5 Million Years Of Climate Change [Pic]

Submitted by: 5cats 4 years ago in Science

In one simple graph! Any questions?
There are 113 comments:
Male 40,291
[quote]Just post any contradictory data to global warming.[/quote]
Um, @Canoas? Did you happen to LOOK AT the origional post? It was warmer before humans even existed! So it is factually possible for the Earth to "Globally Warm" without human "help". Ok? You get it? Good.

Not dead yet @davymid! Lolz!

Nicely said @OldOllie! Those 3 points are spot-on! The ONE thing which could provide power without CO2 is Nuclear. Not hydro-, not wind- not solar-.
Well, "Tidal power" would be good, without CO2, but #1 only close to a sea coast. #2 not every coastal area could be used and #3 it`s still "intemittant" and requires fossile fueled back-up!

Just like wind and solar, every GigW of it requires a GigW of FF power too! Explain the logic behind THAT @davymid?
0
Reply
Male 12,138
OK, thanks Ollie for the honest answer and taking the time to post back. Like I said, no ambush here on my part.

We`ll take the "hide the decline" discussion on some future thread (this one`s dead), but I just wanted to make sure I wasn`t discussing science with some illiterate moonbat (for example, denying the scientific fact of Evolution). Just wanted to understand what I`m debating with.

See you on the next debate fella, and I`ll listen to what you have to say.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]But seriously, I`d like to ask, not loaded: Do you believe in evolution but not AGW? No ambush, I swear. [/quote]
In short, yes. Oh, I`m sure human activity contributes somewhat to global warming, but not nearly as much, say, as walking on a treadmill contributes to heating my house.

To buy into the entire global warming orthodoxy, All of this must be true.

1) The earth is warming.
Perhaps, but the evidence is inconclusive, and we know for a fact that much of it has been completely fabricated. (Can you think of ANY context in which "hide the decline" can mean ANYTHING except "falsify the data?")

2) It`s being caused by human activity.
The evidence here is even weaker. If you plot temperature and CO2 concentrations, it appears that CO2 levels FOLLOW temperature, not the other way around. This has been true for eons. Therefore, there is no causal relationship.

(cont.)
0
Reply
Male 15,832
3) It is actually possible to stop or even reduce global warming by driving hybrid cars, switching to CFL light bulbs, and burning our food supply.
This is where the global warming scam really falls apart. The prescriptions to fight global warming would do FAR more damage to the environment and cause FAR MORE human suffering than simply adapting to a warmer climate. Some estimates have put the cost of global warming mitigation at $100 TRILLION per degree Celsius.

And yet the one thing that would do 10 times more to reduce CO2 emissions than all the other remedies put together is reviles and shunned. I`m speaking, of course, of nuclear power. That should tell you all you need to know right there. Global warming isn`t about saving the earth. It`s about bossing people around and taking their stuff, i.e., liberalism.
0
Reply
Male 427
@OldOllie
Provide proof instead of retarded claims. Anyone can make those claims, and lots of idiots like you actually do, but no one can prove it. Why? Because they`re not true.

Just post any contradictory data to global warming. Just do it. You could finish this argument in a heartbeat just by posting such information, but you haven`t. And I ask the same question as before, why haven`t you? The answer is quite simply really, it`s because no such data exists. Just look at 5cats for a second, he was so happy that someone finally found proof against global warming.. only to find out he`s an idiot who can`t even read a simple graphic.
Again, good luck finding it, I`m waiting for the laughs.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Ollie, I`m Irish, I`m pissed off (not because of this) and I`m a bit drunk. So man up. No, seriously, in all honesty, what`s your view on creationism and evolution?

I ask this out of respect because you seem like a very intelligent guy and no loaded question here (unlike what you did to me a while back you bastard lol".

But seriously, I`d like to ask, not loaded: Do you believe in evolution but not AGW? No ambush, I swear.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]I quit. There`s no use arguing with idiots.[/quote]
Aw, you`re no fun. I actually enjoy arguing with idiots. I was having a great time arguing with you.

I have a suggestion for you. You might also want to look into "creation science." It has a lot in common with "climate science." As a matter of fact, they pursue their "science" in EXACTLY the same manner:

1) Start with your conclusion.

2) Gather only data that supports your preconceived conclusion.

3) Ignore data that contradicts your preconceived conclusion.

4) If someone presents contradictory data, attack them personally for being possessed by Satan/Big Oil, and accuse them of having evil motives.

5) Whatever you do, do NOT engage them on the merits of their arguments, or you`ll be tempted by the tree of knowledge and damned to hell/real science.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
But yeah, it`s all a global conspiracy. Can`t trust them scientists. They`re all just money-grubbing grant-chasers, anyone who speaks up against the establishment is ostracised etc etc.

Heard that one before. It`s exactly what the evolution-denying religious moonbat creationists (like Crakrjak for example) have said about the demonstrably scientific f*cking fact of a thing called Evolution. Anyone who espoused Intelligent Design (Creationism in a cheap tuxedo) was ostracised by the scientific community etc etc etc, Ben Stein even made a movie about it. Look it up, it`s a riot.

