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

Gorilla Mask

FreeGame Heaven

123 Games

Funny Stuff

Viva La Games

Nothing To Do?

Free Samples


Quiz Stop



Funny Games

Funny Videos

Wow Funny Jokes

Back to Listing

11 Global Warming Stories From 2013 [Pic+]

Hits: 4581 | Rating: (1.5) | Category: Science | Added by: 5Cats
Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 298 Posts
Monday, January 06, 2014 1:29:56 PM
DromEd - I agree that fining citizens on filling in ditches and such is stupid, but issues like that are not really a result of the global warming debate. Those are stupid measures put in place by the EPA to "Protect Wetlands", but in reality its just a stupid money grubbing scheme. I have a friend who used to contract for the EPA doing wetlands reconstruction, he quit after a year because he spent most of his time citing local citizens rather than actually protecting the environment.

As far as not seeing debris on public beaches, the county/city clean beaches on a daily or weekly basis, but even then if you take a brief stroll you can usually see crap floating in the surf, I know every time I've ever visited a beach I usually see crap floating in the water despite the local cleaning efforts. But I'm talking mainly about non inhabited and private beaches where such measures are not taken and debris is allowed to pile up.

Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 1761 Posts
Monday, January 06, 2014 9:37:24 AM
No reasonable person is against reasonable measures to curb unnecessary pollution. Yes that includes the majority of "the right". And yes, if left to their own devices business may tend to favor profit over all the "green" stuff. So nothing wrong with state and local agencies keeping an eye on things. But when Federal agencies are created that wield unprecedented power and enact regulations based on theories that haven't been properly tested. I and many other thinking individuals get angry. When the EPA fines a private land owner for filling in a ditch on his property citing a violation of regulations pertaining to "navigable waterways". It's time to take a step back and re-think some things.

Your giant landfill example is an exaggeration of epic proportions and has no basis in fact.

And I enjoy the beaches along the Delaware, Virginia and North Carolina coast and have never in my life found them to be littered with trash.

Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 298 Posts
Monday, January 06, 2014 6:50:02 AM
I completely agree with you madduck!! What the hell is wrong with making corporations clean up their act? What harm can come from instituting stricter regulations on waste and CO2 emissions? you guys act like the whole global warming argument is meant to undermine society or destroy life as we know it. The whole idea is that we need to stop polluting so much, if not to prevent global warming, then maybe to prevent our children and our children's children from living on a giant f**king landfill that used to be called Earth. I mean hell you already can't go to a beach anywhere on the planet without finding human refuse on it. So why not make a change now so our grandchildren will be able to enjoy the beauty of nature as we do today?

Male, 30-39, Southern US
 685 Posts
Sunday, January 05, 2014 7:03:57 AM
who cares about the temperature outside when the land is too toxic to grow crops, the water is too polluted to drink, and the air makes you sick? Many days in summer we have toxic air advisories, i think global warming is to large a concept for tiny minds to grasp, and it takes away from the more obvious pollution caused by our current industry.

Female, 50-59, Europe
 6993 Posts
Sunday, January 05, 2014 3:52:31 AM
Christ on a stick--- what a load of rot. Confusing weather and climate for starters...cherry picking stuff for seconds. Why- why do this- we don't need to pollute as much as we do- we have alternatives but big corporations choose not to clean up their act- and in fact are now pressing for even MORE damage to be done by fracking.. what harm could it do to clean up the dam planet- it is not like we have anywhere else to go- and how much of a risk are we prepared to take?

Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4242 Posts
Sunday, January 05, 2014 2:50:47 AM
Fine, 5Cats. I'd actually deleted my post because, dang, why bother. But, here. That's a nice, concise and well-documented rebuttal to many of the ideas spouted here. As for the arctic ice not retreating, that's been so thoroughly and completely debunked, I won't even bother. The cherry-picking idiocy used to bolster that argument isn't even worth my time. The data is clear.

