parent learns a lot from their kids. Thank you sport.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 16, 2007, 12:27 pm

Tyek wrote:All I know is my fucking electric bill was $710 last month and our A/C is set at 78 degrees!!

Ouch. That would suck some cajones...

Out of curiosity, can we assume that the statement about you electric bill is in support of saying fuck it to Global Warming? Since increased regulations are helping to drive up costs for electricity? Or was it a statement for Global Warming in that if it gets any hotter you'll be superfucked when it comes to your electric bill?

By the way, how they hell did you rack up $710?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » August 16, 2007, 1:03 pm

Somali wrote:
Tyek wrote:All I know is my fucking electric bill was $710 last month and our A/C is set at 78 degrees!!
Ouch. That would suck some cajones...

Out of curiosity, can we assume that the statement about you electric bill is in support of saying fuck it to Global Warming? Since increased regulations are helping to drive up costs for electricity? Or was it a statement for Global Warming in that if it gets any hotter you'll be superfucked when it comes to your electric bill?

By the way, how they hell did you rack up $710?

He must live in a big ass home.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » August 16, 2007, 1:14 pm

No I believe in global warming, although I do find it curious that the worst case year BEFORE the switch was 10 years ago. I think we are contributing, but some of this is also cyclical in nature. My biggest concern is whenever special interest groups get involved, many times financial issues become more important then the actual cause. You also get a lot of followers that frankly know nothing about the crusade spouting and distorting facts. We are screwing up the environment, just how much I am not sure. If you have never watched the show Bullshit, they get activists, including a spokesperson for the Rainforest group, to sign a petition that would ban WATER!!! It was hilarious.

As for the bill. No I do not live in a big house. It is 1800 sq feet in So Cal. We just had a pool built, so that is part of it I guess. We have 2 refridgerators and a 3rd small bar one. We just replaced our little undersized 3.5 ton 9 seer A/C with a 15 seer 5 ton, so that should have been about the same. This month the bill dropped to 500 which is pretty normal for the summer. I just hate paying the damn thing.

I see materials to the Utility industry in So Cal so I may have to raise my pricing to get some of the cost back LOL.

Also California has asked that within 20 years 33% of the states power be green. We are buiding the world's largest wind farm as well.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 16, 2007, 1:15 pm

So really, all we need to stop global warming is a really big AC unit. Why is no one working on this?

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 16, 2007, 1:29 pm

I also live in an 1800ish sq ft home. We run the air 24/7 at 69 degrees. Our bill is about 175$ a month.

Now gas for the winter is a whole other story. It's $300+ a month.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » August 16, 2007, 2:04 pm

Is it just me, or does anyone else remember a shitton of industrilization, factories working double, sometimes triple time during 1934? Right on the heels of that little event... what the hell was it called...

Oh yeah. WW2.

While by no means definitive proof of anything, Rush doesn't seem to need it.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 16, 2007, 2:17 pm

Well.....WW2 did not start until 1939, so I guess we will need an explanation of your event.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » August 16, 2007, 2:44 pm

Acies wrote:Is it just me, or does anyone else remember a shitton of industrilization, factories working double, sometimes triple time during 1934? Right on the heels of that little event... what the hell was it called...

Oh yeah. WW2.

While by no means definitive proof of anything, Rush doesn't seem to need it.

China is now doing that in a bigger way and without the environmental concerns we have. It's easier to blame the good ole USA though.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 16, 2007, 3:04 pm

There is no doubt places like China and India have far less concern for their Co2 emissions than a first world country like the US, which sucks. However, the US still emits far more Co2 than any other nation. That's not so much a dig at the US as a simple fact. So much for trying to be the victim on that one, try again perhaps?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_c ... -emissions

Anyone who doesn't at this point think that the world is heating up is frankly a moron, simply do a quick google on "polar ice caps melting" or something similiar and stay out of any conversation on this topic, because you will be wasting everyones time. Whether a proportion of the blame for this should be laid at mans door is not up for debate anymore either, despite what you may believe. Admittedly, there are alternative arguments such as increased Solar emissions have increased the level of Co2 in the atmosphere and a multitude of other arguments to boot, but as we both know, the vast majority of the Scientific community agrees that man is having an impact on his environment. It's the usual "sneering at the scientists/intellectuals who think they're so smart" bullshit.

