Things that would force you to switch to the otherside

[percysunshine]

Things that would force you to switch to the otherside

Three prostitutes and a 5 day weekend.

 

[IanC]

Matt- when you say the 'other side', what do you mean? are we talking science or politics?

the politics is a non starter. only western nations are even considering reducing their industry in the name of global warming, the rest of the world is sitting on the sidelines waiting for the crazy white westerners to give them money.

perhaps you are talking about the science. few people deny that CO2 production has some effect on the climate. few people deny that there has been some warming.

or are you talking about the catastrophic predictions? a rock from space could take out the planet. should we spend 20% of the GDP to deploy a defensive system that wont work there either?

there are huge problems that we face. the american multi trillion dollar debt is one that will affect the world in very bad ways unless something is done about it. I vote we deal with real, pressing matters that can actually be ameliorated by man and leave nature to run the planet.

but I still like thinking and reading about global warming. its better than a sudoku anytime.

I'm talking purely science.

Im still not sure where the other side starts. if someone started off thinking 5 percent of the warming was due to CO2 and changed to 50 percent would that be enough to be on the other side? how about someone who thought it was all CO2 but now only thinks it is half? same with catastrophes. or benefit vs detriment.

I think we all consider our own postion the logical and realistic choice in an uncertain world

 

[gslack]

Here is the problem in a single quote..

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
United States. We can't let other countries have the same
number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.
We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are."
- Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund

Yeah thats what the people behind AGW believe. Despite all the BS about the poor and all their crap. Thats what they really think. To them we are all just 2 kids of people. People who help them get what they want, and people who don't. And when it comes down to it the only people left will be them and those who help them.

So no thank you no desire to change sides any time soon.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Here is the problem in a single quote..

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
United States. We can't let other countries have the same
number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.
We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are."
- Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund

Yeah thats what the people behind AGW believe. Despite all the BS about the poor and all their crap. Thats what they really think. To them we are all just 2 kids of people. People who help them get what they want, and people who don't. And when it comes down to it the only people left will be them and those who help them.

So no thank you no desire to change sides any time soon.

Yes there are some sick people that wish to destroy everything. I'm not one of them. I care about the truth and science. "If" global warming was true and the data solidly supported a 4-5c rise. I'd likely become like Old rocks or Chris. BUT if it was disproved as wirebender is trying to do--- then I would likely be like westwall. Doesn't matter a thing what nut cases like the one that you quoted or there stupid economic theories, on what I believe.

As for ionc---I'd say the sides are westwall or old rocks. What would make you shift toward that side.

 

[Big Fitz]

What would get you to change your mind on the pro global warming or skeptic debate?

Me---

1# If someone like Hansen, ect came here and wirebender kicked the shit out of him and made him outright withdraw from the board through not being able to defend his own theory of co2 caused global warming.

2# 5 straight years of cooling global temperatures---Yes because global warming is a longer term decal like thing, but if it started to cool global not just within nina years, but normal neutral like years---I'd admit it is a crock and co2 doesn't=warming. Or wondering wtf is going on.

3# 5 years of increase of sea ice volume. Arctic. There is a pretty good theory explaining why the Antarctic could gain a great amount of sea ice through the fact the winds that swirl around that place keeps it colder then a steal shit house on Christmas day.

No you wouldn't. You'd be just like a die hard birther. Westwall's been handing Hansen et all their lunches for over a year now via their 'science' and you don't believe it.

Why would you start now? No. You'd find some "No True Scotsman" theory to discount it and save yourself from fatal psychic dissonance that would split your head like concrete under a jackhammer.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What would get you to change your mind on the pro global warming or skeptic debate?

Me---

1# If someone like Hansen, ect came here and wirebender kicked the shit out of him and made him outright withdraw from the board through not being able to defend his own theory of co2 caused global warming.

2# 5 straight years of cooling global temperatures---Yes because global warming is a longer term decal like thing, but if it started to cool global not just within nina years, but normal neutral like years---I'd admit it is a crock and co2 doesn't=warming. Or wondering wtf is going on.

3# 5 years of increase of sea ice volume. Arctic. There is a pretty good theory explaining why the Antarctic could gain a great amount of sea ice through the fact the winds that swirl around that place keeps it colder then a steal shit house on Christmas day.

No you wouldn't. You'd be just like a die hard birther. Westwall's been handing Hansen et all their lunches for over a year now via their 'science' and you don't believe it.

Why would you start now? No. You'd find some "No True Scotsman" theory to discount it and save yourself from fatal psychic dissonance that would split your head like concrete under a jackhammer.

