I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  


friendsmore friends | add your site
Funny Videos

Gorilla Mask

Extreme Humor



Free Samples

FreeGame Heaven

Comic World

Funny Games

Funny Stuff


Kick Ass Movies

Viva La Games

Crazy Games

Insane Pictures

Lastminute Auct

123 Games

Anon email

Back to Listing

Global Warming? It's Actually Getting Cooler[Pic+]

Hits: 3837 | Rating: (1.8) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: drawman61
Page: 13 4 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2564 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 6:58:37 PM
meso - more than 1/4 of all the emissions ever in the past 10 years and no warming. Is it really that ridiculous to question that? That's why the pushers are hedging. The issue of CO2 sensitivity is already being rethought and revised.

And I bet it won't be the last time our knowledge of CO2 sensitivity will be revised.

Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 6:52:52 PM
@ Andrew155: That was a gracious admission regarding the fraudulent TIME cover. Thanks for being a gentleman about it. ~tip of the hat~

Male, 30-39, Southern US
 453 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 6:49:17 PM
We may be in a long term interglacial cooling trend, but we're in a short term rapid warming trend thanks to man made greenhouse emissions. Our emissions are overshadowing long term trends.


Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2564 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 6:48:36 PM
I stand corrected about the cover, Squirz. Thank you for pointing it out.

Dr. Professor, I don't know what your point is. I really should respond, "No f*#$*#@ing shi##)$" because what you said was pretty obvious.

McDuff - No, the science is much more nuanced than you think. There is no "Climate denier group, and Climate change believer group". It's much more nuanced than that. I am more in the camp of, "We seriously don't have enough data points".

I want to make this clear to everyone. The ESSENCE of what I am disputing is that we absolutely have enough data points to say anything definitively. And many of The Economist articles earlier touched on this. We certainly don't have enough data to draw a conclusion about how each of the plethora of components can affect the environment. The Climate is complex system and to claim apocalypse with so much certainty based on so little is fraudulent.

Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 6:46:40 PM
@ Richanddead: Its true that Andrew155's picture was edited....

"Edited"? "Edited"?! As if they changed the contraction of "can't" to "cannot"? Are you kidding me? It's a piece of propagandistic fraud.

The liar who put this piece together even took the pains to remove reference to "The Sopranos" and replace it with a reference to "MASH," to replace a mention of Baghdad with a mention of the Soviet Union, and to swap out a woman with a modern hairstyle with something more vintage. Then of course the propagandist changed the YEAR, MONTH, and DATE and changed the headline to mean the exact OPPOSITE of what was published.

You call that "edited"?

But, hey, at least you concede that it's true that it was "edited." Are you not merciful?

Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 3884 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 6:36:25 PM
@tb--Sounds like a cop-out to me.

All people need to do is start reading academic journals like Science and Nature, instead of the sensationalist stories you get through the traditional media.

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2665 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 6:23:59 PM
Also can anyone find any evidence at all that we are not in a 3500 year cooling trend? Even with highest temperature models from the most biased websites, we are still cooler than the Minoan and Roman warming periods, not to mention 8 other warming periods before then, and around equal with the medieval warming period.

Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2627 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 6:18:37 PM
I agree TB but with that said if 97% of the climate scientist agree that global warming is happening in some form then uhhhh maybe they are right or they have some sort of evidence that leads them to that conclusion?

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2665 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 6:17:29 PM
@Andrew155 and @Squrlz4Sale:

Its true that @Andrew155's picture was edited, yet The Times did write an article about a possible coming ice age that would hit in only a few hundred years, on June 24, 1974 titled "Another Ice Age?." link

In it they cite everything from the Sun's rays to dust from farming cooling the earth into a new ice age.

"Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age...Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years."

Male, 30-39, Western US
 4285 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 6:13:41 PM

Look at all the global warming experts here at IAB. Graduates of "google university".

There is WAY WAY WAY too much political interference when it comes to climate change to have an educated opinion...unless you happen to be a professional scientist with access to unbiased research, and the specific knowledge to decipher it.

I would say "listen to what the scientists are saying" but then others will say they are corrupt...and they MAY be right...or they MAY be paranoid.

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2665 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 6:12:39 PM
@mesovortex: Sorry but your analogy about the plane is also flawed. When you ride a plane at 30,000 feet not 35,00, you still have about 190 Kilometers of earth's atmosphere above you, 990 kilometers if you want to go to the end of the Exosphere.

