| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
Comments:
<0> `426Hemi, that politicians are engaged in propaganda doesn't mean they're wrong.
<1> largely by ignoring evidence of the past 3 billion years
<2> oh my god
<2> Viop ok, you go ahead and takethe words of a politician over Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the M***achusetts Institute of Technology. That is YOUR choice
<1> I think it's cool if popular awareness of pollution problems and solutions increases; I think it's extremely stupid if people think setting up a bureaucracy enabling the buying and selling of pollution credits is a solution
<2> Thanks but i will stick with someone who actually knows wtf they are talking about
<0> `426Hemi, ok, yes, by all means, stick with someone who agrees with you, regardless of what new data has come in over the last 10 years
<1> Uiop, have you read Anthropogenic Global Warming Doctrine http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=14429 originally published in the Newsletter of the Geological Society of New Zealand, No. 138, November 2005: 60-64
<0> No, gloriae, I haven't, guess I'll have a skim at that too...
<1> 10 years is a mere eyelash of time in global climatology
<1> much of the new data in the last 10 years, and nearly all the computer simulation data, is quite deceptive and misleading
<0> True, but so is 300,000 years -- which is how long homo sapiens has existed. Eyelashes are what concern us
<1> and ignores real data from paleoclimatology and paleometeorology
<2> Viop, it was published in 2004
<2> NEXT!
<1> the planet's climate cycles were establised hundreds of millions of years before homo sapiens was on the scene
<0> "Hockey Stick graph" -- that sounds familiar, I think I have read this before
<0> "Urban Heat Island effect" -- yup, I've read this before. It's definitely an article with an axe to grind.
<2> it was originally published in 1992
<2> and re-published in 2004
<3> `426Hemi, what about the national academy of science in the united states.. whom signed a document stating global warming was real
<1> a scientific axe, Uiop, if you're refering to the 2005 article from the Newsletter of the Geol. Soc. of NZ
<0> gloriae, no, this looks more political. The introduction is certainly anything but scientific.
<1> you're wrong, Uiop
<2> pmo, you mean the same science organisation that dismissed MIT professor of Meteorology's accessment that the data collection was flawed ?
<0> ok, gloriae
<0> So anyway, are we at least in agreement that the earth is warming?
<1> there's so much fake science bandied about by global warming alarmists, it's like alien pyramid crystal power
<1> http://stopabduction.com
<3> `426Hemi, i don't know they've done that.. but i've pointe you to a document signed by US national academy...
<0> gloriae, what is your explanation for the observed significant and rapid increase in global temperature over the last several decades?
<2> In the winter of 1989 Reginald Newell, a professor of meteorology at the M***achusetts Institute of Technology, lost National Science Foundation funding for data analyses that were failing to show net warming over the past century. Reviewers suggested that his results were dangerous to humanity.
<1> what do you know about the increasing drought during 10,000,000 years of the Miocene, Uiop, and the 20,000,000 years of drought in the Pliocene? and the rapid climate fluctuations in the 1,000,000 years of the Pleistocene?
<3> gloriae, well, in here.. we don't discuss much more if it is reall or not.. we try to figure out how we can manage it
<2> GENEVA--Long-term predictions about the impact of increased greenhouse gas emissions on climate will remain seriously flawed as long as uncertainties remain about the workings of global greenhouse gas sources and sinks, according to a report from the World Meteorological Organization made available Feb. 6.
<4> pmo in where?
<2> The report said that ''standardized methods have been used worldwide to calculate CO2 produced by fossil fuels ... but not for agriculture and forestry. Lack of a standardized methodology and the episodicity of environmental related emissions are the principal causes of the high uncertainties of greenhouse gases from terrestrial ecosystems.''
<3> gloriae, in europe..
<5> Hi all
<1> local pollution problems are very real and can be solved
<6> Nearly Half Of Children Under 5 In America Are Minorities; Hispanic population growing rapidly
<1> hysteria about global warming is an extremely poor substitute for real problemsolving
<0> `426Hemi, there you are wrong. Long-term predictions are known already with absolute certainty. In about 50 years we're going to run out of fossil fuel, the CO2 in the atmosphere will be reabsorbed by the ecosystem, and within 100 years or so life will return to normal.
<1> local and regional
<1> "long term predictions are known with absolute certainty" LOL
<0> The question is just what we want to do during the next century or so to deal with the short-term problems.
<0> that's right, gloriae, ignore the rest of what I said.
<1> you can get serious about real polluters instead of whacking off
<1> what do you think of 'pollution credits' Uiop
<2> Claims that "all scientists" agree that global warming is occurring, that it is a real threat to the earth and that human activities are contributing to it are belied by a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union. It showed that a vast majority doubted there has been any warming to date that could be identified specifically as caused by humans.
<2> 49 percent said there has been none.
<2> 33 percent said they didn't know.
<2> 18 percent thought some has occurred.
<2> 2001
<3> `426Hemi, bye mister jet.. bud, gloriae pilgrim, and all others.. have a good chat.. and never stop being critical.. moot :)
<0> `426Hemi, what about the claim that global warming is occuring -- leaving off "threat to the earth" and "human activities are contributing"? Do you have percents for that?
<1> Uiop: your statement that the 'introduction' (I presume you mean the opening paragraph(s)) of the Geol. Soc. NZ article is 'more political' and 'certainly anything but scientific' is totally false
<7> Yo, negroes.