Well, I'm trying to give both sides a fair chance. Skeptical science does put together a good case and has shown many studies that go against a warmer Mid evil. Who's to say that the 1960 data of a warmer northeastern Atlantic, Europe is not a localize event like they say? Yes some studies do show other parts of the earth, but another case they make is that some area's are warm from 800-1000 ad, while others are warm from 1100-1300 ad or somewhere in between. We know for a fact that most of the earth is warmer then 1880 today...

Yes, westwall puts together a good case that europe was warmer, but the nao could explain some of that. A person of science should always question and look for answers instead of believing one set of things. One study can show lower sea levels during the mid evil warm period, but another shows lower. That one that shows the mid evil warm period that some like to post come from the 1960s...You are going to post that against 4-5 other studies within the past decade that are global in nature that show the opposite?

That black and white graph is not global. You'll think in the past 50 years that the science has advance some and we now have a better idea of global of climate.

Of course there is one study that does show a defined mid evil warm period globally, but it is at least .2-.3c cooler then today still. There is a fight going on within the science and nothing is set in stone.

I agree that europe was warmer 1,000 years ago. Greenland could of had a large population of vikings and could of done things that they couldn't do today, but some within the field of climate science would disagree with how warm and when. Hansen even disagree's with the HCO being warmer then today because feed backs would of triggered if it was much warmer. If your already having increased methane going into the atmosphere from the methane deposits throughout the arctic, now. Imagine what it would do if you warmed it as much as some believe it did. Yet we don't see it. Hansen makes a logical case, which could even be layed on the interglacial 120,000 years ago too.

It is not that I don't believe that westwall brings a good case to the table, but lets just say I measure the data with a open mind and try to come up with what most likely happened., Do I crap on most of the field of climate science for 40 year old data?

 

[Truthseeker420]

The other side meaning Chris, Old Rock, the Decline Hiders and Warmers? Nothing. I'd have to be without the capacity for thought to believe mankind has been melting the ice the past 14,000 years

would it make more sense to you if they said God was causing the ice to melt and God needs your money to help him prevent it?

 

[Sunshine]

What would get you to change your mind on the pro global warming or skeptic debate?

Me---

1# If someone like Hansen, ect came here and wirebender kicked the shit out of him and made him outright withdraw from the board through not being able to defend his own theory of co2 caused global warming.

2# 5 straight years of cooling global temperatures---Yes because global warming is a longer term decal like thing, but if it started to cool global not just within nina years, but normal neutral like years---I'd admit it is a crock and co2 doesn't=warming. Or wondering wtf is going on.

3# 5 years of increase of sea ice volume. Arctic. There is a pretty good theory explaining why the Antarctic could gain a great amount of sea ice through the fact the winds that swirl around that place keeps it colder then a steal shit house on Christmas day.

And which side is the dark side?

I think most everyone has bought into global warming even if they claim not to. Just the other day one of our volunteers at work was talking about the massive weather changes we are getting here in KY. That was in June. During a thunderstorm. In my lifetime I recall that it has always rained and stormed in June. So what does an isolated thunder shower have to do with global warming? Nothing.

The earth goes through cycles with or without humans. The poles have reversed, volcanoes have erupted, continents have shifted, species have come and gone. Why should I worry my fuzzy little red head bout it? Suppose the earth is warming. Has anyone really proven that it is the fault of man? And even if it is what is another ice age but a way for mother earth to rescue and reclaim herself!

And of course, global warming is not just the fault of man. It is the fault of the AMERICAN man. My pics of Beijing are not digital. But here is a pic off the web of the air in Beijing where they use a lot of coal. My pics actually show it to be much worse as the atmosphere is brown in them.

​

When it comes to pollution the US is only one of the big offenders.

 

[Disenchanted61]

What would get you to change your mind on the pro global warming or skeptic debate?

Me---

1# If someone like Hansen, ect came here and wirebender kicked the shit out of him and made him outright withdraw from the board through not being able to defend his own theory of co2 caused global warming.

2# 5 straight years of cooling global temperatures---Yes because global warming is a longer term decal like thing, but if it started to cool global not just within nina years, but normal neutral like years---I'd admit it is a crock and co2 doesn't=warming. Or wondering wtf is going on.

3# 5 years of increase of sea ice volume. Arctic. There is a pretty good theory explaining why the Antarctic could gain a great amount of sea ice through the fact the winds that swirl around that place keeps it colder then a steal shit house on Christmas day.

Opinion? Or fact ?