Look, stop this bullsh*t of "raise the controversy!" There is no such controversy. Human contribution to climate change (at a significant rate) is a fact, Evolution is a fact, etc.

Get the f*ck over it.

0
Reply
Male 12,138
Save your breath, Canoas. You are indeed arguing with idiots. Scientifically illiterate ones at that, when it comes to the likes of 5Cats and Crakrjak.

Also, 5Cats, I know of not one scientist who claims that (quote) "the Earth is warming up, entirely due to humans". That would be a ridiculous claim to make. Almost as ridiculous as the counter-claim that humans have absolutely zero to do with it. The recent RATE (note keyword "rate") of warming is unprecedented in the geological record as best we can tell.

Let`s have a discussion about how much human activity affects global climate, but let`s not pretend it doesn`t.

But whatever. Multiple sources herein suggest that never mind 87%, more like 97-98% of professional climatoligists accept AGW: http://en.wi
Male 40,291
So the Earth is warming up, entirely due to humans, and we CANNOT measure this because it`s cold at the poles?

That`s your arguement? I prefer to be an idiot, thank you.
0
Reply
Male 427
I quit. There`s no use arguing with idiots. It doesn`t matter what I say, your opinion will never change. Even when I provide proof you just ignore it. Even WHEN you provide proof you ignore it.
You posted this article, right? The moment I explained how the article was proving global warming you instantly dismissed it. Why? If you claimed it was true before I said anything why did your opinion change?
I know why, because you`re an idiot.
0
Reply
Male 40,291
@Canoas: So the polar ice is keeping the Earth cool?

Lord, that`s the stupidest thing I`ve ever heard. That wins the IAB All-Time Dumbness Award!

If what you say were true? All the polar ice would be melting at an ever increasing rate, but they`re not. ONE Greenland glacier started melting & moving very fast, but it also happened in the 70`s too.

The Earth gets warmer, the Earth gets cooler, humans have no say in the matter.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]That`s not how science works, no one cares what you believe in as long as it doesn`t affect your job. The beauty of science is that it`s not subjective.[/quote]
Oh, I see your problem. You have obviously mistaken global warmism for science.
0
Reply
Male 427
"Only 87%? I`m truly surprised it`s that low considering that anyone who doesn`t profess faith in global warming cannot even get hired as a climate scientist."
That`s not how science works, no one cares what you believe in as long as it doesn`t affect your job. The beauty of science is that it`s not subjective.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Actually, recent inquiries have shown that 87% of the scientific body directly investing global warming or in directly related areas support the global warming theory.[/quote]
Only 87%? I`m truly surprised it`s that low considering that anyone who doesn`t profess faith in global warming cannot even get hired as a climate scientist.
0
Reply
Male 427
"All these things you ignore, perhaps taking a "little look-see" at them would improve your IQ"
Yes, because the greenland ice sheet isn`t melting faster and faster at all, everyone single person who bothered to take a look at it was just high on acids! And the ward hunt ice shelf didn`t split either, every single image was clearly photoshopped!
Hey everyone, there`s a scientific illiterate idiot on the internet that`s saying everything is OK! There`s no climate change at all! The amazon tropical forest is not receding, the ice in mountains accross the globe is not melting, the rivers are not drying up, the floods are not getting more frequent and the sea level is not rising!

What? You can watch all this happening with your own eyes? No.. that can`t be true, you must be on acid as well! Everything is OK man, you just need to stop doing drugs!
0
Reply
Male 427
"@Canoas: But it DOESN`T make sense! And it uses FAKE data to get it`s "results"! And LOTS of scientists have said it`s "junk-science". AND it isn`t happening! All these things you ignore, perhaps taking a "little look-see" at them would improve your IQ..."

lol.. it doesn`t make sense? Why? Because of the graphic you posted here? I already showed you how wrong you are, if anything this data supports climate change. Maybe you should study a bit, you know, stop being scientific illiterate?

"CO2 continues to rise, (it`s true) but the temperature has leveled off,"
Seriously? Are you this stupid? See? You don`t even understand the climate change theory. And I`m talking about the most basic principles in it. Temperature will not rise as long as there`s ice to melt, it`s a basic feedback system. If there`s any tendency for the temperature to rise the massive ice blocks in the Arctic will melt faster which in turn lowers
0
Reply
Male 40,291
Imagine that! "AGW True Believers" who cherry-pick their beliefs! Just like the theory demands!

CO2 continues to rise, (it`s true) but the temperature has leveled off, even dropped a bit. Which is the opposite of your theory. AGW is as valid as the Piltdown Man...
0
Reply
Male 40,291
[quote]You are pointing out the handful of results that have been shown to be false,[/quote]
@Musuko42: Nooo, he`s pointing out that the data which FORMED the theory is FAKE (and false too). He also points out that it was NOT "peer reviewed" ever, and was hidden from peers for years. When it was released? It was instantly seen to be crap. You address none of these issues, yet claim to "be right"?

