Still waiting for specific criticism. What did they get wrong? Did they fake the NASA pictures?It's not about faking pictures, it's just about totally misusing given information to form a story that is far but true.
It's not about faking pictures, it's just about totally misusing given information to form a story that is far but true.visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Nope, never claimed that.You call a thread 'Global warming, more like global hoax.' and then present an article in which the relevant information according to you are NASA pictures showing the effects of one cold summer. Sorry, but I can only assume that the statement in the thread title is based on that cold summer.
You call a thread 'Global warming, more like global hoax.' and then present an article in which the relevant information according to you are NASA pictures showing the effects of one cold summer. Sorry, but I can only assume that the statement in the thread title is based on that cold summer.Failure to read article, check.
btw. my region of Europe by latest predictions will be uninhabitable by year 2050 due to 50+ degree summers. We'll see about that.
Very interesting, if its not just a fluctuation and remains this way for a few years, then the predictions where wrong, and all the thermometers lied.visitors can't see pics , please register or login
well we can already have 40-45C+ periods of summer here, so it could come true easily
If the policies hadn't changed, maybe it would be gone. Must we really wait for a disaster to happen before we start acting against it?
Must we really wait for a disaster to happen before we start acting against it?
The second claim that the Arctic sea ice is now 60 percent higher over August 2012 is technically true but extremely misleading. In the summer of 2012 Arctic sea ice hit a record low. Given just how extreme it was, it’s not too surprising that it would not be as extreme this year. As you can see by the graph here, the sea ice extent (which essentially represents how much area is covered by ice) was incredibly low last year and is still lower than average this year. Rose makes this seem like the ice is on a huge rebound, but it’s more like getting a D- after getting an F on a test. Sure, it’s better, but it ain’t necessarily good.
September 2012 witnessed two opposite records concerning sea ice. Two weeks after the Arctic Ocean's ice cap experienced an all-time summertime low for the satellite era (left), Antarctic sea ice reached a record winter maximum extent (right)
See above, and claim that the arctic ice would be gone by the year 2013, when it has only grown by 26% per cent.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_change_sea_ice_global_cooling_and_other_nonsense.html
Enjoy
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-antarctic-ice.html
Seems like 2012 was just an extreme case, and in 2013 the icecap would automatically become bigger than 2012 because of that (but still be shrinking long term).
I'd like to pose a clarifying question. What has it grown by 26% in comparison to, from what previous levels?29%, though the other figure that's thrown around is 60%. Don't know which, but the point is that it was predicted to be completely gone by 2013; obviously untrue.
Ice grew at rates faster than average throughout October, at 103,500 square kilometers (40,000 square miles) per day compared to the 1981 to 2010 average of 87,500 square kilometers per day (33,800 square miles per day)
Failure to read article, check.Goddamnit Xant, you yourself disqualify the arguments that attack the Daily Mail as a source on scientific subjects by asking whether they falsified the NASA images presented in it. You defend the source and the argument it presents on the basis of it's use of scientific imagery. My deduction that you only find the imagery relevant comes from your defense of the source being based solely on these pictures. These pictures show the effects of a single cold summer which prompts you to claim that global warming is a hoax. Now you tell me to actually read the entire article written by David Rose without any proper sources which stinks of classic journalistic misrepresentation of science to generate interest. He is even claiming that articles published by the Daily Mail prompted the IPCC to reconsider it's position and that the IPCC is holding a pre-summit because of this article.
Straw man fallacy, check.
The collection grows.
Goddamnit Xant, you yourself disqualify the arguments that attack the Daily Mail as a source on scientific subjects by asking whether they falsified the NASA images presented in it. You defend the source and the argument it presents on the basis of it's use of scientific imagery. My deduction that you only find the imagery relevant comes from your defense of the source being based solely on these pictures. These pictures show the effects of a single cold summer which prompts you to claim that global warming is a hoax. Now you tell me to actually read the entire article written by David Rose without any proper sources which stinks of classic journalistic misrepresentation of science to generate interest. He is even claiming that articles published by the Daily Mail prompted the IPCC to reconsider it's position and that the IPCC is holding a pre-summit because of this article.This shoots so far past the mark I'm not even sure what to say. Yes, indeed, the comparison image compares the contraction and recovery of the arctic ice between the years 2012-2013. And?