 

[westwall]

The other side meaning Chris, Old Rock, the Decline Hiders and Warmers? Nothing. I'd have to be without the capacity for thought to believe mankind has been melting the ice the past 14,000 years

Even if Hansen came here and shown you how co2 works and how it causes the warming? Even if each year started to warm .1c/year and we could prove it without a doubt? You still wouldn't.

If empirical evidence could be produced and accurate climate models created that actually can reproduce what has happened last week i would pay a lot more attention to them. However, the only group that has been able to make accurate long term weather predictions have been the solar scientists. They are 80% correct so far and for over a year in advance, something the alarmists have never been able to do.

 

[rdean]

If Democrats put companies above the best interests of the US middle class, I would become independent.

 

[westwall]

What would get you to change your mind on the pro global warming or skeptic debate?

Me---

1# If someone like Hansen, ect came here and wirebender kicked the shit out of him and made him outright withdraw from the board through not being able to defend his own theory of co2 caused global warming.

2# 5 straight years of cooling global temperatures---Yes because global warming is a longer term decal like thing, but if it started to cool global not just within nina years, but normal neutral like years---I'd admit it is a crock and co2 doesn't=warming. Or wondering wtf is going on.

3# 5 years of increase of sea ice volume. Arctic. There is a pretty good theory explaining why the Antarctic could gain a great amount of sea ice through the fact the winds that swirl around that place keeps it colder then a steal shit house on Christmas day.

No you wouldn't. You'd be just like a die hard birther. Westwall's been handing Hansen et all their lunches for over a year now via their 'science' and you don't believe it.

Why would you start now? No. You'd find some "No True Scotsman" theory to discount it and save yourself from fatal psychic dissonance that would split your head like concrete under a jackhammer.

Well, I'm trying to give both sides a fair chance. Skeptical science does put together a good case and has shown many studies that go against a warmer Mid evil. Who's to say that the 1960 data of a warmer northeastern Atlantic, Europe is not a localize event like they say? Yes some studies do show other parts of the earth, but another case they make is that some area's are warm from 800-1000 ad, while others are warm from 1100-1300 ad or somewhere in between. We know for a fact that most of the earth is warmer then 1880 today...

Yes, westwall puts together a good case that europe was warmer, but the nao could explain some of that. A person of science should always question and look for answers instead of believing one set of things. One study can show lower sea levels during the mid evil warm period, but another shows lower. That one that shows the mid evil warm period that some like to post come from the 1960s...You are going to post that against 4-5 other studies within the past decade that are global in nature that show the opposite?

That black and white graph is not global. You'll think in the past 50 years that the science has advance some and we now have a better idea of global of climate.

Of course there is one study that does show a defined mid evil warm period globally, but it is at least .2-.3c cooler then today still. There is a fight going on within the science and nothing is set in stone.

I agree that europe was warmer 1,000 years ago. Greenland could of had a large population of vikings and could of done things that they couldn't do today, but some within the field of climate science would disagree with how warm and when. Hansen even disagree's with the HCO being warmer then today because feed backs would of triggered if it was much warmer. If your already having increased methane going into the atmosphere from the methane deposits throughout the arctic, now. Imagine what it would do if you warmed it as much as some believe it did. Yet we don't see it. Hansen makes a logical case, which could even be layed on the interglacial 120,000 years ago too.

It is not that I don't believe that westwall brings a good case to the table, but lets just say I measure the data with a open mind and try to come up with what most likely happened., Do I crap on most of the field of climate science for 40 year old data?

Describe the mechanism that keeps heat trapped within a smallish geomorphic area for hundreds of years in a fluid system.

 

[ScienceRocks]

No you wouldn't. You'd be just like a die hard birther. Westwall's been handing Hansen et all their lunches for over a year now via their 'science' and you don't believe it.

Why would you start now? No. You'd find some "No True Scotsman" theory to discount it and save yourself from fatal psychic dissonance that would split your head like concrete under a jackhammer.

Well, I'm trying to give both sides a fair chance. Skeptical science does put together a good case and has shown many studies that go against a warmer Mid evil. Who's to say that the 1960 data of a warmer northeastern Atlantic, Europe is not a localize event like they say? Yes some studies do show other parts of the earth, but another case they make is that some area's are warm from 800-1000 ad, while others are warm from 1100-1300 ad or somewhere in between. We know for a fact that most of the earth is warmer then 1880 today...

Yes, westwall puts together a good case that europe was warmer, but the nao could explain some of that. A person of science should always question and look for answers instead of believing one set of things. One study can show lower sea levels during the mid evil warm period, but another shows lower. That one that shows the mid evil warm period that some like to post come from the 1960s...You are going to post that against 4-5 other studies within the past decade that are global in nature that show the opposite?

