Poll, Is Global Warming real?

[stopcamping]

/Edited by Mod /

Think about what you are posting please.

well now it looks like i cursed someone out or something, when really i just said i find it amusing that the other poster thinks im a libbie. dont know why somone would edit this kind of post.

[rn79870]

We don't point at other posters and "lol" in a personal way. You're new here and you're learning. What might be okay in Gen Chat isn't going to fly here.

You'll get the hang of it soon enough. Until then, just take the high road. Okay?

Thanks.

[audtatious]

well now it looks like i cursed someone out or something, when really i just said i find it amusing that the other poster thinks im a libbie. dont know why somone would edit this kind of post.

If you read my post again you may realize I made no such assumption.

[stopcamping]

If you read my post again you may realize I made no such assumption.

lol ok

[96Qowner]

Some interesting data from unimpeachable sources:

All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASAGISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. A compiled list of all the sources can be seen...The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years.

The troposphere hasn’t warmed for the past five years. And the oceans haven’t warmed for five years either,

And here is Ross McKittrick (who exposed the fundamental flaw in the research underpinning the whole of MMGW theory, the hockey-stick curve whose upward warming trend was achieved by omitting several hundred years of global climate history) revealing that there is an error in groundstation measurements such that past warming as measured by near-surface air has been over-estimated by 100% for over 20 years to 2002 (since when there has been cooling). While at Climate Audit, John Goetz says that the temperature record for 2005-2007 has actually been falsified to produce an upward trend.

Further links inside the article.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/mel...thtml

[audtatious]

They just "adjust". Didn't you know this is simply a cooling trend before the huge warming trend hits us? I bet the people who came out with the IPCC "hockey stick" graph can still spin it to look the same

FWIW, the stupid Gov went ahead and listed the polar bear as "threatened" although their population overall is growing. Another notch on the gunbelt for environmentalists to use against anything that pollutes the air. Forget about drilling for new oil or anything else as they will use this as another method to keep us from doing what we need to do.

Hey environmentalists, my family and I would like to pass on a big "FU".

[Soravia]

The polar bears had their ice for hundreds of thousands of years and just started losing them since last three decades.

Oh yeah, that's so NATURAL alright.

[audtatious]

Are you telling me that any and all changes to global temperature has nothing to do with nature and is only due to human impact? What about the fact that all the melted ice areas are ice again? What about the areas where some glaceiers have receeded and shown ancient crops? Did our CO2 levels catch a wormhole into the past and cause global warming to melt them? Regardless of the IPCC and Gore, history shows us that we go through cycles and these cycles predate our industrialized age.

[Soravia]

Yeah, but they didn't happen in ONE CENTURY.

Lol, bad spellings.
Modified by Soravia at 11:52 PM 8/7/2008

[ishkabibble]

Centaurs are eating the polar bears?

[HashiriyaS14]

I would love to make a poll like this on creationism vs. evolution, but obviously forum subsection rules prohibit it.

I can only imagine that it would skew the same way in rough proportion. That thread and this one together would indeed say something powerful about how tiny a segment of the US population agrees with many of the sentiments expressed on this board.

[Jesda]

I thought the controversy was over the cause-effect relationship.

[audtatious]

I can only imagine that it would skew the same way in rough proportion. That thread and this one together would indeed say something powerful about how tiny a segment of the US population agrees with many of the sentiments expressed on this board.

Why, because you believe in MMGW and assume that us bible thumpers are all anti-MMGW?

[Jesda]

I would love to make a poll like this on creationism vs. evolution, but obviously forum subsection rules prohibit it.

I can only imagine that it would skew the same way in rough proportion. That thread and this one together would indeed say something powerful about how tiny a segment of the US population agrees with many of the sentiments expressed on this board.

Its not even an important issue, at least not to most folks. The far right and far left harp about it, but few care.

[HashiriyaS14]

Why, because you believe in MMGW and assume that us bible thumpers are all anti-MMGW?

I just shot a glance at the poll on the first page, I'm not attributing it to anyone in particular.