[quote]for the global warming theory to go unnoticed by every single other scientist it needs to make sense physically,[/quote]
@Canoas: But it DOESN`T make sense! And it uses FAKE data to get it`s "results"! And LOTS of scientists have said it`s "junk-science". AND it isn`t happening! All these things you ignore, perhaps taking a "little look-see" at them would improve your IQ...
0
Reply
Male 683
"They changed the name to climate change because there`s no actual warming, the ice in the polar regions just melts, balancing the temperature. Until there is ice left no actual warming will occur, but the climate will change nonetheless. "

This is the stupidest thing I`ve ever heard. Temperatures are warming, and the name was changed to include climatological changes as well... Go attend an AMS conference if you`re interested in the field, you`ll learn something.
0
Reply
Male 427
"
You really are an idiot. There are thousands of scientists who doubt the reality of CAGW. Far more have signed their names to such doubts than have ever signed their names to supporting the myth. Many of them are eminent in relevant fields, including climatology. On the other hand many prominent believers are not scientists, indeed many of the IPCC authors are not scientists at all in any real sense (less qualified than I, with my Earth Sciences degree), most are not published scientists. "

Actually, recent inquiries have shown that 87% of the scientific body directly investing global warming or in directly related areas support the global warming theory.
0
Reply
Male 427
Where your conspiracy fails tremendously is when you claim it only affects a very specific branch of science: global warming. You can`t claim other branches are making stuff up because their discoveries actually work and are put into practise, but then you run into the fact that scientists that aren`t directly working on global warming also understand what global warming is. It`s not a complex field where you need extensive education on it to be able to understand, it`s actually pretty basic as sciences go, so everyone pretty much understands it. So
for the global warming theory to go unnoticed by every single other scientist it needs to make sense physically, if not lots of people would notice such a things goes against the laws of physics. However, even though the theory makes sense the data can still be forged to back-up a false theory, but then you have another problem which is the fact that measuring the effects of global warming is incredibly easy, it can be done by anyone r
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

The whole point of the scientific process is that you don`t have to take one scientist`s word for it: you can attempt to replicate his experiment and observation and see if his results are true or false.

You are pointing out the handful of results that have been shown to be false, and ignoring the many more that have been confirmed time and time again to be true.

CrakrJak, I can use bad reasoning and fraudulent methods to claim that you are a human. My fraud could then be uncovered and my claim of your humanity can be debunked. Others may use proper methods to determine you`re a human. But people like you out there would point at my fraud as evidence that you are not a human. Are they right to do that?

That is the failing of what you are attempting to do.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
They`ve recycled these same tactics and added new ones to maintain the global warming myth, all the while campaigning for more funds for their so called research.

They even attempted to silence any criticism of their work and equated skeptics to nazis. Their internal e-mails being discovered was their first downfall, the acquisition of the undoctored data was the second.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Canoas: "..such a conspiracy is not possible unless every single country and every single scientist in the world is part of it."

Not true, in this case it only took about 14 scientists to cook this fraud up and another 40 or so to jump onto the bandwagon. The rest read their papers and didn`t bother to vet the information presented.

Then several scientists started asking questions, asking for raw data, algorithms and methodology. Their requests went unanswered and stalled for years, they were then told it was "proprietary" and not available for review. After more demands, the warmists allegedly lost the original data and computer programs.

To make a long story short, after a lot of stonewalling and willful omission, the data simply didn`t support the "Hockey Stick" graph. In fact, when the computer program was ran with totally random data, the results were all "Hockey Stick" graphs.
0
Reply
Male 2,384
mabey it exitst, mabey it doesnt but put your face near the tail pipe of a running car and tell me thats not drating up the enviroment
0
Reply
Male 15,832


This is a better analogy to the so-called "scientific community" of global warming. You don`t get in if you don`t already believe, and you can`t stay in if you change your mind. Heretics who deny the one true faith are defrocked, denounced, and excommunicated.

Global warming hucksters hire and promote each other, referee and publish each other`s "research" papers, and review and approve each other`s grant proposals. If you`re not a true believer, you can`t get hired, promoted, published, or funded. And you certainly won`t be polled when they establish their fraudulent "scientific consensus."

As the most glaring example of this, that stupid Nazi kuhnt Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel called for revoking the credentials of any meteorologist who did not kneel at the alter of global warming.

It`s just one big left-handed circle jerk.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Sort of like how your image was a specious argument considering the fact that you can`t compare scientific fact with the existence of God.[/quote]
Neither can you compare the global warming hoax to scientific fact.
0
Reply
Male 4,891

[quote]Then you are wrong, while also using a fallacy! Wow, terrible argument on two counts.[/quote]

randomxmp - Hey dippoo, I wasn`t making an argument for either side. I never stated an opinion, I was asking a question to crakrjak.

