RE: New Article by Bill McKibben about global warming - read it and weep

RE: New Article by Bill McKibben about global warming - read it and weep (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Hillwilliam -> RE: New Article by Bill McKibben about global warming - read it and weep (7/20/2012 8:27:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: punisher440 quote: Weather is part of climate as a tree is to the forest. One is a subset of the other. The first paragraph of the article didn't equivocate the terms. Warming is simply what the climate is doing at this time in the planet's history Hill,since you brought up trees,I want to throw this piece I read yesterday into the mix.I am not saying it is right or wrong. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120709092606.htm I know in the past the Earth has had periods of warmth and cold for various reasons.But when you have different so called authorities saying totally different things,exactly who do you believe? Heres what it looks like they're saying. In that particular area where the sampling took place, therre has been a long term overall cooling trend over the last 2000+ years. There's a couple of ways to interpret that. One extreme would be to scream and wave your arms yelling that "Warming is bunk, we're headed for an ice age." (that's hard to do with what amounts to one data point. This guy was working on a local climate in the subarctic). The other extreme would be for the other side to start waving their arms and yelling that "See, it's even worse than we thought, we were cooling and now it's reversed and the warming is even more extreme" (same as above

thompsonx -> RE: New Article by Bill McKibben about global warming - read it and weep (7/20/2012 8:45:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Regardless of whether we are contributing or not, we need to wean ourselves from fossil fuel based energy sources so we can tell the Arabs to go fuck themselves and eat dirt and rocks as they were a bit over a half century ago. While I agree that we should ween ourselves off of fossil fuel why do you presume that it is the arabs who are bending us over? Consier that the u.s. produces quite a bit of domestic oil and those producers charge exactly the same as the arabs. Oil is an internatonal commodity and those who control it are not arab. Consider two arabs(sodamned insane and quadafie) who thought that they had control of the oil in their respective countries. As for eating dirt and rocks a couple of key strokes should bring your attention to the fact that mesopotamia is considered by many to be the cradle of civilization. Those rock and dirt eaters had running water and public services more than a thousand years before the greek empire.

Musicmystery -> RE: New Article by Bill McKibben about global warming - read it and weep (7/20/2012 8:48:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: punisher440 quote: Weather is part of climate as a tree is to the forest. One is a subset of the other. The first paragraph of the article didn't equivocate the terms. Warming is simply what the climate is doing at this time in the planet's history Hill,since you brought up trees,I want to throw this piece I read yesterday into the mix.I am not saying it is right or wrong. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120709092606.htm I know in the past the Earth has had periods of warmth and cold for various reasons.But when you have different so called authorities saying totally different things,exactly who do you believe? This isn't an either/or situation, but a multiple influences one. The question would be what global warming is doing on top of those longer cycles (and whether it's caused or exacerbated by human activity).

vincentML -> RE: New Article by Bill McKibben about global warming - read it and weep (7/20/2012 9:33:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: If you had a clue, you would realize that extreme weather events, both hot and cold, are an indicator that things are changing. This is especially true of Northeastern Europe due to the effects of the North Atlantic gyre.. Which changed several times before the Industrial Revolution. Actually, the Gulf Stream which is the part of the N Atlantic gyre responsible for the fact that NE Europe is habitable was discovered by B Franklin. He noted that mail ships headed to England took substancially less time for the passage than ships headed back this way and hypothesized a "river in the ocean". Prior to that, the notion of large scale oceanic currents was as foreign as a non geocentric universe was to the early Catholics. Ergo, there is no evidence the N Atlantic gyre has changed prior to the industrial revolution because it was unknown to science. I said 'changed,' Hill. I did not say it reversed. The North Atlantic Oscilation of pressure changes between Iceland and the Azores impacts the position of the westerly flow of the warm waters from the gulfstream. When the westerly stream is pushed more southward NW Europe tends to have harsher winters with milder winters in Greenland. Ref: The Little Ice Age by Brian Fagan.