Which from what I get here is untrue and this just makes David Rose a questionable author. If he makes up this then I am scared to even find out what is wrong with the actual science related arguments and facts he presents.
http://www.rtcc.org/2013/09/11/ipcc-rejects-daily-mail-claims-it-plans-climate-crisis-meeting/
Can't help attacking a straw man if you lack any consistency or clarity in presenting your argument. I ask you again, as apparently it is the entire content of the article which allows you to describe global warming as a hoax. Are you sure the Daily Mail is a good source for these kind of discussion subjects? Get proper sources ya shit.
Yes, indeed, the comparison image compares the contraction and recovery of the arctic ice between the years 2012-2013. And?I didn't even say anything that could remotely trigger you asking this question. Way to attack a straw man.
I didn't even say anything that could remotely trigger you asking this question. Way to attack a straw man.It wasn't an attack, it was a question. Way to attack a straw man.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
The predictions have already failed horribly. See above, and claim that the arctic ice would be gone by the year 2013, when it has only grown by 26% per cent.
Ah well, I'm done, you keep on basing your convictions on David Rose and his articles in the Daily Mail, not my problem.You keep thinking I base my convictions on David Rose and his articles in the Daily Mail, not my problem.
So, if it has been getting warmer, Global warming is real.The general trend has been that it's been getting warmer slowly, yes. But the climate is never frozen in place, it has always changed in one direction or another. The question is what's causing it, what the effects will be, will it reverse, slow down or speed up, etc.
But since it has been getting warmer, you can't call it a hoax. Neither can you ignore the anti-polution mesures taken against this effect, that must have had a hand in changing the predictions.Yes, you can call it a hoax. You can call it a hoax when all the catastrophic predictions made about it have been proven false and people have been raking in tons of money from these claims, which are untrue. "Global warming" as it has been marketed to the general public is not "well it's gotten a TINY bit warmer for the past decades", it's "humans are causing this! There will be no ice left by 2013! 50 million climate change refugees by 2010! Death, murder, plague!"
Like I said, the measures taken aginst global warming would have thankfully changed the predictions. And you can't disprove that.You can't prove that they have. In fact, do you have any scientific source claiming that? The "global warming" has in fact paused recently; there is no reason to believe that the overall minimal differences in CO2 emissions would have so drastically changed everything.
You can't prove that they have. In fact, do you have any scientific source claiming that? The "global warming" has in fact paused recently; there is no reason to believe that the overall minimal differences in CO2 emissions would have so drastically changed everything.
Exept we are yet to see if GW actually paused or if its just a fluctuation and the climate will keep getting warmer. In any event, you can't prove that the steps used to fight GW wheren't partially responsible for the reprieve.You can't prove there's no invisible pink unicorn in your garage. The burden of proof is on you to prove that those steps are responsible for the reprieve, not the other way around: otherwise I can claim the invisible pink unicorn did it and say you can't prove it didn't.
Exept we are yet to see if GW actually paused or if its just a fluctuation and the climate will keep getting warmer. In any event, you can't prove that the steps used to fight GW wheren't partially responsible for the reprieve.You can't prove that me taking a shit earlier today didn't save the earth from exploding.
Are people that fucking retarded to deny that our carbon emissions have an effect on the climate of the planet?(click to show/hide)
Weren't we all taught about this in 2nd grade, since the 60s or 70s?
Whether the climate or warming or cooling, we're having an impact on the climate. Also weather != climate.
Do people really think that scientists working for educational institutions have more of a financial agenda than corporations making trillions from their ravaging of the planet? Wake the fuck up you fascist boot lickers.
Wow you guys still believe in global warming after climategate and all that shit.. turn off the tv for good :-)
Are people that fucking retarded to deny that our carbon emissions have an effect on the climate of the planet?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Weren't we all taught about this in 2nd grade, since the 60s or 70s?
