Global Warming = A JOKE!!

Al Gore is an idiot wrote:

Hey you global warming imbeciles! Look outside. Yeah, it's snowing 3ft + in Virgina and Baltimore. HAHA! Tell that to Al Gore now! Global Warming is bullshit.

But, at the same time, Whistler is trucking in loads of snow for the Winter Olympics.

Climate Change ≠ Global Warming, necessarily

World temperatures go up, world temperatures go down; just look at a graph over the past 10,000 years or so.

An area gets warmer, another area gets cooler. What gives?

This idea that we're all going to die unless we convert to reusable grocery bags is absurd.

Whistler Mountain, where the downhill/GS /Slalom/jumping/XC will happen , and which is about a 90 minute drive from Vancouver, has lots of snow. Cypress Mtn on the other hand, where the moguls/aerials/ski cross and snowboarding events will be held has little snow and is having it trucked and helicoptered in. Cypress is at lower elevation and looks over the city of Vancouver (less than half hour drive from Vancouver.

by your logic wrote:

wyoming running man wrote:

bull shit!! the pacific coast in canada has had one of the biggest years ever for the amount of snow fall!! in November Whistler had over 200inches of snowfall! and that is where all the snow sport events will be held!! SMD!!! mofos!

Well, you may want to look into that. They are in fact trucking in snow because they have had the least amount of snow since the 1930s.

Cyprus isn't that high in elevation. And is just missing some weather. Parallel to it is Mt. Washington on Vancouver Island. The same weather systems that smack the island, head straight for the north shore mountains of Vancouver.

Mt. Washington has a 14 foot base right now, the most in Canada and I think 4th most in the world. This is normal.

Google 'Environment Canada' and check out the temps history. This is a fairly normal winter - slightly mild and also happens to be an El Nino year, which means some places get cold, some get storms (like Cali) and some get mild calm here on the BC coast.

In November and December it was unusually cold here. No one said anything.

Al Gore is an idiot wrote:

Hey you global warming imbeciles! Look outside. Yeah, it's snowing 3ft + in Virgina and Baltimore. HAHA! Tell that to Al Gore now! Global Warming is bullshit.

If this isn't trolling it is stupid. With the Internet, why not look and see who that is supposed to be cold is warm as a consequence of it being colder farther south? Just look at the map of northern hemisphere temperatures deviations from normal and note the big orange to red coloring over the artic whenever the lower 48 is blue. As cold air moves south, there is backfull of warmer air filling behind it. For every location that is unusually cold, there is another than is unusually warm and global warming means that a degree or two of warming is not spread equally.

When we in the States are unusually cold, the artic is unusually warm but, in typical insulated American fashion, global warming deniers think the whole world is exactly like their hometown, hence why they believe that people-less Oklahoma is "the real America" while New York and California, which comprises 1/7th of the US population, is not, and believe stupid things like the idea that there is a God gives a damn about our national piety.

FightinPhils wrote:

It's called global climate destabilization.

So first we were warned about global warming. Then it became climate change. Now you're telling us it's global climate destabilization. Who comes up with your litany of titles for this fairy tale?

Non believers beware... wrote:

Please do yourselves a favor and read some of the research behind this.

I did...and then I found out what I read was based on cooked and hidden data. Too bad you don't have the facts on your side. If you did there would be no need to manipulate the information and hide what doesn't agree with your theory.

not so fast wrote:

uhh wrote:

Yes, in fact, they do float. Does this guy think that they really build a structure two miles down (in some cases) to the sea floor?

No--is the answer.

Sorry, but there are platforms (see Hibernia platform and others) that are anchored directly onto the seabed. Nice try, though.

Your problem is that you don't know the difference between a mobile offshore drilling rig and a permanent offshore production platform (of which Hibernia is an example). It always fascinates me that the general public is VERY ignorant about the petroleum industry but does not hesitate in the slightest to decry this or that about what they do not understand! It may be such in other industries and maybe I have myopia but it is laughable.

There are various types of drilling rigs from fixed-leg jackups to deepwater tension-wire drillships. All offshore drilling rigs do not have a fixed vertical position in the water--they can be adjusted on each drillsite.

Production platforms OTOH are usually built for a specific location. Those relatively close to shore (less than 1000') of water can be set upon caissons anchored to the seabed. It is true the average height above MSL of these permanent structures has increased lately (10' sounds about right) but it is not due to Global Warming. It is driven by the insurance industry mainly demanding a more hurricane-resistant structure (thanks Katrina, Rita & Gustav). Plus, as the near-shore reserves are depleted, E&P has moved into deeper water. Deeper water has a more severe operating environment which requires more robust structures.

Without SSTs that were 10 C above where they should be, there wouldn't have been as much water vapor available to the storm. Global warming = more mid-Atlantic snow. Al Gore is right, always.

I would suggest (anthropocentrically) that the correct temperature for the earth is the one that allows for humans to continue to survive.

I don't know if man-made global warming is true or not, but I'd rather change my ways now and be proved wrong than wait until it is absolutely proven. If global warming doesn't exist then I look a little foolish, if it does at least I have a clean conscience - better to look foolish than to gamble the other way.

I live in a very highly populated part of the world - if more people used public transport, if the supermarkets use less packaging and plastic bags, etc., life would be more pleasant - so even if global warming is a hoax, what have I lost?

Ironical wrote:

Non believers beware... wrote:

Please do yourselves a favor and read some of the research behind this.

I did...and then I found out what I read was based on cooked and hidden data. Too bad you don't have the facts on your side. If you did there would be no need to manipulate the information and hide what doesn't agree with your theory.