[quote]The point is we don`t need to know the motive. The money is there, you cannot deny it, it is a matter of public record.[/quote]

I wasn`t denying anything. I also disagree with your statement that we don`t need to know the motive.

No amount of Google searches will make someone an expert, so it makes sense to listen to the scientists who devote there life to research. UNLESS there is a motive on either side to deceive.

I am not making an argument for or against.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Obama is the Antichrist. Seriously, around 35% of those polled said they believed this. Too, he is a secret Muslim with designs on turning the country over to the UN or Germany. Huge poll numbers support this. And, you know, the whole Kenya thing.

Conspiracy theorists will out. Of course, none will admit they believed human-influenced climate change was a lie in thirty years. They`ll all be on about how they were fighters on the front line trying to vote to reduce carbon emissions. But, hey, whatever. The Earth and its climate don`t care if you believe in man-influenced global warming or not. It`s happening regardless. Deny it all you want. And tell your grandkids you did, too, if you have the drating ball sack.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
FoolsPrussia

Come back when you have actually read the actual CRU emails (climategate 2 emails are actually worse than the original 2009 release, although the Harry_readme.txt file was pretty horrific). Tell me, for a famous example, how "hide the decline" is not scientific misconduct, and how the conspiracy did not corrupt peer-reviewed publication. Not from the propaganda put out in the media by the guilty parties, but from your own reading and your scientific knowledge.

I can guarantee that if you understand the science well enough to have anything relevant to add to a discussion then you will be horrified, and agree with the alarmists (not sceptics) who called for Phil Jones`s removal from the IPCC process and even his resignation.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Canoas

"a conspiracy is not possible unless every single country and every single scientist in the world is part of it."

Hahahahaha

You really are an idiot. There are thousands of scientists who doubt the reality of CAGW. Far more have signed their names to such doubts than have ever signed their names to supporting the myth. Many of them are eminent in relevant fields, including climatology. On the other hand many prominent believers are not scientists, indeed many of the IPCC authors are not scientists at all in any real sense (less qualified than I, with my Earth Sciences degree), most are not published scientists.

Several countries` scientific establishments also doubt it, most have no scientific capacity to judge.

So no, you would not need all scientists or all countries.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
spanerbulb

So you must be pig-ignorant. You are unable to come up with a single argument against anything Crakr said.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
FoolsPrussia

Not debunked - the people who wrote the emails admit they wrote them.

As for the assessment of the content, are you a small child, to believe what grown-ups tell you? Why would you believe nonsense like the "Union of Concerned Scientists" (an organisation that will accept a cat as a member if they receive a valid payment; that is quite literal) in it`s assurances?

Why not read the emails? Then you will see the open discussion of conspiracy.

The fact that the conspiracy continued is hardly surprising. Multiple "independent" investigations supposedly cleared the guilty. None took any evidence apart from the word of those deeply involved, the leader of only one tasked with looking at the science admitted they did not even consider the science. Leaders were compromised either by friendship with those who wrote the worst emails or even by large financial interests in keeping the CAGW myth alive. At least two were run by th
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Patchgrabber, turburglar etc. - all you alarmists,

If you don`t know why the following, if true, is strong evidence that alarmists` models are wrong and we are right to be sceptical, then you do not know enough about the debate to understand it.

http://bit.ly/XThEVC

Note that the data come from NASA, so I am assuming they are reliable unless you can show otherwise. So panic is over. We now have a good explanation for all the strong evidence that the models were wrong in a factor which is absolutely key to the debate, and greatly exaggerate temperature response to CO2.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"The conspiracy is no longer a theory when the conspirators admit that the emails discussing the conspiracy were written by them. At that point it becomes fact."

Are you referring to the bullpoo scandal, "climategate"?

That has been debunked many times over.
0
Reply
Male 1,243
Oh Cracker, you are such an ignorant fool.
0
Reply
Male 427
@CrakrJak
You may not understand this, but unlike you most scientists have standards. Also, such a conspiracy is not possible unless every single country and every single scientist in the world is part of it.

But hey, keep believing all those conspiracies. The moon landing must also be fake, right?
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Turdburglar

"What is the incentive for the other side to have us believe something that isn`t true?"

There is estimated to be about 6000 times the money put into research into CAGW and response to it as is spent on scepticism. That is a pretty conservative estimate, given that the US Federal Government alone has spent over US$100 bn; it would take a million "big oil", Exxon-type US$100k grants to match just that let alone the rest of the world.

The point is we don`t need to know the motive. The money is there, you cannot deny it, it is a matter of public record.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Turdburglar

"I can see why big oil, coal, gas, etc would like us to believe there is no man made warming on a global scale. "

Then you are wrong, while also using a fallacy! Wow, terrible argument on two counts.

Quite the opposite in reality: most of them want us to believe in catastrophic man-made warming. The reasons vary: the western companies are taking huge government subsidies for reducing their own fuel use and for researching "alternative" (i.e. inefficient) energy. Middle-eastern and Russian companies want you to believe so that the west will stop hydraulic fracturing and exploiting their own oil reserves, and keep the price of fuel high. That is why oil companies have spent far more money to spread the scare than to any sceptical organisations.