Whether the climate or warming or cooling, we're having an impact on the climate. Also weather != climate.
Do people really think that scientists working for educational institutions have more of a financial agenda than corporations making trillions from their ravaging of the planet? Wake the fuck up you fascist boot lickers.
I realize that CO2 is a naturally occurring substance. Thanks for not adding anything to the debate. Are you denying that we have an effect on the climate with our CO2 emissions?
Sheeple spotted.
Go look it up. What produces the MOST CO2 on earth. (HINT HINT, NOT HUMANS)
The point of communication is to transmit an idea to another person or parties in a way that they understand what you mean. Did you understand what I meant? Transmission successful.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
The first one shows the ppm of Co2, ending at 1950 and starting at 800000 years before 1950. This data is derived from trapped gas bubbles in ice and I had a course were we studied this matter and it was pretty interesting.
Anyways, back to the point. Today the ppm of Co2 is at 393.66, which is about 93 ppm higher than it has ever been in the past 800000 years. So no it's not natural sorry.
It's obvious, these people are being willfully ignorant, or just toting political party talking points. If the Earth naturally produces Co2 and we add to it, what is going to happen? Durrr if there is 1 apple, and we add 1 apple, what do we get (answer, not an apple pie, it's 2 apples).
*affect, not effect :rolleyes:
I think no one is denying that, but the question is that is it significant enough to matter.
But people ARE denying that we affect the climate. I can't say whether it's significant of an affect or not. And I don't think it matters if it is, there's no way we're stopping Co2 emissions. What you or I do is a drop in the bucket compared to newly developing nations and all the massive corporate office buildings in the world.
Leave xant alone, you coldhearted buggers!
I studied this at University for 3 years and even I haven't made a decision about it particularly. We must be doing something, but how serious an effect we are having is pretty much impossible to estimate. You look at all the estimates from respected scientists and they range from only a small global temperature difference to some of 5 degrees or more. Whats more no one knows what the hell would actually happen if the temperature increased that much.
The one thing I have decided that if all the hysteria and publicity surround global warming forces us to be more conscious of the effects we may or may not have on the planet, that can only be a good thing.
I also recommend everyone to read about the climate "feedback-effect". Climate change is not a simple process but one which works like a domino-effect. Example: If the icecaps grow alot and earth has large glaciers. The white ice will reflect back more sunlight leading to even colder temperatures which will lead to even more ice and so on and so on. Reverse the process: ice melting and little ice left on earth -> less reflection (albedo) -> higher temperature -> less ice -> higher temperature etc.
And if I recall correctly one of the biggest fears regarding global warming is that we reach the point where the methane gas trapped in Siberia is released with acceleration since Methane is much worse than carbon dioxide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release
However, the same data offer a few puzzles. While land surface warming and vegetation cover have steadily increased in the vicinity of Greenland over the last thirty years, warming and vegetation have actually decreased in some parts of Eurasia over the last decade. This suggests that once sea ice declines or the climate warms beyond a limit, other processes begin to play a more central role in summer climate variability, such as moisture availability in the soil or cloudiness, which can lead to cooler conditions during the northern summer. Another mystery is the decline in vegetation cover over the southwest Alaskan tundra despite an increase in land surface temperature over the same period.
You studied Climate change for 3 years or what did you study :D? Well from what I've heard, a temperature rise would mean a sea-level rise which is estimated to be around 0.5-2m in this century. It's not that much as long as you dont live by the shore. Netherlands and other western countries have the economies to protect themselves from sea-level rise, but third world countries like Bangladesh would suffer very, very badly. Bangladesh has about ~150 million inhabitants and it is estimated that around 17 million atleast would be directly affected in Bangladesh by 1.5m sea-level rise and a part of the country would belong to the sea.
That's 17 million climate-change refugees only in one country, and as we all know the West aren't really that fond of more immigrants. And this is only one of many disasters that could follow.