" It doesn't take much to change the climate."

Thats what we are discussing and I still disagree with you. Restating your argument is not evidence to support it.

"Look at how much we've changed the landscape around us. Now extrapolate that to the atmosphere."

The difference is, we have been focused on changing the landscape for thousands of years, not accidentally doing it for a few hundred. We have also only changed the surface form in certain areas around the world, not the chemical composition of all the ground itself.

Male, 40-49, Europe
 13232 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 4:18:31 PM
Not wishing to be selfish, but obviously is
but Ill be dead n gone before sh it hits the fan
and I guess 99% of this forum will be ash or squashed underground before anything serious occurs
whatever happens, the Earth will continue
we are just parasites, trying to suck as much as we can out out of it
bring on Armageddon, this place needs rid of humans

Male, 30-39, Europe
 811 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 4:06:01 PM
hahaha Andrew155 you missed the point of the image I posted you may well have a masters from columbia but your in a tiny minority of roughly 2 - 3% of academics who share your views the other 97 - 98 % kind of invalidate your claims though, but you keep on sciencing!

Male, 18-29, Canada
 1418 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 3:36:08 PM
the only thing we need to know is that we are polluting too much. This will catch up with eventually. Greed and the love for money, it seems, has no limit. We should have laws in place to prevent them.

Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 3884 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 3:26:35 PM
@andrew155 "and the history of settled silence is a history of settled science being routinely disproven."

No f*cking sh*t. That the point of science. It's *good* when science proves itself wrong, because it means we're closer to the truth.

Unlike some internet commenters, we don't start from a point of assuming we know everything. We start from assuming we don't know everything and that our knowledge can always be sharpened and improved.

Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 3:12:13 PM
@ Andrew155: Your image of the 1977 TIME magazine cover is a fraud. The actual cover, which has been doctored, is from 2007--where the story, as you can see, was about global warming, NOT about a coming ice age.

Male, 18-29, Canada
 2380 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 3:10:47 PM
yet im still paying carbon tax.. because i live in a province full of drating hipster liberal idiots. anybody with thick rimmed glasses, skinny jeans or neon shoes is about an inche away from an ass kicking in my books.

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2564 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 2:43:56 PM
Seventhly, Alfred Wegener.

Eighthly, remember:

Finally, all of the models they have been making are failing, and the science is based on those models! 1/4 of all the CO2 put into the air was in the past 10 years, a period of zero warming. They have to change their story, all of the articles I posted previously are saying this. That means their science was already wrong and they have to rework it for it to fit the original narrative! Or they just make stuff up like with Climategate. That's the main point I'm highlighting! We don't know as much as we think we know.

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2564 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 2:43:41 PM

Fifthly, concerning that 14,000 articles graph, it's faulty methodology.. This particular example is the real embodiment of anti-science.

Sixthly, I've read extensively about history and the history of science. And the history of settled science is a history of settled science being routinely disproven.

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2564 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 2:43:23 PM
Firstly - NASA: Our government is in zero way the final say on anything. They're wrong all the time. Plus the graph they have shows temperatures were below average 100 years ago by as much as they are above average now. They don't have enough data points to make the apocalyptic claims! Nobody does!

Secondly, those 77 climate scientists they chose were cherry-picked from the 3000 respondents. So much flawed methodology.

Thirdly, I have a MA from Columbia and I have gone through the peer review process first-hand. A lot of the peer review stuff is wrong, or it goes in and out of style. A lot of stuff is right that is considered not to be right. Believe me, it's ok to go against what the other kids are writing.

Fourthly, follow the money. Always.

Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10601 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 2:26:02 PM
Ugh as usual threads like these get flooded with charts and technobabble from both sides. Screw it I'm sitting this one out.

Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17367 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 2:22:49 PM
From NASA's own satellites:

+0.16 deg Celsius is not "Global Warming" under any stretch of the imagination.

Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2627 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 2:21:39 PM
I have no idea why we are chancing if Global warming is happening or not. This is something that may or may not(to some of you) effect our species as a whole. Why are we even chancing this? Is it deciding who is going to pay for it? Is it an argument over Government vs private enterprise? Is it a battle between Scientist and Religious nuts thinking the end of the world is near?

Male, 30-39, Europe
 811 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 2:00:19 PM

Male, 30-39, Southern US
 453 Posts
Friday, September 13, 2013 1:55:16 PM
From NASA:

Page: 13 4 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account

Back to Listing ^top

Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |