Global Warming = Cult, scam, take your pick - Page 3

Joker_in_the_Pack · 02-02-2009, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

Cooling/warming/cooling/warming Most of you hopefully realize that there are many more things that could kill all of us before worrying about climate change.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence...der/under.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/0...eut/index.html

http://www.who.int/csr/sars/en/

last, but not least.. Stupidity.

Unfortunately I believe the global warming crowd had legitimacy at one point. Then, the cult monkey (political groups) grabbed the banana and ran with it.

Doesn't sars have a stupidly high survival rate?

ThreeEyesOni · 02-02-2009, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Doesn't sars have a stupidly high survival rate?

Pretty much depends on your age. If you're under 18 or over 45 then you enter the "pretty much fucked" catagory. If you're within that range then the survival rate goes way up; assuming you arn't on your own, that is.

Wednesday Friday Addams · 02-02-2009, 04:04 PM

Like scorpion poison.

ArtificialOne · 02-02-2009, 06:17 PM

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...ter-in-decades

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...ub=CTVNewsAt11

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2...-temperatures/

This is a good site. I watched a show on one of the science channels about this, but couldn't find it. The man in the show was claiming that a huge and sudden cooling of an area that had just melted down and became habitable Killed the animals and caused Humans to slow the progression in the Americas. Basically the animals moved into a huge area that had just melted off and became lush to find better feeding grounds. The climate abruptly reversed and became cold again, the animals were killed when they couldn't migrate fast enough.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1025072315.htm

They mention that a lot of the "man made" scenarios, although were good and productive science, ignored more important and probable factors.

ThreeEyesOni · 02-03-2009, 07:04 AM

Yes, that would be an Indian Summer, for lack of a better phrase.

So?

In case you've forgotten, the planet is pretty fucking big and weather trends aren't universal.

Not to mention that last one is an article from 2001 refuting a theory from 1967.

CptSternn · 02-04-2009, 04:29 AM

Adding to that thought...

The ringht wing until later 2007 were anti-global warming. They called it a 'myth'. Now, both ends of the political spectrum have copped on and are saying it is an issue.

The thing is, you still have people using arguments which have been discounted by the people who made them. You reference the 2001 argument above. If you look through the threads you will see a few others using arguments that are outdated trying to justify their point, which no one including the pundits who made the point originally stand behind anymore.

This is because many people can't seem to get their heads around the fact oil companies, with the help of the right wing, were using phoney arguments to begin with. Now, even they can't stand behind their arguments, but the people who bought into them won't admit they were mislead, so they continue to spew incorrect data and skewed facts that have been disproven by the very people who originally muddied the waters.

ArtificialOne · 02-04-2009, 02:49 PM

Yeah...

Anyways, I believe in climate change, history shows us that. I argue the amount and the frantic pace that many believe "we" are causing.

I cited the 01 article by mistake. Interpretation of everything I've read from New Scientist to American Scientist to Popular Mechanics/science is what helps me form my opinion.
http://www.physorg.com/news150097682.html The tv show I mentioned interviewed the scientists and traveled around the world to study the nano diamonds. They say that fragments from the collision rained down and caused massive forest fires followed by a sudden reversal of the warming. It stopped the migration of people/animals. This is a change in the normal theory that big evil man did the animals in (also there were preportedly not enough people to cause an extinction of the mammoths). An interesting point made in the film was that giant mammals in remote areas where there is no evidence of man also went extinct. It is still accepted man killed the mammoths and sabertooth off, still taught in public schools in fact, even though there is not enough evidence to prove the theory. 1967 or not, do you think people in 40yrs will look back on global warming like they did DDThttp://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html or the 70's media hype about and ice age? Sure the 70's hype was based around just a few science reports, but I think what's happened in our case is that the media + people needing grant money has combined into a storm of hysteria. OK, I'll bite. You say man causes global warming, try studying some other possible causes to back it up.

I'm concerned with other evidence being discounted or ignored that would have a direct reflection on our climate. Such evidence as solar activity, earths rotation changing and other things such as past severe changes in climate that are also unexplained or not very well explained through facts. Also the recording of such data, does anyone know of a standard for recording data?

Sure we should clean up our technologies and whatever messes we make, I've never argued against that.

I don't believe in the Big oil conspiracy theories with the Bush Admin. The Bush family may have had ties to a few oil companies but Bill and Hillary Clinton seem to have farther and more in depth relations to Saudi Arabia than the Bush's. Given many peoples logic trees I'd say that evidence would state that the clintons are behind big oil, or in front of it. Remember how they hid documents in some guys pants and never wanted to release records from his presidential library?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...fund-donations

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=98467642

Forget hiding trouser snousers, pants are for hiding documents!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in630625.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2...3825609&page=1

The climate is extremely complex, and out of 4.5 billion years we have not even a second compared to that amount of time to compare to that. Sure we have ice sample and dirt layers/fossil layers to study and compare, but even then scientists are unsure of the exact causes/corelations of some of the climate changes observed.