Almost no-one argues against man-made global warming. The debate is about feedback, and only about feedback, so bringing up belief in man-made warming is a straw-man fallacy.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Prussia

"There are thousands of climate scientists around the world who work for next to nothing in laboratories"

Yet the core of the climate panic is just around 50 people. Without these, the whole debate would be far more open. These are the few who have corrupted science for their own gain. One example, possibly the most influential, is an astronomer who illegally earned US$1.6 million from speaking engagements in just one year.

The conspiracy is no longer a theory when the conspirators admit that the emails discussing the conspiracy were written by them. At that point it becomes fact.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
" It has no bearing on the substance of the argument."

Sort of like how your image was a specious argument considering the fact that you can`t compare scientific fact with the existence of God.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]@OldOllie: What is an "opininion"?[/quote]
It`s called a typo. Get over it. It has no bearing on the substance of the argument.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"Not only that but they get to hob nob with celebrities at green/eco conferences and get paid millions of dollars to write books."

Do you know how much a book advance is? Very rarely is it over $50,000. Unless you`re Dan Brown or J.K. Rowling, you ain`t getting millions of dollars to write books. And what percentage of these scientists hob nob with celebrities? There are thousands of climate scientists around the world who work for next to nothing in laboratories.

Again, you`re attempting to use a conspiracy theory to refute an actual scientific consensus.

The Don Henley lyrics are a nice touch.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
turdburglar: The incentive they get is government funding. Not only that but they get to hob nob with celebrities at green/eco conferences and get paid millions of dollars to write books. Then they get sponsors like Al Gore that jump on board and the whole issue becomes a self-perpetuating fraud.

"Today I made an appearance downtown
I am an expert witness, because I say I am
And I said, `Gentleman, and I use that word loosely
I will testify for you
I`m a gun for hire, I`m a saint, I`m a liar
Because there are no facts, there is no truth
Just a data to be manipulated
I can get any result you like
What`s it worth to ya?
Because there is no wrong, there is no right
And I sleep very well at night
No shame, no solution
No remorse, no retribution
Just people selling T-shirts
Just opportunity to participate in the pathetic little circus
And winning, winning, winning"

Don Henley - Garden of Allah.
0
Reply
Male 58
so you admit there is no god then?
0
Reply
Male 3,445
@OldOllie: What is an "opininion"?
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Science is a test from the deebil! And especially that evolution, global warming and big bang stuff! Deebil, deebil, deebil!
0
Reply
Male 15,832

There, According to PG`s criterion, I just proved God exists.
0
Reply
Male 4,891

Crakrjak -

So it`s a conspiracy? I`m not saying it is or isn`t, so enlighten me please.

I can see why big oil, coal, gas, etc would like us to believe there is no man made warming on a global scale. What is the incentive for the other side to have us believe something that isn`t true?
0
Reply
Male 40,291
[quote]5cats - maybe it`s your computer. you said you couldn`t see the supposedly raciest youtube post earlier today.[/quote]
@turdy: No, the link to an older IAB post had had it`s video removed.

There`s been a few times an image hasn`t shown up at first, but the next time I visit the page? There it is! IAB weirdness...
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

"They keep this scaremongering alive so they get to keep their well paid jobs."

I...what? Do you actually believe scientists are well-paid?

Whut.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"Wake up and smell the coffee you fool. They keep this scaremongering alive so they get to keep their well paid jobs. After all, if there were no problem there would be no funding to study it."

If you`re going to call someone a fool, you`d better back it up with something stronger than a conspiracy theory.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Wake up and smell the coffee you fool. They keep this scaremongering alive so they get to keep their well paid jobs. After all, if there were no problem there would be no funding to study it.[/quote]
Following this logic, we can trust none of the accumulated works of science. This is literally what you are arguing here. Sorry but it doesn`t work that way, and there is always funding for climate science, because we have to keep studying it. It`s not like we can just say "Well, it looks like we`ve learned all there is to know about climate" and call it a day. The peer review process kicks to the curb bad research or falsified data, even if that research happens to be the one that supports your worldview.
0
Reply
Male 4,142
so things keep getting better.
co
0
Reply
Male 5,189
Don`t get sucked into this thread. You`ve been warned.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
cat*
0
Reply
Male 14,331
Hmmm needs a sexy asian car girl....

0
Reply
Male 14,331
0
Reply
Male 17,512
patchgrabber: So you are saying that we should only trust those scientists that get paid to perpetuate this fraud?

That`s like saying we should only believe politicians, about politics, because they get paid to be politicians.

Wake up and smell the coffee you fool. They keep this scaremongering alive so they get to keep their well paid jobs. After all, if there were no problem there would be no funding to study it.
0
Reply
Male 3,060

0
Reply
Male 427
"Everyone should`ve got the hint that `global warming` theory was dead when they changed the name to `climate change`."

