Jump to content

Not a great start for the Man Made Global Warming Debate\Myth


silentbob1272
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm not saying the weather will not fluctuate, that's what weather does. This does (imo) prove once again what a complete propaganda flinging tool AlGore is for saying the debate is over regarding Global Warming.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

UNITED STATES

Climate Summary

January 2008

The average temperature in January 2008 was 30.5 F. This was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 49th coolest January in 114 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

2.21 inches of precipitation fell in January. This was -0.01 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 65th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is -0.01 inches per decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

joremari (2/8/2008)
i think you should do a little more research into Al Gore's work, especially if you think cold temps in winter, when the US is turned away from the sun on the world's axis, even remotely disproves the MMGW theory.

Thanks, I have done quite a bit of research into AlGore's "work" such as twisting facts and scientist's opinions to suit the conclusions of his ****** propagandist movie. MMGW is still up for debate imo, but Gore is a joke and so are his disciples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (2/8/2008)
joremari (2/8/2008)
i think you should do a little more research into Al Gore's work, especially if you think cold temps in winter, when the US is turned away from the sun on the world's axis, even remotely disproves the MMGW theory.

Thanks, I have done quite a bit of research into AlGore's "work" such as twisting facts and scientist's opinions to suit the conclusions of his ****** propagandist movie. MMGW is still up for debate imo, but Gore is a joke and so are his disciples.

and the undeniable proof that it nothing more then propaganda is that it's cold in january. nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

joremari (2/8/2008)
silentbob1272 (2/8/2008)
joremari (2/8/2008)
i think you should do a little more research into Al Gore's work, especially if you think cold temps in winter, when the US is turned away from the sun on the world's axis, even remotely disproves the MMGW theory.

Thanks, I have done quite a bit of research into AlGore's "work" such as twisting facts and scientist's opinions to suit the conclusions of his ****** propagandist movie. MMGW is still up for debate imo, but Gore is a joke and so are his disciples.

and the undeniable proof that it nothing more then propaganda is that it's cold in january. nice.

Yea, that is the only thing I based that comment on. Brilliant rebuke, you have without doubt proven yourself worthy to be taken just as seriously as AlGore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

joremari (2/8/2008)

im sorry, i left off the precipitation. my bad.

just out of curiosity, why are you talking about january temperatures and precipitation from a country in the northern hemisphere when discussing GW? how is that even remotely relevant to the discussion of GW?

I am not going to post an article on how the glaciers are actually getting bigger, Ramen tends to kill those threads with several pages of pro-GW charts, graphs, and articles. There are a lot of conflicting reports, which is why I said it is still up for debate. Gore declared that the debate was over, insinuating that there was clear and direct proof that GW is man made, that proof is subjective, you will get conflicting versions from equally reputable sources on almost any point. Gore is at very best being disingenuous with his followers, and at worst a fame and power seeking d0uchebag who has lied and schemed his way into a position of power and respect on a subject that has been blown up by his own manipulation of facts and scheming, I tend to think he is more along these lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (2/8/2008)
joremari (2/8/2008)

im sorry, i left off the precipitation. my bad.

just out of curiosity, why are you talking about january temperatures and precipitation from a country in the northern hemisphere when discussing GW? how is that even remotely relevant to the discussion of GW?

I am not going to post an article on how the glaciers are actually getting bigger, Ramen tends to kill those threads with several pages of pro-GW charts, graphs, and articles. There are a lot of conflicting reports, which is why I said it is still up for debate. Gore declared that the debate was over, insinuating that there was clear and direct proof that GW is man made, that proof is subjective, you will get conflicting versions from equally reputable sources on almost any point. Gore is at very best being disingenuous with his followers, and at worst a fame and power seeking d0uchebag who has lied and schemed his way into a position of power and respect on a subject that has been blown up by his own manipulation of facts and scheming, I tend to think he is more along these lines.

I agree with you about Gore. Putting him aside, all of the evidence shows a warming trend. Do you deny that the earth is continuing to warm? Or do you deny that humans are responsible for this warming? Or both?

If the second, then why post a thread suggesting a cooling, or at the very least suggesting that we're not "really" warming?