That black and white graph is not global. You'll think in the past 50 years that the science has advance some and we now have a better idea of global of climate.

Of course there is one study that does show a defined mid evil warm period globally, but it is at least .2-.3c cooler then today still. There is a fight going on within the science and nothing is set in stone.

I agree that europe was warmer 1,000 years ago. Greenland could of had a large population of vikings and could of done things that they couldn't do today, but some within the field of climate science would disagree with how warm and when. Hansen even disagree's with the HCO being warmer then today because feed backs would of triggered if it was much warmer. If your already having increased methane going into the atmosphere from the methane deposits throughout the arctic, now. Imagine what it would do if you warmed it as much as some believe it did. Yet we don't see it. Hansen makes a logical case, which could even be layed on the interglacial 120,000 years ago too.

It is not that I don't believe that westwall brings a good case to the table, but lets just say I measure the data with a open mind and try to come up with what most likely happened., Do I crap on most of the field of climate science for 40 year old data?

Describe the mechanism that keeps heat trapped within a smallish geomorphic area for hundreds of years in a fluid system.

Some kind of century long nao like pattern or longer term climatic pattern that it is a part of? Some believe that the PDO could be the larger controller to the enso??? Not enough data to tell. Maybe there is one for the nao??? At century like scale.

We know there is a whole crap load of solar cycles from the 11, 22, 1,400, 2,800, 100 thousand year solar cycles---why not internal cycles at longer time scales?

I think the medium time scale solar cycles=internal interaction within the climate system.

What I'm saying is some century like cycle could be the real nao and the nao that we know is only small movements within it.

 

[westwall]

If Democrats put companies above the best interests of the US middle class, I would become independent.

You mean like how Obama's friends get the "good guy" tax rates....like GE?

 

[skookerasbil]

If Democrats put companies above the best interests of the US middle class, I would become independent.

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD.

Somebody please kill me................

 

[westwall]

Well, I'm trying to give both sides a fair chance. Skeptical science does put together a good case and has shown many studies that go against a warmer Mid evil. Who's to say that the 1960 data of a warmer northeastern Atlantic, Europe is not a localize event like they say? Yes some studies do show other parts of the earth, but another case they make is that some area's are warm from 800-1000 ad, while others are warm from 1100-1300 ad or somewhere in between. We know for a fact that most of the earth is warmer then 1880 today...

Yes, westwall puts together a good case that europe was warmer, but the nao could explain some of that. A person of science should always question and look for answers instead of believing one set of things. One study can show lower sea levels during the mid evil warm period, but another shows lower. That one that shows the mid evil warm period that some like to post come from the 1960s...You are going to post that against 4-5 other studies within the past decade that are global in nature that show the opposite?

That black and white graph is not global. You'll think in the past 50 years that the science has advance some and we now have a better idea of global of climate.

Of course there is one study that does show a defined mid evil warm period globally, but it is at least .2-.3c cooler then today still. There is a fight going on within the science and nothing is set in stone.

I agree that europe was warmer 1,000 years ago. Greenland could of had a large population of vikings and could of done things that they couldn't do today, but some within the field of climate science would disagree with how warm and when. Hansen even disagree's with the HCO being warmer then today because feed backs would of triggered if it was much warmer. If your already having increased methane going into the atmosphere from the methane deposits throughout the arctic, now. Imagine what it would do if you warmed it as much as some believe it did. Yet we don't see it. Hansen makes a logical case, which could even be layed on the interglacial 120,000 years ago too.

It is not that I don't believe that westwall brings a good case to the table, but lets just say I measure the data with a open mind and try to come up with what most likely happened., Do I crap on most of the field of climate science for 40 year old data?

Describe the mechanism that keeps heat trapped within a smallish geomorphic area for hundreds of years in a fluid system.

Some kind of century long nao like pattern or longer term climatic pattern that it is a part of? Some believe that the PDO could be the larger controller to the enso??? Not enough data to tell. Maybe there is one for the nao??? At century like scale.

We know there is a whole crap load of solar cycles from the 11, 22, 1,400, 2,800, 100 thousand year solar cycles---why not internal cycles at longer time scales?

I think the medium time scale solar cycles=internal interaction within the climate system.

What I'm saying is some century like cycle could be the real nao and the nao that we know is only small movements within it.

That doesn't take into account the well known mixing of air masses from the equatorial regions to the temperate zones. I believe you even posted a graphic of that once didn't you? If air masses lift from the equator and then fall back to surface level in the temperate zones how then do you fix a air mass to the ground for 300 years?