They changed the name to climate change because there`s no actual warming, the ice in the polar regions just melts, balancing the temperature. Until there is ice left no actual warming will occur, but the climate will change nonetheless.


It`s funny how scientific illiterate people post studies that they think will prove their point when all it does is support climate change. At least try to understand the graph, will you?
0
Reply
Male 427
@Nageki
In the original article it states that the 0 in temperature variation is our current temperature.

@h2oxy
thanks for finding the sources!


Either way this graph doesn`t disprove anything. If you trace the slope on the last sudden rise, you`ll see that it`s rising 1 C degree every 3350 years. Okay, thats a lot, but according to several other sudies, the temperature has risen 0.8 C degrees in the last 150 years. That`s 18 times higher than it should, according to that graph, and I`m not even taking into account the clear decline of the slope.

So, even though that study proves that natural temperature fluctuations are to be expected, it also proves that the recent temperature increase is not natural. Thanks for that graph 5cats! Too bad it proves the exact opposite of what you were thinking!
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]See? Teh science? It be settled![/quote]
You`re indeed right @5cats, just not the way you think.
0
Reply
Male 40,291
@Richanddead: Nice! Not only has it been hotter, and the CO2 been higher, but We`ve survived it!

Excellent!

@turdy: My "anime intrests" are not NEARLY a sick as your "running bum" gif...

Dollars to donughts bro!

And Shinobu? Donughts are her favorite thing! Aside from human blood of course... and handcuffs...

In all honesty I say: MY anime intrests are actually quite mild... DO NOT make me put up comparisons... I really don`t like that "goru" stuff...

My favorite genre is "Yuri Ecchi" and I`m proud of it!
0
Reply
Male 4,891

5cats - maybe it`s your computer. you said you couldn`t see the supposedly raciest youtube post earlier today. Both work fine for me.

Besides...you know your anime fetish...i mean intrests, are weird as drat.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
@5cats: Why stop at 5 million? Try 600 million plus CO2 levels.


0
Reply
Male 40,291
@turdy: You chicken shiite!
Anyhow, your "gif" was lame and didn`t work.

Stay the course! Darn the torpodes! Someone named "turdburglar" is hardly in a position to call US "weird"....

Oh, NOW it works... goddamitt.

You Know @turdy: this is going to "pop @Gerry1`s balloon" eh?
0
Reply
Male 4,891

ABANDON THREAD!!!




Weird fudgeers
0
Reply
Male 40,291
@CrakrJak: Are you paying attention? I think you need a heavy dose of Anime... STAT!

Name your "genre" and I`ll supply some suggestions :-)
0
Reply
Male 40,291
@OldOllie: WindFarms: Aint no dinosaurs aint never had no windfarms! That`s why they is extincted! (j/k)

@h2oxy:
"Fullmetal Alchemist" yup, couldn`t "get it" either. Nor "Gunsmith Cats" nor "Upotte!" Which is odd because I just LOVE Strike Withces! Too much "fan service" and literally zero plot?

Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann - I like it, but it`s so silly. Haven`t watched but 3-4 of them.

Ooo! "Spice and Wolf"? Now THERE is a series!
"Binbougami ga!" Very funny!
Chu Bra? Cybersix? Btooom?
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Everyone should`ve got the hint that `global warming` theory was dead when they changed the name to `climate change`. But the scaremongering won`t end because these eco-leftists need to scare people into doing what is economically unsound in order to force people to seek the more expensive `green` alternatives.

Bankrupting our economy to be `green` is not worth it.
0
Reply
Male 309
@OldOllie
0
Reply
Male 15,832
That`s all because they didn`t have hybrid cars and compact fluorescent bulbs back then.
0
Reply
Male 309
@5Cats I actually recently started to watch Fullmetal Alchemist, but I can`t get into it. The characters and plot is way to thin and sparsed out. Can`t really get into it yet... maybe a couple more episodes even though it`s looking like it`s just very simplistic writing.

I don`t think I`d really ever be able to get invested in a hentai as a series. I don`t mind if there is sex in the plot, but if it is a key plot device it goes from being a story to being porn with a story, if that makes any sense. Even if the writing is amazing (I`ve heard it can be) I like to keep those two things separate.
0
Reply
Male 40,291
AGW and Anime are both valid topics on this thread!
THUS COMMANDS TEH CAT!

I`ve got several anime I did NOT like too, for various reasons. We`ll steer clear of "hentai" for the moment... lolz!

Ever since I passed 15,000 posts I feel... powerful! Strong! Ok, no different than before. But it`s fun to pretend!
0
Reply
Male 309
SPrinkZ Good for you!
0
Reply
Male 40,291
@h2oxy: Ah, DeathNote! I watched it all, it was good! Snail-paced plot? Check! lolz!
I think I downloaded the "live movie" but haven`t watched it yet.