I really think a lot of this hysteria is caused by a group of people who've found a good way to attack big business and govts(especially the Bush Admin), and a realization that "we" as a species is finite and fragile. I think we've had an "Oh shit" moment to the fact mother nature can fuck with us and ***** us at will.

ThreeEyesOni · 02-05-2009, 06:27 AM

Do you seriously keep a file labled "irrelevantly old irrelevant links"? I've never seen so many news articles the other side of 2004 without a Tardis.

Also, I don't know about the rest of you but I really haven't heard many people going on about climate change during the Bush years. Most of the stuff I've heard has been more allong the lines of "oh shit, he's going to get us all killed or thrown into the poor house".

The political aspects of this are entirely moot.

ArtificialOne · 02-05-2009, 02:35 PM

Do you have dirt in your eyes?

Which link is old? I'm pretty sure I checked each link(on current info) and found all to be within a year or so of present date. The Ice age 70's stuff is relative to the argument because the media hyped up bad info and this time the Media has spawned and directed this area of research.

Of course you don't want to argue the politics of it, then it'd show a flaw in your argument. The flaw being that pro enviromentalists and anti-bush or even US govt people found something they could fear monger people over to get recruits on their side. For gods sake the founder of Greenpeace quit because the flood of political extremists who run these organizations now.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/b...335924212.html Yes, this post is old, BUT THE POINT IS RELEVANT.

The Bush admin wasn't talking climate change, but everyone else was. What, did someone just a month ago start talking about. Jesus, you've got short term memory loss or something.

People thought Reagan was going to get us all killed also, didn't turn out that way did it?, quite the opposite. And since we're alive today Bush didn't get us killed either. I'm not comparing how good or bad one or the other is I'm just comparing peoples attitude towards "getting us all killed" as three states.

Bush may have ignored it but it was a common attack for the last 4 yrs or so on the administration.

PortraitOfSanity · 02-05-2009, 03:43 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in630625.shtml is an article from 2004. That's pretty old, I don't even remember 2004. Granted, I don't remember most of High School either, it's all kind of a drug induced blur...

ThreeEyesOni · 02-06-2009, 08:08 PM

When I say that I don't care about the politics of it, I mean that I don't fucking care about the politics of it. I'm not some political whackjob that even gives two shits what political party someone is in, and I certainly don't care about bipartisan shit-slinging in regards to issues that can actually matter.

You seem to be linking far too much of this to "anti bush", whereas I made a pretty specific point of the fact that people have had MUCH larger issues with Bush than climate change/global warming. My only real care about him in that regard is the several actions he took that pretty much had no other purpose than to say "fuck you environmentalists". I don't care that he didn't make it a focus of his presidency; without economy-ruining broad-spectrum laws there isn't really much of anything that any single president can do to help the situation. The handful of actions that can be interperted as personal jabs just reiterate in my mind that Bush is, quite obviously, a horribly human being and a dick.

So please, for fucks sake, get off your political high-horse. Your opinions are the mental equivalent of refried beans and revolve around years-old articles on topics where partisan politics should be a non-issue.

People who have to make partisan issues out of non-partisan issues are, and I'll go on reccord with this one, fucking retarded.

ArtificialOne · 02-06-2009, 08:23 PM

Jeez someones sure touchy. If you didn't read correctly this thread Is in the politics section, so you can get over yourself asap.

Never mind other evidence that contradicts your human caused global warming scenario. To even accept or look at other evidence to you must be an acceptance that your stance is wrong. Otherwise you wouldn't be so rabid about contradictory views.

I could spend the rest of my reply telling you how I think people who can't see the whole picture as "retarded", but why would I want to follow into a megalomaniacs foot steps?

Vivi · 02-09-2009, 04:11 AM

Global warming is a natural and good thing. The trouble is that we have sped up the process and plants and animals wont be able to adapt fast enough. I think seeing the polar bear at risk of extinction all of a sudden is enough of a wake up call to stop and think "hmmm, maybe all this shit im pumping into the atmosphere might actually do something". Its a matter of respect really. I live on this planet, therefore i owe it something and i want to leave future generations with as comfortable and pristine a world as possible. I don't mean to sound like a hippy, but the only other option is to sound like an asshole and say "I dont give a fuck! I like my LCD screens and oil!".( then we run out of oil in a few years and this is gone anyway)
And i believe the way to solve global warming is easy and the changes brought about would be better. Planting more trees and stopping logging would make the earth prettier and having geothermal/solar/wind/wave energy would be cheaper in the long run, making the environment cleaner at the same time. Maybe we should start culling humans. Theres plenty of us.