I do happen to subscribe to MMGW, although I don't think I've made any particular secret of that fact, nor is it an issue I feel is vital enough to harp on constantly, so you probably haven't heard me mention it much.

At any rate, I made the post because I have a continuing interest in how representative this forum subsection is of a cross-section of American society. I feel that, at least on MMGW, the population here is probably well skewed from the US on average as evidenced by the poll. I was merely postulating that on creationism, I'd expect a similar result, and with many other issues.

For instance, it is undeniable that the politics section (myself included) skews WELL to the right on firearms-related issues. Seeing as how this board is in no way designed to reflect national averages (nor is it "designed" at all, per se), it isn't really in any way material, but I have an ongoing curiosity in regards to pegging down the political leanings of this board.

Jesda: I've seen a couple posts from you thus far to that effect, and I'm certainly not in disagreement that, generally, fringe stuff like MMGW and social issues tend not to be the driving forces behind who gets elected.

That said, for me, I look at them really closely, as I feel that they (after voting record) are the most accurate way to predict what kind of President (or Senator, or whatever) a given person will be. Personally, I have a real problem with the idea of someone who takes the Noah's Ark story literally having access to the nuclear codes. I realize it puts me in a tiny minority of American voters, and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing as it might not be as effective a litmus test as I believe it is, but it just happens to be how I, personally, approach the evaluation of candidates.

[Jesda]

Jesda: I've seen a couple posts from you thus far to that effect, and I'm certainly not in disagreement that, generally, fringe stuff like MMGW and social issues tend not to be the driving forces behind who gets elected.

That said, for me, I look at them really closely, as I feel that they (after voting record) are the most accurate way to predict what kind of President (or Senator, or whatever) a given person will be. Personally, I have a real problem with the idea of someone who takes the Noah's Ark story literally having access to the nuclear codes. I realize it puts me in a tiny minority of American voters, and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing as it might not be as effective a litmus test as I believe it is, but it just happens to be how I, personally, approach the evaluation of candidates.

Take for example abortion. Ron Paul is big opponent of legal abortion who otherwise believes in small government. He sees it as a life issue, I see it as a federal involvement issue. Ron Paul is also a devoted baptist, but he believes in limited spending, limited taxation, and limited military engagement overseas. His view of where the world came from and our purpose in this universe differs from mine completely, but he still has the ability to separate religion from government.

In other words, I see him as a thinking man who still has deeply held religious beliefs.

And since his entire life has been devoted to bringing unborn babies into the world, and since thousands in his district were brought into the world by their own obstetrician/congressman, I can overlook and excuse his pro-life position.

Thus, a candidate who agrees with me on the size of government is on my side no matter what, because their view of government as being an organization with a limited role transcends their personal convictions.

I oppose abortion. I favor legal abortion.I oppose drug use. I oppose the war on drugs.

It is possible to have it both ways, to be moral while against using government to impose morality, if the candidate is intelligent enough make the distinction. And if you can't trust a candidate to put the public above their religion or lack thereof, you shouldn't vote for them anyway.

[Jesda]

Amen to that. It left me by moving left.

[audtatious]

Since this is a Global Warming thread, what part of MMGW do you agree with? Seems we have some who feel in 10 years time frame that NY and others will be under water to those who feel there is a small percentage of change based on MMGW to those that simply say BS.

[sanioll]

Poll, Is Global Warming real?

Poll set up on a car forum. What do you think the answer will be?

Another useful poll option should've been: Is man the major contributor to CO2 level increase?

[KGB]

Global warming. I believe it to be true. I, however, do not believe the reason why its warming. Just recently, I actually looked at the year. Not just looked at it and say oh yeah its 2008, but looked at it OH MAN! *Light Bulb* Its 2008! So many years back there were a bunch of kids who were around my age. 20 or so years old. How old are they now? OH CRAP!*Light Bulb again* Some of those kids probably thought it would be smart to infiltrate the infrastuture of the government and infect the world with what they thought to be true then! Hippies got smart and evolved and became politicians and scientists, teaming up to be one force to be reckoned with. This is my theory on global warming. There are tons of magma under us. Like a pimple it speews out via volcanoes. The Earths water like a nice ICE cold glass of *insert desierable drink here* sitting in the sun or next to a hot stove. The ice melts with time. The heat from the stove help accelerate this process. So, refardless of what is being said out there (i,e, politicians, media) global warming is inevitable and will continue whether we like it or not.

