global temperature is increasing so much, I need an air conditioner this year! - by Thief13x
Martin Karne on 2/3/2007 at 02:34
Since 2001 me and my electronics equipment can't stand the heat, I must get one air conditioner as well.
Swiss Mercenary on 2/3/2007 at 02:47
Quote Posted by Renzatic
On the flipside of that, you have people screaming GLOBAL WARMING FUCK FUCK FUCK everytime an unseasonably warm day rears it's much welcomed head.
I scream GLOBAL WARMING FUCK FUCK FUCK every time Vancouver gets snow.
Which we got just today. Snow. In fucking MARCH. In VANCOUVER.
Thief13x on 2/3/2007 at 02:55
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
the average peak temperatures, as well as the delta in temperatures for the affected areas covered in the story, are increasing by a greater amount.
based on what? data collected in the 1850's with thermometers hanging over the grass or near rocks, near a lake maybe? or did it matter to anyone back then, and these thermometers were supposedly accurate down to the .1 degree? Oh right, no it's only the recent couple decades that have shown such an alarming trend, a trend we are concerned about contrasing with 4.5 billion year 99% of which we have no record of temperature...or was it since the last ice age, that was only 4 million years ago....umm, how many more ducks are we lookin at? where are yours?
Briareos H on 2/3/2007 at 03:04
Quote Posted by Thief13x
4.5 billion year 99% of which we have no record of temperature
what
Renzatic on 2/3/2007 at 03:15
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
Which we got just today. Snow. In fucking MARCH. In VANCOUVER.
It snows rarely here in Georgia. So rarely in fact that a simple dusting freaks everyone out and causes us to shut down schools and business for the day. But there was one time in my life I've seen the sky dump 4 feet of snow on us, and it happened and the very end of very a nice warm spell at the very end of March.
Rug Burn Junky on 2/3/2007 at 03:58
Quote Posted by Thief13x
based on what? data collected in the 1850's with thermometers hanging over the grass or near rocks, near a lake maybe? or did it matter to anyone back then, and these thermometers were supposedly accurate down to the .1 degree? Oh right, no it's only the recent couple decades that have shown such an alarming trend, a trend we are concerned about contrasing with 4.5 billion year 99% of which we have no record of temperature...or was it since the last ice age, that was only 4 million years ago....umm, how many more ducks are we lookin at? where are yours?
All I'm saying is that the two metrics you're pointing to are pretty much fucking worthless for the point you're trying to make in this particular instance, and while not dispositive, actually support the overall point of global warming and work against you. Which is kind of a WTF? argument to make. ("Hey you guys! Temps are going up, they're just not going up THAT FAST! Global warming is a crock of shit! HA HAHA!")
As a counterexample, I just threw out two other measurements off of the top of my head that would be more useful and more relevant than yours for this story. And they quite plainly are.
You're the one trying to prove a fucked up point, and you seemingly don't mind making one that's full of holes and using evidence that points in the other direction to make your point.
I ain't trying to prove shit, I'm pretty happy going along with the rational 99% of the scientific community who can look at the totality of the evidence and say "Yeah, there's definitely SOMETHING fucked up going on here. Even if we don't know all of the causes and effects yet, we're starting to get a handle on it."
Not my problem if you'd rather stick your head up your ass.
Dia on 2/3/2007 at 03:59
Here in the Midwest it seemed like every other person was screaming Global Warming! when we had barely any snow during the past few winters (most of those doing the bitching had just bought new snowmobiles). This winter we had several weeks of below zero temps as well as a couple feet of snow.
Haven't heard a word from those that were doing all the yelling last winter.
Ko0K on 2/3/2007 at 05:15
(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6410305.stm) UN Secretary General on Global Climate Change
That's pretty serious, although something tells me that the oil companies already figured out a way to squirm out of this one.
mopgoblin on 2/3/2007 at 05:40
Quote Posted by Thief13x
based on what?
Where direct measurements are unavailable or unreliable, the obvious sources of data are the compositions of tree rings, ice cores, sedimentary rocks, and the like. It's quite likely that there are other sources I'm not aware of. I'd suggest asking a geologist rather than acting like a moron on the internet.
Rivux on 2/3/2007 at 08:30
Meh, I'll give this one a shot.
Quote Posted by Paz
I would like to know the theoretical basis for humanity's impact on the global environment being some sort of conspiracy. The idea intrigues me.
Anyone who subscribes to this view, please outline the following:
~ Who or what is at the head of this conspiracy - the illuminati/aliens/communists/other?
~ What is to be gained from this conspiracy?
~ And by which parties/people/organisations?
~ By what means has this conspiracy been perpetrated?
~ How have large chunks of the worldwide scientific community been brought "on side" for this?
~ Anything else relevant you'd like to throw in.
Let me just preface this by saying I don't believe in any conspiracy, so my answers are only pertaining to "conspirators" as just "alarmists/staunch advicates", and I just don't feel that either side is completely right.
1. Who or what is at the head of this conspiracy - the illuminati/aliens/communists/other?
Mostly, it's just people that want their names out there; Al Gore being a prominent one. Some others are completely insane and are the types that actually hate people with a car larger than a Honda Civic.
2. What is to be gained from this conspiracy?
Well, it's closely tied to my first answer. The biggest thing to gain from this, aside from additional grant money, is fame/notoriety whatever the hell you want to call it. Also, if you can convince a large number of people to fear something and then say you can solve it, you will have a lot of power, not to mention the fact that people will think your opinion matters.
3. And by which parties/people/organisations?
Mostly it's anyone who can't stand being nobody or not being taken seriously. Think of someone who wants to feel important. *cough*manbearpig*cough* Every research scientist wants their name on something important no matter how altruistic they present themselves.
4. By what means has this conspiracy been perpetrated?
Mostly, to use that word again, it's done by making it a huge topic during a period of time when period of time people are starting to decide who to elect (at least here in America, sorry, I'm not up to date with elections of the rest of the world) and few of the people who are very vocal about it have actually done any of the analysis of the data, let alone gathering the data, and simply accept the opinions of the people going SHIT? SHIT! WE ARE KILLING EVERYTHING!
5. How have large chunks of the worldwide scientific community been brought "on side" for this?
Most of it is just looking at data other people have gathered and then accepting what others have stated. There are different forms of endorsement. i.e. completely agree, agree with major points, agree with the data, do not disagree, etc. So someone can certainly claim that most people don't disagree with the reports or even that they agree with them and be telling the truth as long as they flex their definitions a bit.
So to sum things up, few alarmists know what they are talking about, and most naysayers sound like pricks.
Ridicule away!