And if you don't like the graphs then find some credible scientists who have independently collected global temperatures that show a cooling pattern. While you're at it, you might also explain what is "really" causing the warming (assuming you accept that there is current warming), especially considering that temperature change is completely uncorrelated with solar activity over the past 25 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (2/8/2008)
joremari (2/8/2008)
i think you should do a little more research into Al Gore's work, especially if you think cold temps in winter, when the US is turned away from the sun on the world's axis, even remotely disproves the MMGW theory.

Thanks, I have done quite a bit of research into AlGore's "work" such as twisting facts and scientist's opinions to suit the conclusions of his ****** propagandist movie. MMGW is still up for debate imo, but Gore is a joke and so are his disciples.

Mitt would not be happy with you using that kind of language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (2/8/2008)
joremari (2/8/2008)

im sorry, i left off the precipitation. my bad.

just out of curiosity, why are you talking about january temperatures and precipitation from a country in the northern hemisphere when discussing GW? how is that even remotely relevant to the discussion of GW?

I am not going to post an article on how the glaciers are actually getting bigger, Ramen tends to kill those threads with several pages of pro-GW charts, graphs, and articles. There are a lot of conflicting reports, which is why I said it is still up for debate. Gore declared that the debate was over, insinuating that there was clear and direct proof that GW is man made, that proof is subjective, you will get conflicting versions from equally reputable sources on almost any point. Gore is at very best being disingenuous with his followers, and at worst a fame and power seeking d0uchebag who has lied and schemed his way into a position of power and respect on a subject that has been blown up by his own manipulation of facts and scheming, I tend to think he is more along these lines.

It's important to engage in debate in which opposing views are possible.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4615172.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global warming or not who can argue against being cleaner and trying to find another source of fuel so we are not so dependent on oil? Why would people argue back and foruth over crap when common sense would dictate that not polluting so much and finding a cleaner source of fuel would be a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (2/8/2008)
I'm not saying the weather will not fluctuate, that's what weather does. This does (imo) prove once again what a complete propaganda flinging tool AlGore is for saying the debate is over regarding Global Warming.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

UNITED STATES

Climate Summary

January 2008

The average temperature in January 2008 was 30.5 F. This was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 49th coolest January in 114 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

2.21 inches of precipitation fell in January. This was -0.01 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 65th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is -0.01 inches per decade.

It's funny, you call everything Gore says as propaganda. Yet, this post is complete and utter propaganda.

The US is 3.54 million square miles.

The Earth is 196.9 million square miles.

You used the average temperature over one month on 1.798% of the planet to "prove" there is still a debate. You used average temperature of less than 2% of the planet over the course of 1/12th of a year to determine that the entire planet is not warming over the past several decades. Wow, just wow!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you guys just like arguing about this crap. Even if Global warming was a complete myth can you honestly say living cleaner and less polluting lives would be a bad thing? What possibly could be lost if we tried to find new energy sources and cleaned up the planet a bit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snake (2/8/2008)
No matter what you state abt temps ramen, its only 1 degree in 150 years.:P:D:w00t:1 degree after the end of a mini ice age:P:w00t::hehe:Wow, lets all get our marsh mellows out cause were gonna be burning them soon. 1 degree:cool:

Read the graph. It's one degree (2 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1980.

And, back to the point of this thread, the direction is still increasing, which debunks your "global cooling" claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ramen (2/8/2008)
snake (2/8/2008)
No matter what you state abt temps ramen, its only 1 degree in 150 years.:P:D:w00t:1 degree after the end of a mini ice age:P:w00t::hehe:Wow, lets all get our marsh mellows out cause were gonna be burning them soon. 1 degree:cool:

Read the graph. It's one degree (2 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1980.

And, back to the point of this thread, the direction is still increasing, which debunks your "global cooling" claim.

You have no idea what you are talking about. It was freezing today in Alaska, in January no less. I just don't see how there can be global warming with such cold temps in Alaska.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snake (2/8/2008)
swanlee (2/8/2008)
Global warming or not who can argue against being cleaner and trying to find another source of fuel so we are not so dependent on oil? Why would people argue back and foruth over crap when common sense would dictate that not polluting so much and finding a cleaner source of fuel would be a good thing.
Swanee, lets get something straight here. Nobodies wants pollution, dirty water, foul air. These should be the goals of the scientist and environmental groups. Unfortunately its not. They have gone WAY over board and are trying to panic the world with the skys falling threats.

