Glad someone is setting the record straight
...
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,216
Likes: 0
From: Ottawa
Are we really going to debate this again.
Here's how it usually goes:
Nightshade: Global warming is bullshit!
Epoch: some big explanation citing scientists and bla bla bla
Nightshade: fuck you
Epoch: more arguments and bla bla
Nightshade: no you're wrong
dubcac: I've known it was fake since I was born
Epoch: more arguments
Nightshade: fuck you
dubcac: kekekekekeke i have a short dick
...
and so on
Here's how it usually goes:
Nightshade: Global warming is bullshit!
Epoch: some big explanation citing scientists and bla bla bla
Nightshade: fuck you
Epoch: more arguments and bla bla
Nightshade: no you're wrong
dubcac: I've known it was fake since I was born
Epoch: more arguments
Nightshade: fuck you
dubcac: kekekekekeke i have a short dick
...
and so on
I
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 56,525
Likes: 0
From: Westside til I die
You forgot the part where I call you gay for being Canadian
__________________
2015 Ford Mustang GT Fastback - Ingot Silver - 6M - Performance Package - Gibson Catback, JLT CAI, FR 47lb injectors, BAMA E85 tune, Eibach Sportline, BMR wheel hop kit, UPR oil separator, Steeda shifter bushing/bracket
Team B.O.B.® - Ballaz on a Budget
2015 Ford Mustang GT Fastback - Ingot Silver - 6M - Performance Package - Gibson Catback, JLT CAI, FR 47lb injectors, BAMA E85 tune, Eibach Sportline, BMR wheel hop kit, UPR oil separator, Steeda shifter bushing/bracket
Team B.O.B.® - Ballaz on a Budget
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 13,574
Likes: 0
From: cali, bay area
Are we really going to debate this again.
Here's how it usually goes:
Nightshade: Global warming is bullshit!
Epoch: some big explanation citing scientists and bla bla bla
Nightshade: fuck you
Epoch: more arguments and bla bla
Nightshade: no you're wrong
dubcac: I've known it was fake since I was born
Epoch: more arguments
Nightshade: fuck you
dubcac: kekekekekeke i have a short dick
...
and so on
Here's how it usually goes:
Nightshade: Global warming is bullshit!
Epoch: some big explanation citing scientists and bla bla bla
Nightshade: fuck you
Epoch: more arguments and bla bla
Nightshade: no you're wrong
dubcac: I've known it was fake since I was born
Epoch: more arguments
Nightshade: fuck you
dubcac: kekekekekeke i have a short dick
...
and so on
Thread Starter
un-Touch'd krew
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 51,774
Likes: 1
From: My own level of hell
What I'm saying is this:
1) On a physics level, we know that A (increased percentages of CO2, Methane, other specific gases in an airlike mixture) can cause B (Increased specific heat levels of the gas mixture).
2) On a laboratory level, in samples of air that air studied and subjected to A, we get B.
3) In global computer simulations, when we increase A, we see a projected increase in B.
4) Addressing the issue of pollution through overconsumption and pisspoor efficiency solves many more things than just anthro climate change, and these only serve to benefit us as a whole. It's just that anthro climate change gets hanged on by too many people for the wrong reasons when it's one facet in a much larger problem. So, if we find ways to reduce A, then then we reduce B, and we consequently reduce the risk of a whole lot of problems.
1) On a physics level, we know that A (increased percentages of CO2, Methane, other specific gases in an airlike mixture) can cause B (Increased specific heat levels of the gas mixture).
2) On a laboratory level, in samples of air that air studied and subjected to A, we get B.
3) In global computer simulations, when we increase A, we see a projected increase in B.
4) Addressing the issue of pollution through overconsumption and pisspoor efficiency solves many more things than just anthro climate change, and these only serve to benefit us as a whole. It's just that anthro climate change gets hanged on by too many people for the wrong reasons when it's one facet in a much larger problem. So, if we find ways to reduce A, then then we reduce B, and we consequently reduce the risk of a whole lot of problems.
As for computer simulations...they are nothing more than educated guesses and just like anything else the designer can and does tend to affect the outcome to suit his argument. this does not make it good science or even remotley accurate but if you can get one other person from your community to agree and sound the alarm it doesn't take much to get more to follow suit. Ater it has been preached for so long people overlook testing procedure and simply begin with the wrong conclusion and move forward from there in all tests etc.
I have seen it first hand in environmental science dealing with geomorphology and hydrology since alll they have to go on is 100 year flows and beyond that point it is mostly (not always) hearsay and passed on accountings. If it is taken as truth it can and does skew the final datum.
__________________
"I'll keep my money, guns and freedom. You can keep the "Change."