DomKen -> RE: New Article by Bill McKibben about global warming - read it and weep (7/20/2012 9:34:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Ergo, there is no evidence the N Atlantic gyre has changed prior to the industrial revolution because it was unknown to science. Several cycles of warming and cooling in NW Europe give indirect evidence. No. they do not. Without the Gyre Europe would be much much colder. just look at the latitudes. Rome is 41N Chicago is also at 41N

Hillwilliam -> RE: New Article by Bill McKibben about global warming - read it and weep (7/20/2012 9:38:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx As for eating dirt and rocks a couple of key strokes should bring your attention to the fact that mesopotamia is considered by many to be the cradle of civilization. Those rock and dirt eaters had running water and public services more than a thousand years before the greek empire. Indeed they did have running water and public services while Europeans were still chasing goats and crapping in holes in the ground but, like most civilizations, there is ebb and flow and a couple hundred years ago, they were the ones chasing goats and wiping their ass with their non eating hand. I personally am tired of propping up their lifestyle. If our government would kick big oil out of bed, we could do that. If we dont, in a hundred or so years, we will be the ones eating dirt and rocks.

Sanity -> RE: New Article by Bill McKibben about global warming - read it and weep (7/20/2012 10:06:08 AM)
Odd how so many of those pushing this angle (leftists) at the same time refuse to allow the recovery of fossil fuels from Western sources quote: ORIGINAL: lulubell I could totally get behind this idea. quote: My whole point in the climate debate has been that if we can wean ourselves from fossil fuels for energy, we can tell the Arabs to go fuck themselves and live in tents.

mnottertail -> RE: New Article by Bill McKibben about global warming - read it and weep (7/20/2012 10:09:21 AM)
That would be rightists, there is no prohibition on that. You might not be aware that there are inept teabaggers that are in charge of the house. You are never right about anything, and you look like a horses ass everytime you post your obvious lies, so why don't you just come out with your humiliation fetish, Tom?

vincentML -> RE: New Article by Bill McKibben about global warming - read it and weep (7/20/2012 10:59:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Ergo, there is no evidence the N Atlantic gyre has changed prior to the industrial revolution because it was unknown to science. Several cycles of warming and cooling in NW Europe give indirect evidence. No. they do not. Without the Gyre Europe would be much much colder. just look at the latitudes. Rome is 41N Chicago is also at 41N See my post at #24

Hillwilliam -> RE: New Article by Bill McKibben about global warming - read it and weep (7/20/2012 11:54:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Odd how so many of those pushing this angle (leftists) at the same time refuse to allow the recovery of fossil fuels from Western sources quote: ORIGINAL: lulubell I could totally get behind this idea. quote: My whole point in the climate debate has been that if we can wean ourselves from fossil fuels for energy, we can tell the Arabs to go fuck themselves and live in tents. Show me some leftists that push this angle or admit you're full of shit as usual.

Moonhead -> RE: New Article by Bill McKibben about global warming - read it and weep (7/20/2012 12:04:13 PM)
He's probably got a chip on his shoulder about teh kenyan upping domestic oil production or something.

Marini -> RE: New Article by Bill McKibben about global warming - read it and weep (7/20/2012 2:21:16 PM)
quote: I'm trained as a scientist myself. As for my definition, I was simply attempting to explain the terms in the simplest way possible. The planet is definitely off kilter. Unfortunately, there are billions to be made by denying that simple fact. My last sentence was something I quite believe in and is something that the kool-aid drinking deniers have never answered. They get caught in an endless feedback loop unsure whether their hatred of Muslims overrides their need to be good little bitches for their masters at Exxon/Mobile. ______________ I appreciate your presence and contributions to the message boards. I understand we need to find alternative energy sources, but I have always been concerned with air and water pollution, deforestation, and the depletion and destruction of many of our natural resources also. We are destroying our planet in a variety of ways.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: New Article by Bill McKibben about global warming - read it and weep (7/20/2012 2:52:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Weather is part of climate as a tree is to the forest. One is a subset of the other. The first paragraph of the article didn't equivocate the terms. Warming is simply what the climate is doing at this time in the planet's history. Regardless of whether we are contributing or not, we need to wean ourselves from fossil fuel based energy sources so we can tell the Arabs to go fuck themselves and eat dirt and rocks as they were a bit over a half century ago. Flawless conclusion. There isn't any debate as to whether the earth is warming or not (at this moment in time) and several theories suggest it's a standard sun cycle period (which is not at all in debate). Some suggest it at least includes and is exacerbated by man's involvement (which I hope isn't in debate) and some say, with reasonable data behind their statements that we're about to enter a new cooling period within the next 15 years. My thoughts: We can do better.