[HashiriyaS14]

Global warming. I believe it to be true. I, however, do not believe the reason why its warming. Just recently, I actually looked at the year. Not just looked at it and say oh yeah its 2008, but looked at it OH MAN! *Light Bulb* Its 2008! So many years back there were a bunch of kids who were around my age. 20 or so years old. How old are they now? OH CRAP!*Light Bulb again* Some of those kids probably thought it would be smart to infiltrate the infrastuture of the government and infect the world with what they thought to be true then! Hippies got smart and evolved and became politicians and scientists, teaming up to be one force to be reckoned with. This is my theory on global warming. There are tons of magma under us. Like a pimple it speews out via volcanoes. The Earths water like a nice ICE cold glass of *insert desierable drink here* sitting in the sun or next to a hot stove. The ice melts with time. The heat from the stove help accelerate this process. So, refardless of what is being said out there (i,e, politicians, media) global warming is inevitable and will continue whether we like it or not.

WTF?

[audtatious]

I think he is saying that the reason we are having all these "scientists" come out about Global Warming being caused by man is because those same scientists were the hippies/environmental advocates of the 60's simply pressing forth their same rhetoric.

As for the rest, I'm not sure.....

[barrigas14]

Do I believe in global warming, yes.

There is evidence for it and against.

Main reason is because of what we produce and how it can effect the world. We, as humans, destroy ecosystems that naturally scrub the globe of pollutants. While at the same time we introduce allot of pollutants.

My view is this, simplified of course, say there is 100 trees in a bubble. Now the normal cycle is for things to grow then die. When stuff grows it takes in more pollutants and expels cleaned air. When it dies it degrades and releases pollutants. Which the trees use up again and again. Now, say someone cut down a few trees and burned them. Well there is now more pollutants floating in the air and less trees. The trees would be able to absorb that over a certain amount of time if everything were normal. But problem is, it's not normal because this happens every year. Now introduce oil or other products which haven't been introduced before...now there is more pollutants and even less trees.

Yes, simplified, but that is my thinking. Earth is a bubble and the more we put up and cut down, the less there is to naturally clean it.

I am open to other understanding as long as someone puts forth the information in a logical way. I have heard about the solar effect and to me I understand that it can contribute to the problem. But it's like a cars engine. There are many things that can contribute to a car overheating, addressing one could have a negative/positive impact on the other. We can't control the sun, but we can control what we as humans do.

[audtatious]

There is no doubt that there is some impact. The question remains "how much" and if the amount we spew in CO2 is a major attribute. With the breakdown of greenhouse gasses being what they are (95% water vapor, 5% others (which includes CO2)), CO2 represents 3.6% of all greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and of that 3.6% only 0.3% is man made.

I'm not against cleaner technology in the least. I feel it is a natural direction we are going anyway and feel pressing forth measures that will economically strap us in order to force that very small percentage to be even smaller is retarded and will have no real impact.

[barrigas14]

There is no doubt that there is some impact. The question remains "how much" and if the amount we spew in CO2 is a major attribute. With the breakdown of greenhouse gasses being what they are (95% water vapor, 5% others (which includes CO2)), CO2 represents 3.6% of all greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and of that 3.6% only 0.3% is man made.

I'm not against cleaner technology in the least. I feel it is a natural direction we are going anyway and feel pressing forth measures that will economically strap us in order to force that very small percentage to be even smaller is retarded and will have no real impact.

I am not sure on the impact that humans make. I don't think anyone really knows because it's been what, 10 years that they have truly been looking at what is going on.

To me it's the combination of spewing out pollutants and destroying natural environments that are effecting it faster.