Too lazy to read the whole thread, but global warming does not literally fucking mean the world is only getting hotter. It's an increase in extreme weather. Meaning cold is colder, hot is hotter, more hurricanes, more tornadoes, etc etc. Oh, by the way, even though people argue about global warming, scientists don't. 97% of climate scientists agree that it is happening and that man makes it go faster. Earlier you were throwing out strawman fallacies saying that people were accusing your shitty articles of "faking NASA pictures", so heres a link from NASAs website backing up my claim. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Earlier you were throwing out strawman fallacies saying that people were accusing your shitty articles of "faking NASA pictures", so heres a link from NASAs website backing up my claim. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensusI did no such thing. Where did I accuse anyone of claiming that the article faked NASA pictures?
visitors can't see pics , please register or loginIf there is one thing that pisses me off it's the preserve the rainforest bullshit, Eurasians wiped out the vast majority of their forests and built shit there, then go off crying how the people in Brazil shouldn't be allowed to do the same, if you want forests, go get rid of some of your cities or farms and plant shit there.
If there is one thing that pisses me off it's the preserve the rainforest bullshit, Eurasians wiped out the vast majority of their forests and built shit there, then go off crying how the people in Brazil shouldn't be allowed to do the same, if you want forests, go get rid of some of your cities or farms and plant shit there.Well, of course, the whole "rainforests are the lungs of earth" thing has been disproven also.
If there is one thing that pisses me off it's the preserve the rainforest bullshit, Eurasians wiped out the vast majority of their forests and built shit there, then go off crying how the people in Brazil shouldn't be allowed to do the same, if you want forests, go get rid of some of your cities or farms and plant shit there.
It was like my Doctor who smokes and suggested that I should quit smoking or I might get lung cancer.Tu quoque in response to criticism
Just like the Europeans and American's calling on other countries to stop "slavery" and having second class citizens.It's not like slavery and second class citizens, it'd be like slavery if we kept the slaves we have, and the children they breed, as slaves but just stop importing new ones and then demanded that no one ever imported slaves in other countries, fact of the matter is that our ancestors got rid of our forests, now we're being massive dicks to some people who want to get rid of some of theirs, the "cause" of saving the rainforest can only be anything but bullshit when Eurasians/North Americans start planting trees in the large farm spaces or cities we have.
It was like my Doctor who smokes and suggested that I should quit smoking or I might get lung cancer.
How dare they! Those hypocrites!
I get what you're saying, and generally agree. But using the "but they did it first!" is a pretty terrible excuse for continuing something that is generally seen as negative. Especially considering that none of us were alive 100 or 200 or 300 years ago.
That being said, these people are clearing the rainforests because it's how they are able to make money and food. Kind of hard for us to sit back in our computer chairs eating cheetos and tell these 3rd world people to stop making money. Sure we should try to stop clearing rainforests, but there needs to be viable alternatives for the people doing it.
Lots of 'murica is still forested (well parts that natively were). Even plains are being forested in a lot of areas due to the benefit it provides to combating soil erosion.Come on mate, gotsta keep my title as 1# post voter.
But I do understand your point and generally agree. No need to resort to -1'ing :cry:
And this might not be such a good idea for the same reason: bias. You might want to take what the two-hander duelists say about two handed weapons with a grain of salt.
It's like us disbelieving our best duelists about how the combat mechanics of cRPG work
And this might not be such a good idea for the same reason: bias. You might want to take what the two-hander duelists say about two handed weapons with a grain of salt.
Best duelists use all melee weapons. Just sayin'.Uh.. there's no rule woven into the fabric of the M&Bverse that says "you must use all melee weapons to be the best duelist."
Uh.. there's no rule woven into the fabric of the M&Bverse that says "you must use all melee weapons to be the best duelist."
It just so happens that the NA ones do.NA =/= the whole world.
NA =/= the whole world.
Shocking, I know.
It's a safe assumption that yours do, too.Shows you just how wrong safe assumptions can be. Wonder what other safe assumptions you have that are false?
Shows you just how wrong safe assumptions can be. Wonder what other safe assumptions you have that are false?