I cannot reccomend "Bakemonogatari" series enough! Watch in release order: Bake- Nise- Neko- and soon to be out the movie Kisu-!!!
It is really, really amazing how good this series is. How the various parts fit seemlessly together = strong writing!
Novelty, curiosity and STYLE are the watchwords here!
Bake- is amazing.
Nise- is worth watching if only for Shinobu!

And Neko- is like the "icing on the cake" it`s just so good!

Also: Kodomo no Jikan. A story that blends joy and sorrow in equal measure...
0
Reply
Male 2,306
That one chart totally changed my mind about...everything.
0
Reply
Male 309
@5Cats I just might end up reading that (Daily life with a monster girl) I`m fuelled by novelty and curiosities. However I don`t really watch a lot of anime, but when I do the kind of stuff I`ve watched all the way through has been, Deathnote, Desert Punk and Samurai Champloo.

Yah, the picture was kinda big, I`ll avoid that in the future.

@Everyone Canada is #1, this is indisputable fact. Prove me wrong.
0
Reply
Male 40,291
[quote]Oh my God! We better do something![/quote]
I KNOW @MyKunter, I know!

Obviously: Canada (33,000,000 people) should CUT "greenhouse emissions"! While India and China (2,300,000,000 people) should be allowed to pollute as much as they like!
Obviously!
If Canada STOPPED producing "greenhouse gasses"? NO industry, NO heated homes, NO cars, NO NOTHING? It would make less than 1/2 of 1% over the next 100 years.
Srsly.
Reducing it to "1992 levels"? = fart in a hurricain. A BIG one! Level 4! The hurricain I mean... not the fart.
0
Reply
Male 40,291
@h2oxy: lolz! Be nice! And also try to find "proper" sized pictures, eh?
It`s not so bad to post a pic that`s "a little" over 600x400, but that one`s kinda big...

You like Anime? Here`s my list:
#1 Catgirl Nuku Nuku
Bakemonogatari Series
Kodomo no Jikan
Girls und Panzer
Toradora!
Marai Nikki
Strike Witches
Eve no Jikan
& several others

I`m following 5-6 current titles too...
0
Reply
Male 309
@Nageki I doubt it, otherwise all life would have died out millions of years ago, reading the graph that way, we`d all be dead. Keep in mind lower case delta and upper case delta mean different things.
0
Reply
Male 2,436
Oh my God! We better do something!
0
Reply
Male 40,291
"I get the feeling 5Cats is just trying to bait @Canoas..."
@markust: Nope, I had "another target" in mind ;-) But not in that "evil way" eh?
"Misinformed"? Pheh!
I`ve put in LOTS of funny and interesting suggestions lately, and while a couple have come up (which is good!) mostly it`s the "radical stuff" that gets approved.
idk why. Honestly.

@h2oxy: Hooray I`m famous!
For being a pervert...
...HOORAY! :-)

Seen this?
Daily Life With A Monster Girl Adult content! But nothing terrible.
"Japanese Manga - Read from right to left" eh?
0
Reply
Male 309
@markust123 @Canoas You`re both dummy dum dum face poopy heads.
0
Reply
Male 110
Doesn`t delta mean change in the variable after delta? If that is the case, this graph doesn`t really say what you think it says. It`s measuring the change in temp from measurement to measurement, not the temp. Anyway, pick me apart if you wish, but please, think about what I said first. (And remember this is all contingent on if I am correct in my first assumption.)
0
Reply
Male 309
@5Cats Of course I have, everyone who lurks this site know who you are, and everyone who know you knows you want the plot of this show to happen to you...

...except with cat girls.

Lol, no thank you. No kitty treats for me, I am a dog and a scholar...

0
Reply
Male 4,847
5Cats, "Holy Cow! I pulled it off an "opinion blog" and didn`t bother to find the source. Gee, thanks! WOW! That`s a lot of science-stuff!"

I get the feeling 5Cats is just trying to bait @Canoas and I with this overtly ridiculous statement, but it really isn`t far off on his complete trust of conservative blogs and why he is so consistently misinformed about current affairs.
0
Reply
Male 40,291
@h2oxy: Coolness! Ooo! A "Trilobite Girl"! You`ve been paying attention to my "catgirl" and "monstergirl" fetishes? UM! I mean "intrests"...

[quote]5cats - How do you explain this graph?[/quote]
@turdy: A green arrow? Really? A GREEN ARROW? How could it BE more biased if it TRIED? Eh?

[quote]h2oxy - It`s alright. Mostly, I was poking fun at 5cats...[/quote]
@turdy: NOOO! That`s never been done before!

@h2oxy: Holy Cow! I pulled it off an "opinion blog" and didn`t bother to find the source. Gee, thanks! WOW! That`s a lot of science-stuff!
*offers @h2oxy a kitty treat*

Yesteday I was grumpy, today I`m quite cheerful!
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Most graphs you run into on climate change are bull. This one - I have no idea what it`s based on. Al Gore`s Hockey stick graph is similarly bull. And this is why people tune out of this debate.


