2008 The Year Man-Made Global Warming Was Disproved

[Preussen]

I agree that there is a small warming trend just going by the numbers. But what about the historical context?

What about the historical context? This is not about thousands of years and the Earth in general, this is about mankind now and in the next dozens or hundreds if years. In my opinion, the only important questions are 1.) Will the temperatures continue to rise? If yes 2.) will that have a significant negative impact on mankind? And 3.) is there anything we can do to change it?
As soon as we can prove that for at least one of these questions the answer is "No" this stops to be a (political) issue. But until we have that proof we should do our utmost to find out.
On the other hand, I do agree that at the moment we should not take any drastic measures before we can be sure that there is at least a significant chance that these measures will have a noticeable positive impact.

 

[Loren78]

Maurice Strong, aka as the "godfather of the international environmental movement" and the "architect of the Kyoto Protocol"

Maruce Strong aka Captain Planet....

See...You Brainwash the young so they become more susceptible to the long term Greening Agenda which has been planned for over 100 years....

And Fuck AL Gore....

 

[fletchisrhsm]

There is NO difference in Bush/Obama...Republican/Democrat...right/left...well, on the surface there is, but that is just to keep us all divided and in-fighting... this allows them to continue their agenda more easily & rapidly. Imagine someone with two puppets...one on their left hand and one on their right hand...pretend those puppets are arguing and such...are they really...NO! The man in the middle is controlling it all! This is our government...the man in the middle!

This short 1:56 bit sums this up....

<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/m8wgIPZj0HA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

 

[custom2006]

This short 1:56 bit sums this up....



<OBJECT height=344 width=425>
&nbsp
&nbsp
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/m8wgIPZj0HA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></OBJECT>

Fletch....WOW, I have NEVER seen that video...kind of weird watching it...since it perfectly sums up what I said! ...Funny thing, it is a comedian!!!
Yet, trying to get so many "intelligent" people to wake up and I mean wake the F**K up and look around....can they not see what's happening?
Incremintalism.....it works! (put a frog in cool water on the stove....slowly increase the heat....it will not jump out....this describes the average American precisely)

 

[AdamSelene]

Interesting graph Adam. I assume it is created from ice core sampling. Can you provide a link? Thanks

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html

 

[pubguy]

What about the historical context? This is not about thousands of years and the Earth in general, this is about mankind now and in the next dozens or hundreds if years. In my opinion, the only important questions are 1.) Will the temperatures continue to rise? If yes 2.) will that have a significant negative impact on mankind? And 3.) is there anything we can do to change it?
As soon as we can prove that for at least one of these questions the answer is "No" this stops to be a (political) issue. But until we have that proof we should do our utmost to find out.
On the other hand, I do agree that at the moment we should not take any drastic measures before we can be sure that there is at least a significant chance that these measures will have a noticeable positive impact.

Good points, but the historical context helps us reach the conclusions we seek. IMHO

 

[pubguy]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html

Thanks.

 

[Preussen]

Good points, but the historical context helps us reach the conclusions we seek. IMHO

Certainly, if applied properly. But contrary to what people like MJ try to make us believe, the fact that the climate has changed in the past is in itself no proof that the recent warming trend is natural and that nothing can (and should) be done about it.

 

[Mistermj]

beep beep

 

[D2bets]

2008 -- the year the idiots turned their theories into disproven facts because Sarah Palin told them so.

 

[Mistermj]

Global warming isn't a 'hoax'

The only possible hoax is if it is man made.

Reason why it is a politically charged debate is because of the policys that may or may not take place.

Well...for one thing Funk...that chart is using bad data...as admitted by NASA. You can't hunt with the big dogs if you can't even stay up to date with your information.

Or didn't the NY Times tell you what to think this week?

 

[Preussen]

MJ - a consensus is when everybody agrees, which is obviously not the case when there's majority holding a certain view and a minority disputing it. That means there is absolutely nothing wrong with me on the one hand saying that a majority of scientists believe in global warming and on the other hand agreeing that there is no consensus.
So your whole nice post, with quotes, bold, large, coloured text and all, is worth exactly nothing. As usual.

Have a nice year 2009, MJ, and I sincerely wish that you, just once in a while, get something right...