DomKen -> RE: New Article by Bill McKibben about global warming - read it and weep (7/20/2012 2:56:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Weather is part of climate as a tree is to the forest. One is a subset of the other. The first paragraph of the article didn't equivocate the terms. Warming is simply what the climate is doing at this time in the planet's history. Regardless of whether we are contributing or not, we need to wean ourselves from fossil fuel based energy sources so we can tell the Arabs to go fuck themselves and eat dirt and rocks as they were a bit over a half century ago. Flawless conclusion. There isn't any debate as to whether the earth is warming or not (at this moment in time) and several theories suggest it's a standard sun cycle period (which is not at all in debate). Some suggest it at least includes and is exacerbated by man's involvement (which I hope isn't in debate) and some say, with reasonable data behind their statements that we're about to enter a new cooling period within the next 15 years. My thoughts: We can do better. There is no such theory. The primary solar cycle is 11 years and while it is known to effect weather there is no corelation between that cycle and the present warming.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: New Article by Bill McKibben about global warming - read it and weep (7/20/2012 2:58:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Weather is part of climate as a tree is to the forest. One is a subset of the other. The first paragraph of the article didn't equivocate the terms. Warming is simply what the climate is doing at this time in the planet's history. Regardless of whether we are contributing or not, we need to wean ourselves from fossil fuel based energy sources so we can tell the Arabs to go fuck themselves and eat dirt and rocks as they were a bit over a half century ago. Flawless conclusion. There isn't any debate as to whether the earth is warming or not (at this moment in time) and several theories suggest it's a standard sun cycle period (which is not at all in debate). Some suggest it at least includes and is exacerbated by man's involvement (which I hope isn't in debate) and some say, with reasonable data behind their statements that we're about to enter a new cooling period within the next 15 years. My thoughts: We can do better. There is no such theory. The primary solar cycle is 11 years and while it is known to effect weather there is no corelation between that cycle and the present warming. That appears to be your theory. There's a bunch of 'em out there.

DomKen -> RE: New Article by Bill McKibben about global warming - read it and weep (7/20/2012 3:15:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Weather is part of climate as a tree is to the forest. One is a subset of the other. The first paragraph of the article didn't equivocate the terms. Warming is simply what the climate is doing at this time in the planet's history. Regardless of whether we are contributing or not, we need to wean ourselves from fossil fuel based energy sources so we can tell the Arabs to go fuck themselves and eat dirt and rocks as they were a bit over a half century ago. Flawless conclusion. There isn't any debate as to whether the earth is warming or not (at this moment in time) and several theories suggest it's a standard sun cycle period (which is not at all in debate). Some suggest it at least includes and is exacerbated by man's involvement (which I hope isn't in debate) and some say, with reasonable data behind their statements that we're about to enter a new cooling period within the next 15 years. My thoughts: We can do better. There is no such theory. The primary solar cycle is 11 years and while it is known to effect weather there is no corelation between that cycle and the present warming. That appears to be your theory. There's a bunch of 'em out there. Show me the published in a peer reviewed journal article putting forth this claim.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: New Article by Bill McKibben about global warming - read it and weep (7/20/2012 3:59:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Weather is part of climate as a tree is to the forest. One is a subset of the other. The first paragraph of the article didn't equivocate the terms. Warming is simply what the climate is doing at this time in the planet's history. Regardless of whether we are contributing or not, we need to wean ourselves from fossil fuel based energy sources so we can tell the Arabs to go fuck themselves and eat dirt and rocks as they were a bit over a half century ago. Flawless conclusion. There isn't any debate as to whether the earth is warming or not (at this moment in time) and several theories suggest it's a standard sun cycle period (which is not at all in debate). Some suggest it at least includes and is exacerbated by man's involvement (which I hope isn't in debate) and some say, with reasonable data behind their statements that we're about to enter a new cooling period within the next 15 years. My thoughts: We can do better. There is no such theory. The primary solar cycle is 11 years and while it is known to effect weather there is no corelation between that cycle and the present warming. That appears to be your theory. There's a bunch of 'em out there. Show me the published in a peer reviewed journal article putting forth this claim. Why would I bother to take the time to do that?