Male, 70 & Over, Asia
 8 Posts
Saturday, January 04, 2014 8:29:04 PM
"Where do you get the idea that there is an overwhelming majority?": http://climate.nasa.gov/ scientific-consensus, http://www.skepticalscience.com /global-warming-scientific- consensus.htm, http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_ change.

"Headcount fallacy": http://rationalwiki.org /wiki /Argumentum_ad_populum# Scientific_consensus

"Yet you can effectively say that Freeman Dyson, one of the great minds in science today, is not as clever as you. That you have out thought him." This is exactly what you are saying about the scientists who disagree with your opinion, but you're right of course! Please continue, you and your kind are good for a laugh.

Male, 50-59, Midwest US
 2053 Posts
Saturday, January 04, 2014 7:26:15 PM
Whenever I hear someone speak of global warming, I just wonder how someone can be so dumb.

Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 1795 Posts
Saturday, January 04, 2014 7:25:19 PM

Did you even read the Polar Bears International article you linked? It does not say their population is not increasing. In fact it avoids the question all together and falls back on the "All the ice is melting so all the polar bears are going to die!" argument.

The author does say:
We do know (and I have published papers on this) that some polar bear populations grew after quotas were imposed in Canada, aerial hunting ceased in Alaska, and trapping and hunting were banned in Svalbard.

And (the ice is melting so the polar bears will die)
But the most important point is that whatever happened in the past is really irrelevant. Polar bear habitat is disappearing due to global warming. Even the most careful on-the-ground management doesn't matter if polar bears don't have the required habitat.

Male, 30-39, Europe
 1293 Posts
Saturday, January 04, 2014 6:11:40 PM
Oh, and johneveryman, your comment is so ironic. You are implying that sceptics are wrong to query details of the science that are genuine flaws with the CAGW hypothesis, many of them raised by other scientists in the field but (not important but I will briefly pander to your logical fallacy, as there is not space to argue all the dumb things in your short post, even 2 comments). None of us are saying conspiracy, scientists have been wrong about almost everything in the past.

Yet you can effectively say that Freeman Dyson, one of the great minds in science today, is not as clever as you. That you have out thought him. Let alone the fact that you disagree with many people working and publishing (or retired from in many cases, so inured to the lure of money and advancenent and immune to ostracisation) in the field of climate science and others with an important bearing on the issue.

Male, 30-39, Europe
 1293 Posts
Saturday, January 04, 2014 5:58:39 PM

Where do you get the idea that there is an overwhelming majority? There is no evidence for that whatever, which is why the press keeps being fed ludicrous "surveys" which have obvious design flaws and are clearly dishonest.

Why are they doing this anyway? If they were right then numbers would not matter, the evidence would speak for itself. As Einstein is quoted as replying when challenged by 100 anti-Semitic scientists "If I was wrong then one would be enough".

It is only because they can present no empirical evidence of strong net positive feedback in temperature that they use the headcount fallacy, and therefore have to make up an overwhelming majority where there is no objectively defined constituency to measure, and no objective measurement has been attempted except very locally. In these cases minorities or insignificant majorities (53% I seem to recall) believe the CAGW hypothesis.

Male, 50-59, Europe
 5843 Posts
Saturday, January 04, 2014 3:54:00 PM
We are undergoing a period of lots of rain at the moment in the UK, which is solely and undeniably the fault of the USA. Every where is flooded, the ground cannot absorb any more, so it runs off.
The big, fertile 'flood-planes' where food is grown, flood and get covered with silt, as they have done for thousands of years. Global warming. Cliffs crumble and fall into the sea as they have been doing for etc, global warming.
My house is built on sand that was once at the bottom of an ocean. I am now 60.2 metres above sea level.