The point is though, when those damn dirty liberal fuckers ask you to do basic things like, oh I dunno, turn your lights off when you're not using them, or try and conserve energy, which in turn saves you money, only an idiot wouldn't see these things as a positive idea, even if Global warming didn't exist. Is it really that hard to not cry when someone asks you to save yourself some money and maybe cut down Co2 emissions a little?

I, like everyone else here, am no expert on Global warming, but the fact that people like Rush Limbaugh and Midnyte feel the need to turn it into a partisan debate is sort of embarrassing and frankly, absolutely fucking idiotic. Open mindedness = "right wing talking head regurgitation, by the looks of it.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » August 16, 2007, 3:39 pm

Yes, the war did not begin until later, however after the night of long knives (which was in 1934) a lot of countries began gearing up. Hilter scared a lot of power houses, including us.

Though Mid brings up an interesting point. Not all of the pollution in the world is done by the United States. However, it is fairly safe to say that the United States has a large part of the responsibility in the pollution sector. Yet, all I see us doing is blowing off the potential threat. We did not do it with Saddam and he was just some bullshit podunk dictator of a crap country. Yet when faced with the posibility of a cataclysm, we ignore it? How does this make sense? Even if global warming complete bullshit, who would be hurt by us living cleaner? I would not mind, but that is me personally.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 16, 2007, 3:55 pm

So how exactly do you propose the issue is fixed then? For it to be worth the effort, the entire world would have to "go green" (big fucking el oh el there). Do you really think China is going to shut down their main source of income (big fucking factories) because it's polluting the planet?

That I guess is the bottom line, don't misunderstand me and think I'm saying I acknowledge global warming - but let's humor the idea that it does - the U.S. doing something about it alone isn't going to stop the problem. Hell, we can't even get any international entities to agree on petty shit.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 16, 2007, 3:59 pm

Why don't you "acknowledge" global warming?

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 16, 2007, 4:01 pm

Nick wrote:Why don't you "acknowledge" global warming?

Seriously, is it proper etiquette in Ireland to answer a question with a question any time you get the chance? I think if you read what I have previously written in this thread you would know why I made that statement.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » August 16, 2007, 4:05 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:So how exactly do you propose the issue is fixed then? For it to be worth the effort, the entire world would have to "go green" (big fucking el oh el there). Do you really think China is going to shut down their main source of income (big fucking factories) because it's polluting the planet?

That I guess is the bottom line, don't misunderstand me and think I'm saying I acknowledge global warming - but let's humor the idea that it does - the U.S. doing something about it alone isn't going to stop the problem. Hell, we can't even get any international entities to agree on petty shit.

You are right Funk, completely. The United States, acting alone, would do little at this time. However, we have taken it upon ourselves to try to "lead" the free world. Even police it. We have put ourselves in a position of authority that we will absolutely refuse to relinquish. That being said, maybe the world would follow suit if it's greatest world power would step up and lead the way.

However, maybe it does not have a solution. Maybe there is not even a problem. What I do know is this: I do know that it would be better to act and be wrong/right and have it cost money, that to not act and have it be wrong/right and have billions of people die or get dispossessed in the future because their progenitors were to selfish to care about those who come later. God Funk, I hope it is just a case of bad science gone awry. I truly do.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 16, 2007, 4:08 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
Nick wrote:Why don't you "acknowledge" global warming?
Seriously, is it proper etiquette in Ireland to answer a question with a question any time you get the chance? I think if you read what I have previously written in this thread you would know why I made that statement.

I did read it. The statement is nonsense. Global warming is occurring, you are the one confusing your disbelief in mans involvement in it with the actual event. Even if it was Earths Natural cycle, it would still be global warming. Therefore, not acknowledging "global warming" is retarded.