The atmosphere is constantly moving as the planet spins by underneath. There is no physical process I know of that would cause a warming pulse to stay so localised as claimed other then a large volcanic eruption like the Deccan Plateau flood basalt eruption.

 

[gslack]

Here is the problem in a single quote..

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
United States. We can't let other countries have the same
number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.
We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are."
- Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund

Yeah thats what the people behind AGW believe. Despite all the BS about the poor and all their crap. Thats what they really think. To them we are all just 2 kids of people. People who help them get what they want, and people who don't. And when it comes down to it the only people left will be them and those who help them.

So no thank you no desire to change sides any time soon.

Yes there are some sick people that wish to destroy everything. I'm not one of them. I care about the truth and science. "If" global warming was true and the data solidly supported a 4-5c rise. I'd likely become like Old rocks or Chris. BUT if it was disproved as wirebender is trying to do--- then I would likely be like westwall. Doesn't matter a thing what nut cases like the one that you quoted or there stupid economic theories, on what I believe.

As for ionc---I'd say the sides are westwall or old rocks. What would make you shift toward that side.

he's not one of a few sick people. Or just one lone nut that no one listens to anyway. He is a Princeton University Professor and head of their Geosciences Department.

Michael Oppenheimer

Whats worse is there are more like him at the top than most people realize.

Here's what they do when they get together in a group... They make groups and think tanks like "The Club of Rome" and write crap like this to tell on themselves.

"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

But do you think for one minute people stop to read what they actually say or support? Heck no all people not in the group seem to know is they want to save the planet. Sure save the planet for whom? Certainly not us. They want to save the planet alright, they want to make sure there aren't too many of us ruining their future existence and lifestyle.

These aren't just lone nuts who slip in unnoticed. These are the people making policy or effecting decisions by leaders everyday around the world. Do yourself a favor man.. Look into the CLub of Rome and its sibling groups like the Sierra Club. Look into them and see what they actually say. You may find the wolf in sheeps clothing that I see.

 

[skookerasbil]

Here is the problem in a single quote..

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
United States. We can't let other countries have the same
number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.
We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are."
- Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund

Yeah thats what the people behind AGW believe. Despite all the BS about the poor and all their crap. Thats what they really think. To them we are all just 2 kids of people. People who help them get what they want, and people who don't. And when it comes down to it the only people left will be them and those who help them.

So no thank you no desire to change sides any time soon.

Yes there are some sick people that wish to destroy everything. I'm not one of them. I care about the truth and science. "If" global warming was true and the data solidly supported a 4-5c rise. I'd likely become like Old rocks or Chris. BUT if it was disproved as wirebender is trying to do--- then I would likely be like westwall. Doesn't matter a thing what nut cases like the one that you quoted or there stupid economic theories, on what I believe.

As for ionc---I'd say the sides are westwall or old rocks. What would make you shift toward that side.

he's not one of a few sick people. Or just one lone nut that no one listens to anyway. He is a Princeton University Professor and head of their Geosciences Department.

Michael Oppenheimer

Whats worse is there are more like him at the top than most people realize.

Here's what they do when they get together in a group... They make groups and think tanks like "The Club of Rome" and write crap like this to tell on themselves.

"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

But do you think for one minute people stop to read what they actually say or support? Heck no all people not in the group seem to know is they want to save the planet. Sure save the planet for whom? Certainly not us. They want to save the planet alright, they want to make sure there aren't too many of us ruining their future existence and lifestyle.

These aren't just lone nuts who slip in unnoticed. These are the people making policy or effecting decisions by leaders everyday around the world. Do yourself a favor man.. Look into the CLub of Rome and its sibling groups like the Sierra Club. Look into them and see what they actually say. You may find the wolf in sheeps clothing that I see.

gslack bro.........fortunately for us, this save the planet bs is so out it doesnt even field a position on the field anymore. Not in the real world anyway........only in the world of the k00ks, which is basically the internet only. The economy is so shitty right now........people are just saying "meh". And thats the way the world works outside the realm of the k00ks. Shit gets prioritized.


Any......and I mean any significant public policy related to save the planet isnt even on the radar........in fact, you could say it's in the porta-potty.............


Salon Magazine has always been a staunch environ-mental monthly..........even they see the handwriting on the wall

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/05/31/linbd_fossil_fuels


The "lone nuts" are exactly that these days...........

 

[Ernie S.]

The only way I'd buy into AGW is if Gore were to come out and say the trend had reversed and the world was now cooling.