I have said, as most everyone I've heard agree to doing something abt pollution, air and water, overfishing and such. Burning fossil fuels brought man out of the dark ages, and at this juncture its our primary source for fuels. Others are on their way. Lets drill here, say adios to the ME and start nuclear plants and other cleaner solutions. But to deamonize the oil companies is shooting the wrong way.

Horse crap, it only takes a small amount of common sense to realize we only have a certain amount of Fossil fuels, and it makes us completely dependent on other countries since we cannot possibly supply ourselves with the amount of oil we use. Being so dependent on the oil from other countries is not good for the environment or our economy. You would have to be a complete utter fool to not see that.

Fossil fuels may have brought us out of the dark ages but it would be stupid for us to just stop progressing and keep us pigeon holed in a supply of fuel that will not last forever and causes pollution. We have better methods now and adopting cleaner more efficient fuel sources should be our goal, not the reliance on old ways.

"These should be the goals of the scientist and environmental groups."

This is also total crap you don't need to be a scientist our in an environmental group to reduce the amount of trash you throw out and car pool.

It's funny how you talk about these groups using fear and scare tactics to try and get us to live cleaner lives, isn't that what your hero GW did to bring us into war? Yeah he used fear and scare tactics.

Your just a freakin tool and your cut and paste campaign on a football message board is one step away from complete obsessive insanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snake (2/8/2008)
swanlee (2/8/2008)
Global warming or not who can argue against being cleaner and trying to find another source of fuel so we are not so dependent on oil? Why would people argue back and foruth over crap when common sense would dictate that not polluting so much and finding a cleaner source of fuel would be a good thing.
Swanee, lets get something straight here. Nobodies wants pollution, dirty water, foul air. These should be the goals of the scientist and environmental groups. Unfortunately its not. They have gone WAY over board and are trying to panic the world with the skys falling threats.

I have said, as most everyone I've heard agree to doing something abt pollution, air and water, overfishing and such. Burning fossil fuels brought man out of the dark ages, and at this juncture its our primary source for fuels. Others are on their way. Lets drill here, say adios to the ME and start nuclear plants and other cleaner solutions. But to deamonize the oil companies is shooting the wrong way.

what possible incentive do oil companies have to pursue alternate energy when 1- oil is a limited resource and will therefore only increase in value in the future, and 2- the US government gives them BILLIONS in subsidies every year to keep gas prices artificially low???

the subsidies make it impossible for smaller companies that are focused on alternate energy to compete. and the scarcity/increasing demand of oil makes other paths unattractive for the big companies that receive the corporate welfare and are the only ones in a position to do anything.

the oil and auto companies absolutely deserve criticism and even demonization. they buy off and corrupt our politicians and have so skewed the "fair playing field" that buying oil from middle-east dictators who support terror seems like a REASONABLE way to run our economy.

you ever heard of the Great American Streetcar Scandal? you ever wonder why oil production ALWAYS "hits a lull" and prices go up right around memorial day when everyone goes on roadtrips?

These POS companies care about NOTHING but profit, and they will destroy the earth to get it, if you let them.

these companies will spend $1 million saving wildlife affected by one of their own oil-spills, and then spend $15 million advertising that fact and boasting about how environmentally concious they are and what a great steward of the earth they are. it's a joke for the gullible.

so, i'm sorry- you CANNOT be sincere about caring for the environment or wanting to curb pollution if you defend the oil companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how can it be, as some claim, that we are in either a cooling period or a period of stagnant temperatures NOW and that carbon dioxide levels are the highest now that they have ever been, but CO2 levels only rise b/c of increased temperature?

so it's either:

A. Rising temperatures DO NOT LEAD to rising CO2 levels

or

B. We are in a warming period, not a cooling period.

Which one is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

joremari (2/8/2008)
how can it be, as some claim, that we are in either a cooling period or a period of stagnant temperatures NOW and that carbon dioxide levels are the highest now that they have ever been, but CO2 levels only rise b/c of increased temperature?

so it's either:

A. Rising temperatures DO NOT LEAD to rising CO2 levels

or

B. We are in a warming period, not a cooling period.

Which one is it?

Don't expect a consistent position. Instead, expect three or four cut/paste articles from Drudge in response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...