How exactly is any discussion meant to take place when your incapable of differentiating simple things like this.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 16, 2007, 4:14 pm

Acies wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:So how exactly do you propose the issue is fixed then? For it to be worth the effort, the entire world would have to "go green" (big fucking el oh el there). Do you really think China is going to shut down their main source of income (big fucking factories) because it's polluting the planet?

That I guess is the bottom line, don't misunderstand me and think I'm saying I acknowledge global warming - but let's humor the idea that it does - the U.S. doing something about it alone isn't going to stop the problem. Hell, we can't even get any international entities to agree on petty shit.
You are right Funk, completely. The United States, acting alone, would do little at this time. However, we have taken it upon ourselves to try to "lead" the free world. Even police it. We have put ourselves in a position of authority that we will absolutely refuse to relinquish. That being said, maybe the world would follow suit if it's greatest world power would step up and lead the way.

However, maybe it does not have a solution. Maybe there is not even a problem. What I do know is this: I do know that it would be better to act and be wrong/right and have it cost money, that to not act and have it be wrong/right and have billions of people die or get dispossessed in the future because their progenitors were to selfish to care about those who come later. God Funk, I hope it is just a case of bad science gone awry. I truly do.

You replied exactly the way I wanted you to, and I want to take a moment to thank you for that.

Ok, so you suggest that we lead, and possibly even "police" the rest of the world on this issue. That brings us to the issue of the rest of the world, if we don't help them when they need it, we are pieces of shit. If we do help them, then we are pieces of shit for sticking our nose in other peoples (countries) business.

SO that being said, are you implying that you would be ok with risking a war (possibly a massive one) over the US regulating something that hasn't been scientifically proven? I mean, I can't imagine that anyone here could honestly say that they think the war that is going on right now is an atrocity, but they would be behind a decision like that which could possibly have a much more severe outcome.

P.S. Nick - your point is invalid considering I stated myself that I agree that the Earth is going through a natural cycle. However, I don't like to think of it as "global warming" because I avoid using these key words/phrases that are tacked onto things.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 16, 2007, 4:16 pm

So your now relying on semantics to try and worm out of "not acknowledging global warming"?

Your argument is ridiculous anyway. Some random dude in bumblefuck USA spouting off how there is no proof that man is directly affecting the climate of the planet we live on while the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change comes off with reports like this

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR ... proved.pdf

is fucking boring to read. You obviously haven't done any research whatsoever on what you're talking about.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 16, 2007, 4:19 pm

Nick wrote:So your now relying on semantics to try and worm out of "not acknowledging global warming"?

"Global Warming" is no longer global warming.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 16, 2007, 4:23 pm

Nick wrote:So your now relying on semantics to try and worm out of "not acknowledging global warming"?

I told you I acknowledge the Earth's process is occurring (multiple times), I also explained why I don't think we are having as big of an impact on this process as people are assuming. So what exactly is it that I haven't covered for you? I think it really boils down to a few issues with you:

1- you have the reading comprehension skills of a newborn monkey

2- the thought of something you believe in being wrong is something you dismiss immediately

3- you get enjoyment out of spinning what people say to mean what you want it to mean (you might actually make a good politician.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » August 16, 2007, 4:25 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
Acies wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:So how exactly do you propose the issue is fixed then? For it to be worth the effort, the entire world would have to "go green" (big fucking el oh el there). Do you really think China is going to shut down their main source of income (big fucking factories) because it's polluting the planet?

That I guess is the bottom line, don't misunderstand me and think I'm saying I acknowledge global warming - but let's humor the idea that it does - the U.S. doing something about it alone isn't going to stop the problem. Hell, we can't even get any international entities to agree on petty shit.
You are right Funk, completely. The United States, acting alone, would do little at this time. However, we have taken it upon ourselves to try to "lead" the free world. Even police it. We have put ourselves in a position of authority that we will absolutely refuse to relinquish. That being said, maybe the world would follow suit if it's greatest world power would step up and lead the way.