Male, 50-59, Europe
 5843 Posts
Saturday, January 04, 2014 3:44:45 PM
In the winter of 1962/62, it was cold and horrible. The country ground to a halt and we were all going to die.
The summer of 1976, was hot and horrible, the tar melted on the roads and left a black and stringy mess on my motorbike.
One december was so mild and dry that I had the mower out and did the grass on christmas eve.
Each of these incidents was reported by the press as being a sign of global warming. (except the grass cutting.)
All of the other years of my life have been exceptionally ordinary as far as climate goes.
It rains, the roads flood more than they used to in the 'olden days' because clearing drains costs money.
From time to time it still gets bloody cold in winter, but then, it's winter isn't it? that's what it does.
Then there is the flooding caused by lots of rain: The old maps show areas 'prone to flooding'; they get built on, it rains, they flood. Carpets, furniture all ruined, global warming to blame.

Male, 70 & Over, Asia
 8 Posts
Saturday, January 04, 2014 2:43:55 PM
Thanks again 5cats and Ollie! What is the opinion of the overwhelming amount of climate scientists and those in the field with PHDs compared to right wing pundits and educated people such as yourself? Nothing that's what! Everyone with a brain can see that there is a global conspiracy going with these scientists, that and these people with years of study in the field are far too stupid to take into account details like what you guys constantly post! Keep fighting the good fight! XXOO

Male, 30-39, Europe
 1754 Posts
Saturday, January 04, 2014 2:01:40 PM
Andrew - thanks for the effort.

I've put my point across badly. It's not a question whether there are 5,000 new polar bears or not, it's simply that they're all citing WWF (and mainstream media's picking up on it now), but can you see anything on the WWF press release area - nope. Link to WWF's press releases about polar beers

Male, 30-39, Western US
 1365 Posts
Saturday, January 04, 2014 12:32:11 PM
For the past few weeks its been super dry on the Leftcoast, had the hottest days on record since they began recording temps in 1877.

It's climate change, not global warming. Why's my nose bleeding again... so dry.

What a head in the sand website, "Minnesotans for global warming, because its stupid to politicize the weather", so they'll maintain a politically biased website.

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2564 Posts
Saturday, January 04, 2014 12:23:49 PM
Fwoggie - I speak Russian. I can indulge you.

Scientific Russia - 5,000 Polar Bears

5,000 Polar Bears

5,000 polar bears


Birthday for the Polar Bear

Male, 50-59, Canada
 29104 Posts
Saturday, January 04, 2014 12:02:14 PM
@fwoggie2: I know for a fact the polar bears are doing just fine in North America.
You've written off ALL 11 stories because of a vague discussion about "retreating ice"?
FACT: Arctic Ice was early and thick this year, it may set a record. So you link is meaningless.

@SmagBoy1: then list 11 debunkings, smarty-pants.

FACT: The "97%" number comes from: a single 'review' 75 of 77 members of a pro-AGW group. Even that was disputed, so the story linked here is 100% factual. How can you "debunk" that?

Female, 30-39, Southern US
 283 Posts
Saturday, January 04, 2014 11:13:07 AM
Being unsure as to how much affect humans have on global warming isn't the same as,"not believing" in it at all.

Male, 30-39, Europe
 1754 Posts
Saturday, January 04, 2014 11:08:43 AM
(BTW I've got absolutely nothing against you 5cats, just this awful site you found) :)

Male, 30-39, Europe
 1754 Posts
Saturday, January 04, 2014 11:08:10 AM
What a load of bs. Example - the site says that the WWF says that 5,000 polar bears will be born this year in Russia. Can I find anything about this stat anywhere else, no. If that were really true, you can bet your bottom dollar the WWF would be jumping up and down loudly about it, whilst cautioning that whilst good news, it's "only a start".

Polar Bears International on the other hand says their population is not increasing.

Can you find references to this "5000 polar bears are going to be born" story? Yes, lots of respected media outlets have picked up on it.

Can you find a reference to this story on the WWF site? As far as I could see after 15 minutes of looking, no.

As a result, I call it a crap site, citing major charities that nev

Male, 50-59, Canada
 29104 Posts
Saturday, January 04, 2014 10:50:16 AM
Link: 11 Global Warming Stories From 2013 [Pic+] [Rate Link] - The first one is well known at IAB, but the rest?

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 |