DomKen -> RE: New Article by Bill McKibben about global warming - read it and weep (7/20/2012 5:29:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Weather is part of climate as a tree is to the forest. One is a subset of the other. The first paragraph of the article didn't equivocate the terms. Warming is simply what the climate is doing at this time in the planet's history. Regardless of whether we are contributing or not, we need to wean ourselves from fossil fuel based energy sources so we can tell the Arabs to go fuck themselves and eat dirt and rocks as they were a bit over a half century ago. Flawless conclusion. There isn't any debate as to whether the earth is warming or not (at this moment in time) and several theories suggest it's a standard sun cycle period (which is not at all in debate). Some suggest it at least includes and is exacerbated by man's involvement (which I hope isn't in debate) and some say, with reasonable data behind their statements that we're about to enter a new cooling period within the next 15 years. My thoughts: We can do better. There is no such theory. The primary solar cycle is 11 years and while it is known to effect weather there is no corelation between that cycle and the present warming. That appears to be your theory. There's a bunch of 'em out there. Show me the published in a peer reviewed journal article putting forth this claim. Why would I bother to take the time to do that? Since there isn't any such it would be a waste of your time. It would however support your claim and show you weren't just spouting long debunked global warming denialism, if such existed.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: New Article by Bill McKibben about global warming - read it and weep (7/20/2012 7:02:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Weather is part of climate as a tree is to the forest. One is a subset of the other. The first paragraph of the article didn't equivocate the terms. Warming is simply what the climate is doing at this time in the planet's history. Regardless of whether we are contributing or not, we need to wean ourselves from fossil fuel based energy sources so we can tell the Arabs to go fuck themselves and eat dirt and rocks as they were a bit over a half century ago. Flawless conclusion. There isn't any debate as to whether the earth is warming or not (at this moment in time) and several theories suggest it's a standard sun cycle period (which is not at all in debate). Some suggest it at least includes and is exacerbated by man's involvement (which I hope isn't in debate) and some say, with reasonable data behind their statements that we're about to enter a new cooling period within the next 15 years. My thoughts: We can do better. There is no such theory. The primary solar cycle is 11 years and while it is known to effect weather there is no corelation between that cycle and the present warming. That appears to be your theory. There's a bunch of 'em out there. Show me the published in a peer reviewed journal article putting forth this claim. Why would I bother to take the time to do that? Since there isn't any such it would be a waste of your time. It would however support your claim and show you weren't just spouting long debunked global warming denialism, if such existed. I wasn't spouting anything. You need to take a chill pill. I simply suggested there are multiple opinions, they are based on as many theories (some of which I mentioned), moreover, many people share many different variations of the above. If you want to do some research on this subject, feel free...the world is your oyster. I neither give a shit about the results of said research, or your opinion that said research needs to be obtained, but it is readily available if you really feel it's truly that important to obtain. The debate as to whether or not the Earth (at this moment) is warming is over. As to what's causing it, how long it will last or whether it will continue is certainly one for scientists and people vastly smarter than I or (most assuredly) you. And if you (again) feel a need for any kind of research to prove this, or that Santa Claus is real or not, or that cars run on energy is entirely up to you. Feel free. Envelope yourself in the splendor of it. I hope it fills you with wonder and a deep unending sense of satisfaction.

DomKen -> RE: New Article by Bill McKibben about global warming - read it and weep (7/20/2012 8:36:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie I wasn't spouting anything. You need to take a chill pill. I simply suggested there are multiple opinions, they are based on as many theories (some of which I mentioned), moreover, many people share many different variations of the above. No. You claimed there were competing theories including that solar cycles was behind the present warming. I pointed out quite correctly that there was no such theory. quote: several theories suggest it's a standard sun cycle period You need to stop spouting made up nonsense. Otherwise I'll keep pointing out when you do.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875