When the same people in congress (Inhofe et. al) who deny global warming and talk about "cooked and hidden facts" are the same people who slavishly herd themselves into churches to be fed nonsense with no critical scrutiny at all each Sunday, I am not sure that "information" has much bearing on their beliefs.

outsidethebox wrote:

We can't get to that point because some stubborn right-wingers deny the abundance of science on the matter.

If, as you insist, scientific evidence supports the theory that people cause global warming (it doesn't), then I guarantee someone has already looked into whether or not it pays to try to do something about it. In fact, Bjorn Lomborg has already addressed it in two books. His conclusion is that trying to stop climate change is an enormous waste of money.

only me wrote:

I would suggest (anthropocentrically) that the correct temperature for the earth is the one that allows for humans to continue to survive.

So what is the correct temperature? Historically man (and nearly all other forms of life) has done better when the climate was warm instead of cold. What makes you think warmer isn't better?

aholian wrote:

Without SSTs that were 10 C above where they should be...

So Sea Surface Temperatures are too high by 10C? Let's assume they were lower by 10C. Then the January Arctic Ice Cap would extend down to Oregon, New Jersey, Britain, and Japan. The Antarctic Ice would extend north nearly to Australia and New Zealand, and would reach Argentina and Chile. Is that really where they're supposed to be? According to who? I don't think the Canadians, Scandinavians, and Russians would be too happy about that.

By the way, NOAA says Al Gore's wrong. SST's have only risen 0.7 degrees in the last 130 years:

That's pretty far off from 10 degrees.

Brian wrote:

Ironical wrote:

I did...and then I found out what I read was based on cooked and hidden data. Too bad you don't have the facts on your side. If you did there would be no need to manipulate the information and hide what doesn't agree with your theory.

When the same people in congress (Inhofe et. al) who deny global warming and talk about "cooked and hidden facts" are the same people who slavishly herd themselves into churches to be fed nonsense with no critical scrutiny at all each Sunday, I am not sure that "information" has much bearing on their beliefs.

So, Brian, what does your religion rant have to do with anything?

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

If, as you insist, scientific evidence supports the theory that people cause global warming (it doesn't), then I guarantee someone has already looked into whether or not it pays to try to do something about it. In fact, Bjorn Lomborg has already addressed it in two books. His conclusion is that trying to stop climate change is an enormous waste of money.

First, there is a TON of scientific research on the matter. Of the thousands of climatologists that have studied it using a variety of techniques, the vast majority of them have concluded that the world is warming and man is at least partially responsible.

Second, pointing out just one guy that addressed the financial issues and reached a conclusion you favor is by no means conclusive.

I have nipples Greg. Could you milk me?

I'm not disputing that it's warming, it has been for about 300 years. But there are plenty of scientists who dispute the theory that people are the main cause. Plus there's the history of the earth prior to industrialization.

I pointed out Lomborg because he's done an exhaustive study of the subject. If you can find someone who has data showing it's a better idea to spend trillions in a futile attempt to lower the temperature 1 degree than providing clean water, food, medicine, energy, education, jobs, and political stability to most of the world's population, I'd certainly be interested.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

I'm not disputing that it's warming, it has been for about 300 years. But there are plenty of scientists who dispute the theory that people are the main cause. Plus there's the history of the earth prior to industrialization.

I pointed out Lomborg because he's done an exhaustive study of the subject. If you can find someone who has data showing it's a better idea to spend trillions in a futile attempt to lower the temperature 1 degree than providing clean water, food, medicine, energy, education, jobs, and political stability to most of the world's population, I'd certainly be interested.

Yes, there's "plenty" of scientists that dispute the idea that man is a significant cause of the rapid increase in temperature over the past few decades. There's also plenty scientists that dispute a lot of things we've grown to accept. There's stil scientists that dispute evolution, hell even the precise contours of gravity. There's always dissenting scientists. Pointing out the existence of a dissent does not refute the majority.

Regarding the financial aspect:

-All those things you point out as the "cost" of lowering CO2 emissions would be greater if we do nothing: millions of lives, political instability, financial ruin, etc.

-Why do you call it "futile?" Aren't you question begging?

-It's more than a degree celsius. And from what I understand, we wouldn't attempt to (and couldn't) bring the temperature "down" that 1.6 degrees, but just prevent it from going up so rapidly. There's a big difference.

-How would you respond to the fact that many other successful European countries have already joined Kyoto and reduced CO2 emissions without financial ruin?

Science is not based on polls of what people or scientists believe. It's based on formulating hypotheses, testing them against available evidence, and if they stand up to the test, testing it again. If it doesn't stand up to the test you modify the hypothesis or throw it out. It doesn't matter what the majority thinks if they can't defend their position against the data.

The hypothesis that human CO2 emissions drive warming doesn't stand up to the simple test of correlation. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. How can you have cause if you don't even have that?

I called efforts to control temperature change by controlling CO2 futile because it can't be done. Global temps were the same or higher than now 1,000 years ago and 2,000 years ago, when CO2 levels were almost 100ppm lower. Temps were higher 3,000 to 8,000 years ago when CO2 was only a little over 50% of what they are now. If you want to control global temps you also need to control water vapor, clouds, ocean currents, solar winds, gamma radiation, polar ice caps, plate tectonics, volcanoes, the earth's tilt, and dozens of other natural forces.

Regarding the financial stuff - all the bad stuff you expect to happen is based on computer models, more popularly known as computer games. It's all a wild a** guess dependent on the assumptions made when building the models. So far not one of the models has made an accurate prediction.

The things I brought up are all known problems based on real world evidence. There's no computer model, this stuff is real. How do you think it's more humane to waste trillions of dollars attempting to do the impossible when even just a fraction of that can save or improve the lives of billions of people?