 

[festeringZit]

MJ - a consensus is when everybody agrees, which is obviously not the case when there's majority holding a certain view and a minority disputing it. That means there is absolutely nothing wrong with me on the one hand saying that a majority of scientists believe in global warming and on the other hand agreeing that there is no consensus.
So your whole nice post, with quotes, bold, large, coloured text and all, is worth exactly nothing. As usual.

Have a nice year 2009, MJ, and I sincerely wish that you, just once in a while, get something right...

"Have a nice year 2009, MJ, and I sincerely wish that you, just once in a while, get something right..."

Don't you love it how Preussen always ends his posts with some queer
little quip, which usually contains at least one lie if not more.

 

[Preussen]

Zit, after all the nonsense MJ and you always throw at me I believe I'm entitled to a few quips.
Btw, I'm interested to know where I was lying, could you show it to me? Or was your accusation just a typical knee-jerk reaction when you realised that MJ's post does not, as you probably initially thought, score a point for him? ;-)

 

[festeringZit]

Zit, after all the nonsense MJ and you always throw at me I believe I'm entitled to a few quips.
Btw, I'm interested to know where I was lying, could you show it to me? Or was your accusation just a typical knee-jerk reaction when you realised that MJ's post does not, as you probably initially thought, score a point for him? ;-)

Here is the lie:

"MJ, and I sincerely wish that you, just once in a while, get something right..."

Implicit in your comment is the statement that MJ gets nothing right, explicit is the statement that given that he gets nothing right, that
you wish that he would get something right." ---> Total Bullshit.

 

[Preussen]

Here is the lie:

"MJ, and I sincerely wish that you, just once in a while, get something right..."

Implicit in your comment is the statement that MJ gets nothing right, explicit is the statement that given that he gets nothing right, that
you wish that he would get something right." ---> Total Bullshit.

I mean my (what you called) "explicit statement" as I wrote it - I actually do wish MJ that he'd get things right, as this would help him and the forum immensely.

I do admit that my "implicit statement" is a little exaggerated, but it's pretty obvious that it isn't meant literally. And seeing how often MJ is wrong in his argumentations there is definitely a lot of truth in this statement. Sorry, but an implicit obvious exaggeration does not qualify as a lie.
Also, you wrote that my posts "usually" contain one or more lies. This one questionable example is all you could find? Impressive.

 

[Mistermj]

beep beep

 

[Preussen]

It's really amusing to see you call me an idiot and a liar when you obviously don't even know what you are talking about.
Further down there are some definitions of consensus for you. It's true that for a consensus total unanimosity is not always necessary, but according to your argumentation a consensus would always exist except when the differing opinions were split exactly 50:50. If you really believe that in my earlier posts I was claiming that there is a consensus among scientists about global warming then you are clearly beyond help. Sad thing actually...


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/consensus

 

[Mistermj]

Pruessen...you are terribly confused...or you are just here to agitate...I believe it's a little of both.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Preussen
MJ - a consensus is when everybody agrees
hno::nohead:

We can only go by what you post Preussen...apparently you don't always mean what you post...you are the only one that really knows what you mean....which of course makes it terribly hard to communicate with you.

Which I suspect is what you want to achieve....because your arguments on behalf of global warming are just as convoluted.

Have a nice New Year my German friend.

 

[Preussen]

MJ, what is your point?
Yes, I said that a consensus is when everybody agrees, and I still believe that to be true. I accept that there are some English definitions of the term that seem to mean that the agreement does not have to be total (all german definitions I know don't allow any explicit dissent). If that means my statement was not 100% correct then so be it. But there is not one definition that allows for a vocal minority of hundreds of persons. So all you do is playing semantic games without being able to prove your point (that I claimed there is a consensus among scientists).

My guess is that you misunderstood something. It is true that some people speak of a "consensus opinion", but they almost always mean the UN reports, where the scientists taking part in that study did indeed reach a consensus. But that does, of course, not mean there is a consensus among all scientists, and I most certainly did not claim this.

As to my "arguments on behalf of global warming", can you please explain what you mean by this? I have stated repeatedly that I'm not convinced that global warming is real and man-made, I only think that at the current point we would be foolish to off-handedly dismiss the theory. MJ, don't you think attacking arguments I never made is a little bit foolish? ;-)
Why don't you, for a change, tell me what you think about my post #61? If you can show that my logic is wrong there then you may actually score a point. I'd also be interested in the correct temperature stats for the past years, seeing that you are not prepared to accept the graph Funk posted.
Or do you prefer to play mindless games in order to avoid a substantial discussion?