"I'll keep my money, guns and freedom. You can keep the "Change."
scrotal surge
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,460
Likes: 0
From: Cali
Are we really going to debate this again.
Here's how it usually goes:
Nightshade: Global warming is bullshit!
Epoch: some big explanation citing scientists and bla bla bla
Nightshade: fuck you
Epoch: more arguments and bla bla
Nightshade: no you're wrong
dubcac: I've known it was fake since I was born
Epoch: more arguments
Nightshade: fuck you
dubcac: kekekekekeke i have a short dick
...
and so on
Here's how it usually goes:
Nightshade: Global warming is bullshit!
Epoch: some big explanation citing scientists and bla bla bla
Nightshade: fuck you
Epoch: more arguments and bla bla
Nightshade: no you're wrong
dubcac: I've known it was fake since I was born
Epoch: more arguments
Nightshade: fuck you
dubcac: kekekekekeke i have a short dick
...
and so on
:rofl::rofl:
So OG it hurts.
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 6,592
Likes: 0
From: VA
When I was in the 5th grade, I heard the world was freezing and we could be facing another ice age.
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 21,573
Likes: 0
as i've said a million times before, i'm all for reducing pollution and increasing efficiency, but that doesn't make it ok to ignore facts and force skewed agendas down people's throats. especially at the risk ruining economies and causing widespread famine.
and honestly, i'm much more concerned about 2008 ending up cooler, ocean temps dropping significantly, nasa trying to forge those numbers, and the lack of sunspot activity in recent years. if we've entered a cooling period... ugh. then there will be problems.
and honestly, i'm much more concerned about 2008 ending up cooler, ocean temps dropping significantly, nasa trying to forge those numbers, and the lack of sunspot activity in recent years. if we've entered a cooling period... ugh. then there will be problems.
CHRISTMASTIME IN IRAQ
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,413
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
Not saying pollution isn't a problem but laboratory results don't take into account plants, algae and nature in general because a laboratory is specifically designed to eliminate such variables. These variables need to be accounted for when making these kinds of tests.
As for computer simulations...they are nothing more than educated guesses and just like anything else the designer can and does tend to affect the outcome to suit his argument. this does not make it good science or even remotley accurate but if you can get one other person from your community to agree and sound the alarm it doesn't take much to get more to follow suit. Ater it has been preached for so long people overlook testing procedure and simply begin with the wrong conclusion and move forward from there in all tests etc.
I have seen it first hand in environmental science dealing with geomorphology and hydrology since alll they have to go on is 100 year flows and beyond that point it is mostly (not always) hearsay and passed on accountings. If it is taken as truth it can and does skew the final datum.
As for computer simulations...they are nothing more than educated guesses and just like anything else the designer can and does tend to affect the outcome to suit his argument. this does not make it good science or even remotley accurate but if you can get one other person from your community to agree and sound the alarm it doesn't take much to get more to follow suit. Ater it has been preached for so long people overlook testing procedure and simply begin with the wrong conclusion and move forward from there in all tests etc.
I have seen it first hand in environmental science dealing with geomorphology and hydrology since alll they have to go on is 100 year flows and beyond that point it is mostly (not always) hearsay and passed on accountings. If it is taken as truth it can and does skew the final datum.
When it comes to climate models, these are peer reviewed models. You can go here and learn more about how these models are built and their critiques by IPCC and other scientists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model
The fact is that these are scientific practices. That means at no point are these models safe from logical critique, and are often scrutinized by even the people that make them. There are current flaws, errors, and shortcomings, and they're constantly being reviewed and revised. Science isn't to proclaim an answer as infallible truth, but to review your evidence and make logical refinements until you find the least wrong solution.
And we have a lot more information to work on than hydrology and 100 year flows. We can track atmospheric gas percentages, biological factors, hell, the whole gamut of what we know about the world can be used to explore the situation. We just can't look at one factor and determine it to be a foregone conclusion.
CHRISTMASTIME IN IRAQ
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,413
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
as i've said a million times before, i'm all for reducing pollution and increasing efficiency, but that doesn't make it ok to ignore facts and force skewed agendas down people's throats. especially at the risk ruining economies and causing widespread famine.
and honestly, i'm much more concerned about 2008 ending up cooler, ocean temps dropping significantly, nasa trying to forge those numbers, and the lack of sunspot activity in recent years. if we've entered a cooling period... ugh. then there will be problems.
and honestly, i'm much more concerned about 2008 ending up cooler, ocean temps dropping significantly, nasa trying to forge those numbers, and the lack of sunspot activity in recent years. if we've entered a cooling period... ugh. then there will be problems.
It will be interesting to see what information we can gain from the climate of 2008, but what's this about it being cooler? And NASA forging numbers?