But I wouldn`t believe any data before 1960 anyways. That would leave us half a century of data, which isn`t a great sample. The reason why data before 1960 may be dubious is that there is probably no peer review in how they took the temperatures, or whether or not thermometers in 1880 were even accurate to the exact degree of todays`. Also, they measure temperature in the same locations regardless of whether or not a concrete metropolis grew around it. And for prehistoric temperatures you have ice cores and tree rings, sure. But one must question if those are capable of pinpointing historic temperature to a tenth of a degree.

These are all problems that graphs leave out.
0
Reply
Male 309
@Canoas @Markust123 - Sighh... here`s the location of the file showing the article it was made for --> FILE Here`s the man who prepared the graph for said article --> CREATOR
And here is the peer reviewed article it came from --> PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE
0
Reply
Male 4,847
A sourceless graph is a useless graph.
0
Reply
Male 427
no sources = bullpoo

I can make a similar graph showing the opposite.
0
Reply
Male 4,891

h2oxy - It`s alright. Mostly, I was poking fun at 5cats....waiting for the IAB libs to show up.
0
Reply
Male 4,891

h2oxy - I wasn`t really trying to make a point for global warming. The point I was making is that I can, and have seen, tons of graphs and numbers from both sides. Look back at past IAB global warming posts and you will see the comments section filled with graphs from both sides...each proving their own point.
0
Reply
Male 309
@Solvent

0
Reply
Male 2,841
The environment is one of those subjects that I can`t care about no matter how hard I try.
0
Reply
Male 309
@turdburglar Realized what you were actually saying, I recant. Lol.
0
Reply
Male 4,891

@AvatarJohn - So it`s a conspiracy? I`m not saying it is or isn`t, so enlighten me please.

I can see why big oil, coal, gas, etc would like us to believe there is no man made warming on a global scale. What is the incentive for the other side to have us believe something that isn`t true?
0
Reply
Male 1,059
Re: C

Remember, those scientists make their living from government grants and instantly get defunded if they dare speak out against the AGW dogma. Just saying...
0
Reply
Male 4,891

5cats - How do you explain this graph? I`m sure you`ll find some way of saying it doesn`t count.


0
Reply
Male 4,891

You can:

A) believe the guy on the internet who is trying to prove a point.

B) google a poo load of biased graphs put on the internet by people trying to prove their point.

or

C) listen to the scientists who devote their time studying, gathering data, and testing whether the climate is changing. (and assume they aren`t corrupted by the Illuminati in a grand global multinational conspiracy to fool us.)

LET THE ARGUING AND POSTING OF GRAPHS BEGIN!!!
0
Reply
Male 309

Haha, I`ve been lurking for a long time catdude, your flame wars and spats with the... "other bored people", have given me many a lolz. It`s okay, I`m not all that worried, I`m from 4chan :sternsmile:

0
Reply
Male 40,291
[quote]@5Cats Did they get the fossil fuel from their grandparents?[/quote]
@h2oxy: Trilobites ;-) Smart-ass!

Lolz! Welcome to IAB! There`s a few "AGW Believers" around who`ll soon show up and call us nasty names...

Hint #2: Trilobites were the #1 life-form on Earth for about 100,000,000 years. Humans? Not so dominant, not nearly that long...
0
Reply
Male 40,291
@h2oxy: Yes! This data is indeed from ice-core samples. That`s almost the only way we can measure that far back. There`s other ways, but they`re subject to LOTS of "interpritation".

Tree Ring Data: Says the Earth is NOT "warming". That`s what "hide the decline" was all about.

Ice Core Data: The Earth was HOTTER and COLDER before humans arrived. Chances are? It`ll be hotter or colder disregardless of ALL our activities.

The Sun = more important than everything on Earth, period.
0
Reply
Male 309
@5Cats Did they get the fossil fuel from their grandparents?
0
Reply
Male 40,291
See? Those dinosaurs burned too much fossile fuel, and made it really hot!

In short: Humans have less effect on climate than we`d like to imagine.

Hint: "Solar Variance" which is 0.01% of the Sun`s output? Is greater than ALL the heat produced by the Earth. ALL of it, including humans.

Solar Cycle At Wiki See? Teh science? It be settled!
0
Reply
Male 309
@FreedomFrie , isn`t 100 years plenty of time to collect isotope samples trapped in polar ice (I assume they`re using ice, tell me if I`m wrong).
0
Reply
Male 243
Not that I argue hotter or cooler either - it`s simply stupid anyone is saying there is a difference after less than 100 years of study.
0
Reply
Male 243
This is bs since we`ve been measuring it since the 1920s I believe...
0
Reply
Male 309
So at the moment it`s getting hotter but in the overall trend it`s becoming colder and the variation is becoming larger? The only part I don`t understand is the delta 18 O, is it talking about the error in measurement of the O isotopes?
0
Reply
Male 40,291
Link: 5 Million Years Of Climate Change [Pic] [Rate Link] - In one simple graph! Any questions?
0
Reply