Also the thing about the CO2, is that yes it is 3.6% of the total atmosphere, but who is to say that a .3% isn't a bigger enough increase to start making problems?

Think of our car's engine, if there is a small problem, and it continues on and on and on, then it starts to cause a bigger problem and could lead to a snow ball effect.

One of the concerns about the warming of the earth is that there is allot of methane that is contained in areas that are frozen. I think it's Siberia that has a lake that has allot of permafrost around it. When the permafrost thaws it falls into the lake and starts to decompose, releasing the methane in it. Which travels up and into the atmosphere. Methane is a greater greenhouse gas as CO2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa3M4ou3kvw <--- cool vid about it btw.

So what I am say is that small increases could have larger impacts that we don't know about yet. If things continue to happen, then maybe the human effect is larger than it would seem to appear.

[audtatious]

Methane is far worse for the environment than CO2 and our food sources are adding to it, thus the latest PETA and UN BS about the number of "food stock" we have.

Now, the question is what to do. Global Warming is real. The cause of Global Warming is not clear no matter how the UN, Gore and environmentalists want to blame mankind. We simply cannot cut off our left hand to spite our right hand as that would be stupid and that is exactly what those people/groups want us to do. Technology still does not exist to save us from utilizing dino-power of some form of another. The US has set a good course and we have numerous groups who are working towards solutions which will help without hindering us economically. Pouring trillions of dollars into lowering our CO2 impact by the small percentage that Gore and gang wants is no solution.

My question today is how long is our cold spell going to last and how bad is it going to be?

[Bubba1]

Methane is far worse for the environment than CO2 and our food sources are adding to it, thus the latest PETA and UN BS about the number of "food stock" we have.

Now, the question is what to do. Global Warming is real. The cause of Global Warming is not clear no matter how the UN, Gore and environmentalists want to blame mankind. We simply cannot cut off our left hand to spite our right hand as that would be stupid and that is exactly what those people/groups want us to do. Technology still does not exist to save us from utilizing dino-power of some form of another. The US has set a good course and we have numerous groups who are working towards solutions which will help without hindering us economically. Pouring trillions of dollars into lowering our CO2 impact by the small percentage that Gore and gang wants is no solution.

My question today is how long is our cold spell going to last and how bad is it going to be?

I think the recent acceleration of global warmings has been caused by two words....

TACO BELL.

As more Taco Bell franchises have been opening, Global Warming has been getting worse. I think there is a direct relationship between the two. For example, Every time I've had a meal there, I end up having to take the most stinky gassy power dumps. We're talking major methane emissions here, And methane is a component of global warming. I also end up having to courtesy flush at least a few times, drawing more fresh water resources than what has been generated from the north. Then there's in the increased use of toilet paper, which is ultimately made from trees, which would other have otherwise been left standing to absorb the what is now increasing levels of CO2. Multiply this by the expanding number of Taco Bell customers that have similar after effects as me, and there's a contributor to global warming.

Thoughts?

[Urabus GodofTraction]

For instance, it is undeniable that the politics section (myself included) skews WELL to the right on firearms-related issues.

*snicker*

[barrigas14]

Methane is far worse for the environment than CO2 and our food sources are adding to it, thus the latest PETA and UN BS about the number of "food stock" we have.

Now, the question is what to do. Global Warming is real. The cause of Global Warming is not clear no matter how the UN, Gore and environmentalists want to blame mankind. We simply cannot cut off our left hand to spite our right hand as that would be stupid and that is exactly what those people/groups want us to do. Technology still does not exist to save us from utilizing dino-power of some form of another. The US has set a good course and we have numerous groups who are working towards solutions which will help without hindering us economically. Pouring trillions of dollars into lowering our CO2 impact by the small percentage that Gore and gang wants is no solution.

My question today is how long is our cold spell going to last and how bad is it going to be?

What's the cold spell you are talking about? Was it posted earlier in this thread? I didn't read it all.

[96Qowner]

All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASAGISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. A compiled list of all the sources can be seen...The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years.

From my post higher on this page.