Are you telling me it's wrong? Who else agrees with you?Yes. Phyrex is widely considered to be the best duelist EU side, at least he's the one most people would agree on. And then we have people like Bjord, Hearst, Cicero(ololo), Atze... pretty much all of the top EU duelists are or were dedicated 2handers in the Good Times; certainly they played 2handers as their mains, and people are biased when it comes to their mains, alts can be disregarded at will. And Phyrex is the dedicated 2hander, he played with nothing else and is the father of lolstab.
Are you telling me you disagree with climate change? Why should we believe you? Please give us a longer list (http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/09/10/the-daily-mail-is-wrong-the-earth-keeps-warming/) of evidence against climate change.
Yes. Phyrex is widely considered to be the best duelist EU side, at least he's the one most people would agree on. And then we have people like Bjord, Hearst, Cicero(ololo), Atze... pretty much all of the top EU duelists are or were dedicated 2handers in the Good Times; certainly they played 2handers as their mains, and people are biased when it comes to their mains, alts can be disregarded at will. And Phyrex is the dedicated 2hander, he played with nothing else and is the father of lolstab.
No one here is disagreeing with it. The majority disagree with the fact that it's "Caused/Aggrivated" by humans.
The list of Evidence that Humans do it, is nothing more than a money maker for those in the "Clean" business. I've talked to statisticians who actually do this(a reputable one at my college who's considered amongst the best: Dr. Don Resio) and he agrees that people on both sides "make up" data to fit a paradigm.
[...]and he agrees that people on both sides "make up" data to fit a paradigm.That's the whole point of statistics...
Heartland’s funding over the past decade has included thousands of dollars directly from ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, but a large portion of their funding ($25.6 million) comes from the shadowy Donor’s Capital Fund, created expressly to conceal the identity of large donors to free-market causes. The Koch brothers appear to be funneling money into Donor’s Capital via their Knowledge and Progress Fund.
That paper is not peer reviewed and was published by Heartland, a conservative think tank noted for attacking the link between second-hand smoke and health risks, and the risks of acid rain.
It's really hard to believe that they're neutral on this without peer review.
On the remarks about the Chinese Academy of Sciences research:
http://english.llas.cas.cn/ns/es/201306/t20130615_104626.html
i dont listen to anything the daily mail says.
So what? the people from the ipcc get their money streight from god himself or what?People can claim "hey, some scientists might be getting paid to make claims that will make governments subsidize green technology, so their work is biased and not worthy of trust", but you can't say in the same breath "Hey this paper made by scientists who are definitely getting paid by private companies that have a self-interest in the results is totally legit".
That's the whole point of statistics...Ehm, no. Arguing from the bottom line is not good science.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Yes. Phyrex is widely considered to be the best duelist EU side, at least he's the one most people would agree on. And then we have people like Bjord, Hearst, Cicero(ololo), Atze... pretty much all of the top EU duelists are or were dedicated 2handers in the Good Times; certainly they played 2handers as their mains, and people are biased when it comes to their mains, alts can be disregarded at will. And Phyrex is the dedicated 2hander, he played with nothing else and is the father of lolstab.
Lots of environmental scientists report that climate change caused by human impact is a real thing. I choose to believe them.http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-science-now-settled
I'm not saying that my opinion is invalid due to a lack of education in their specialty, just that if a majority of them agree on something, it's probably got more truth in it than the reverse.
A lot of the arguments against climate change are, well, similar to the arguments for Abrahamic creationism and other science vs. religion discussions.
It's like us disbelieving our best duelists about how the combat mechanics of cRPG work, except in real life there are no devs to back up or discount your views. All we have are the estimates of people who care about a subject more than everyone else, and if they agree on something, I feel like they're more likely to be right about it than any other group of people.