However, maybe it does not have a solution. Maybe there is not even a problem. What I do know is this: I do know that it would be better to act and be wrong/right and have it cost money, that to not act and have it be wrong/right and have billions of people die or get dispossessed in the future because their progenitors were to selfish to care about those who come later. God Funk, I hope it is just a case of bad science gone awry. I truly do.

You replied exactly the way I wanted you to, and I want to take a moment to thank you for that.

Ok, so you suggest that we lead, and possibly even "police" the rest of the world on this issue. That brings us to the issue of the rest of the world, if we don't help them when they need it, we are pieces of shit. If we do help them, then we are pieces of shit for sticking our nose in other peoples (countries) business.

SO that being said, are you implying that you would be ok with risking a war (possibly a massive one) over the US regulating something that hasn't been scientifically proven? I mean, I can't imagine that anyone here could honestly say that they think the war that is going on right now is an atrocity, but they would be behind a decision like that which could possibly have a much more severe outcome.

P.S. Nick - your point is invalid considering I stated myself that I agree that the Earth is going through a natural cycle. However, I don't like to think of it as "global warming" because I avoid using these key words/phrases that are tacked onto things.

Well first off, this is not a chess match, but for thanking me for typing a few words, you are welcome

Secondly, my "policing" bit was a barb against our present policy and administration. I by no means think we have the right to tell others how to live. At most, we have the right to say "Hey, you do not like living like that? Come here, where you can find freedom and a home" or perhaps even "give us your tired, poor, hungry masses, yearing to be free". To answer your question, no, I would not be okay making war to insure that the world does what we want. We are not a dictatorship yet. I would be okay, indeed, pretty obviously suggested that we "LEAD" the world by example.

Let me also say thank you as well, for also typing out some words to me too

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 16, 2007, 4:26 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
Nick wrote:So your now relying on semantics to try and worm out of "not acknowledging global warming"?

I told you I acknowledge the Earth's process is occurring (multiple times), I also explained why I don't think we are having as big of an impact on this process as people are assuming. So what exactly is it that I haven't covered for you? I think it really boils down to a few issues with you:

1- you have the reading comprehension skills of a newborn monkey

2- the thought of something you believe in being wrong is something you dismiss immediately

3- you get enjoyment out of spinning what people say to mean what you want it to mean (you might actually make a good politician.

Same tired old bullshit. I've tried explaining to you why you're wrong, you are current personification of point 2.

However, feel free to dismiss the other part of the post (the bit with the link) that highlights how ridiculous you sound to anyone with even the vaguest clue of the issue at hand.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 16, 2007, 4:39 pm

Acies wrote:Secondly, my "policing" bit was a barb against our present policy and administration. I by no means think we have the right to tell others how to live. At most, we have the right to say "Hey, you do not like living like that? Come here, where you can find freedom and a home" or perhaps even "give us your tired, poor, hungry masses, yearing to be free". To answer your question, no, I would not be okay making war to insure that the world does what we want. We are not a dictatorship yet. I would be okay, indeed, pretty obviously suggested that we "LEAD" the world by example.

The perception of the US being a "world police" force is not a new one, and it is certainly not limited to the current administration. I can still remember reading magazine and newspaper articles about this while I was in Europe years ago. The point of these articles were that other countries were not doing THEIR part to maintain the world police force (UN references were heavy at that time). The US was being forced into taking control of the "police" duties of the UN as the majority of forces available for UN missions was from the US. This was being mentioned due to the feeling that if it were continued to be forced to dedicate a majority of the troops to missions, it would start wanting to dictate better mission parameters for the troops. Sending 10k troops to "police" a people that have been at war with each other for years and telling the troops they cannot, under any circumstances, shoot back if fired upon is not a good way to keep your troops alive or accomplish your mission. This was also brought up at the time that the "coalition of the willing" was set up. The UN guidelines kept being just that, guidelines. Letter after letter was written, but actions just never took place. The "coalition" basically said, here is what we plan to do. Fix the situation or else. This was seen coming well before Bush Sr even took office.