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-science-now-settledvisitors can't see pics , please register or login
In the CERN CLOUD experiments, Almeida et al. (2013) (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7471/full/nature12663.html) found
"ionising radiation such as the cosmic radiation that bombards the atmosphere from space has negligible influence on the formation rates of these particular aerosols [that form clouds]"
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) considers that the increased amount of aerosol in the atmosphere from human activities constitutes the largest present uncertainty in climate radiative forcing2 and projected climate change this century29. The results reported here show that the uncertainty is even greater than previously thought, because extremely low amine emissions—which have substantial anthropogenic sources and have not hitherto been considered by the IPCC—have a large influence on the nucleation of sulphuric acid particles. Moreover, amine scrubbing is likely to become the dominant technology for CO2 capture from fossil-fuelled power plants, so anthropogenic amine emissions are expected to increase in the future30. If amine emissions were to spread into pristine regions of the boundary layer where they could switch on nucleation, substantial increases in regional and global cloud condensation nuclei could occur. This underscores the importance of monitoring amine emissions—as well as those of sulphur dioxide—when assessing the impact of anthropogenic activities on the radiative forcing of regional and global climate by aerosols.
Oh no, I have "necroed"!!!!!!!! Whatever shall I do?
also xant: necro more. and then with an article older then original thread. le fuck.
verpopulation is not a hoax :cry:
There is no "good science" any more since Science is a business as everything else.The thing is one scientist or one scientist lab in itself means nothing, all he creates must be taken cautiously. The thing that makes science reliable is the debate inside of the scientific community. Is the result replicable? Can another team disprof what has been said? Is everything stated agreed by everyone inside the community (or by most of it)?
It probably used to be different a few decades or a century back but nowadays statistics are abused to show what you wanna show which isn't necessarily an image of the objective reality.
....and we know for sure that methane is more than one order of magnitude more powerful than CO2. The only reasonable thing to do on a human scale to stop global warming and be more healthy is to stop or severely reduce meat consumption.
Do people really think that scientists working for educational institutions have more of a financial agenda than corporations making trillions from their ravaging of the planet?Couldn't say those better.
Are people that fucking retarded to think that only a little over 200 years of heavy industry is having a massive impact in a system as big as our planet?You know about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion) right?
If there is one thing that pisses me off it's the preserve the rainforest bullshit, Eurasians wiped out the vast majority of their forests and built shit there, then go off crying how the people in Brazil shouldn't be allowed to do the same, if you want forests, go get rid of some of your cities or farms and plant shit there.What if we just wanted to avoid that they do the same mistake? Plus the situation is quite different as they have way more wildlife diversity as we never had and that they have a tropical soil which after some years without tropical forest becomes infertile. So in one generation the destruction of the forest will have been useless.
Scientists also have their own agendas. If they come up with something 'relevant' that will spark a lot of attention and is to do with the current issue then they will likely get more funding, advance their own career ect.Destroying other scientist theories also bring lot of fame and reward for scientists too, if some scientists could have debunked the global warning they would already have done it. And I don't think governement are spending so much money to make everything greener if some scientist could provide them proof global warming is a hoax.
So just because scientists agree, doesn't mean they aren't bullshitting or stretching the truth to some extent to suit their own needs in life.
I attended a lecture that also broached the subject of population management and learned that todays food production can nourish a world wide population of 12 billion, ignoring logistics ofc. considering the increase in population growth speed and changing migration patterns, "overpopulation" may well be considered as a great challenge in the coming century, I agree.
Oh no, I have "necroed"!!!!!!!! Whatever shall I do?
Define food? What they sell to mass market is edible but I wouldn't call that proper food. Cancer rates are going up and it's not just because our life span is becoming longer. We are bombarded by various harmful agents from all sides, most of them are in mass produced food.
Also current food industry is taking its toll on ecology. We need to gradually shrink it, which means less food.
But considering that most of you believe that global warming is a hoax, I'm not even sure why are we having this discussion.
Vikings used to live good and fulfilling farmer lives in Greenland and shit before it got all frozen, so if anything we're going in the right direction again.visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Lol if I presented this information in my Global Warming assessment if get a big Fail.... :DThat was very eloquently put. You have a way with words.
That was very eloquently put. You have a way with words.
Nuclear, safest and most efficient energy source out there