<2> to be quite frank, i used to believe in all this global warming crap until about the year 1998, and definitely don't believe it now, when i was a kid there was predicitions that by the year 2005 the world would be like a baked potato
<2> well, here we are, we have the coldest spring on record
<2> so much for global warming
<1> yeah, hemi, that kind of thing highlights one of the key differences between fake science and real science
<0> `426Hemi, "the world would be like a baked potato", yes, there's the trouble, you bought into the most extreme propaganda on the one side, and now, in reaction, you're pendulumning to the other side's propaganda... you've lost complete track of reality.
<7> I dig the new pictures from Jenin that show the Palestinians at a military graduation party doing the Nazi salute.
<2> Viop, you haven't even read the ****ing article i presented and then telling me what judgements i am making about it... I merely am showing that the current scientific course on data collection is FLAWED, period...
<7> Liberals will, of course, blink.
<7> Nazi? Noo.
<2> so unless you go and read the freakin article, i would suggest you stop telling me where i stand on the subject
<0> The reality is that the world is warming, that CO2 is increasing, and that the scientists are researching the relationship between these two facts and at present there appears to be a causal relationshpi between human CO2 production and global warming. There is not a consensus, however, on how strong this relationship is
<2> puts idiot stick on ignore... heh
<7> The world may indeed be warming. So what? Mars is also warming.
<0> `426Hemi, I skimmed it, I am completely aware that there are... ok, well, whatever.
<7> The earth warms and cools as is its wont. It doesn't necessarily mean anything.
<8> praxis9: global warming is a conspiracy cooked up by the world to destroy the united states
<8> fight it at all costs!
<8> right?
<0> praxis9, yes, well, the solar cycle is only 11 years long, so while the sun is probably contributing to the current increase, it can't be soley responsible
<1> he hasn't read the Geol. Soc. NZ article I posted either, hemi
<1> he doesn't seem interested in being informed
<2> this guy is a hoot though... <+Uiop> `426Hemi, "the world would be like a baked potato", yes, there's the trouble, you bought into the most extreme propaganda <--- and yet here he is buying into the propaganda he accuses me of buying into years ago that scientists and politicians tried to cram down our freakin throats
<0> gloriae, I did read it, but that's ok, console yourself with whatever you want to believe
<1> I don't need consoling
<1> you do need education
<7> Uiop: That would be well and good if we could say with any certainty that the warming on Mars is strictly a matter of solar activity. We can't.
<1> just what we need, political officers like Uiop in every scientific laboratory
<2> but that is typical of arguing with lefties
<0> Wow, now I'm a political officer
<4> `426Hemi how's your buddy that was arrested with 6 pouns of coke and a jeep full of guns doing? did the $300 bail clear it all up?
<0> YOU! STOP CRITICIZING SCIENCE!
<8> WASHINGTON - The Federal Reserve boosted Americans' borrowing costs for the 16th time in a row on Wednesday this time to the highest level in five years but suggested what happens next will be much less predictable.
<8> unpredictable
<8> thats awesome
<8> this bernarke guy is a genius
<7> I think that any scientists who pretends to speak with some authority involving matter of geologic time is, in reality, not much of a scientist. But that is my own opinion.
<7> matters, rather.
<2> i tend to agree prax
<7> The time scales involved are vast. We don't know much. It doesn't make sense to me to pretend that we know what is happening.
<0> td-, hmmm, as far as I can tell, he's just following Greenspan's playbook... raise rates and pretend you don't know what you're going to do next. Keep 'em guessing
<1> ditto for nonscientists who pretend to scientific knowledge, prax
<4> praxis9 my town is a center of that debate. Bush appointed some scientists here to find the facts of some issues on climate change, they resigned, their peers would not accept unbiased data
<7> So I'm agnostic on the whole global warming thing.
<2> as i said earlier, meteorologists can't even tell me what the weather is going to be like tomorrow let alone tell us the effects of global warming over a length of time
<2> a funny one is that the guy who wrote that article who is the Arthur P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT, by environmental whack jobs he is called "corrupt" and an outcast of science for merely questioning the motives of politicians and other scientists data collection methods
<7> bud: You're a good man. Keep up the good work.
<1> hemi: I think I got here too late to see the URL for that article, give it again?
<7> What does a man do when his love is spurned? Drink m***ive amounts of beer and do something stupid?
<2> in fact they want to charge him with Felony criminal conspiracy charges
<2> hahahaha
<2> hang on Gloriae i bookmarked
<9> what the heck is divX codec?
<2> a type of DVD format
<2> kinda
<9> hmm
<9> what does it do?
<2> it plays movies=)
<2> http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html <-- here you go Gloriae
<4> CometBaby a warez kiddie format for trading movies in high compression with minimal loss of quality
<9> bud .. ack
<9> I don't want that on my machine and I haven't got a clue how it got there
<7> It's a rather efficient codec, actually.
<9> I don't trade movies
<2> DivX [da?v'eks] is a video codec created by DivX, Inc. (formerly DivXNetworks, Inc.), which has become popular due to its ability to compress lengthy video segments into small sizes while maintaining relatively high visual quality. DivX uses lossy MPEG-4 Part 2 compression, where quality is balanced against file size for utility.
<7> Not too tawdry, anyway.
<1> thanks, hemi!
<4> there's nothing wrong with it. Its a great way to trade movies without HUGE files
<9> bud but I don't trade movies. I wonder how it got installed.
<2> It is one of several codecs commonly ***ociated with ripping, where audio and video multimedia are transferred to a hard disk and transcoded. As a result, DivX has been a center of controversy because of its use in the replication and distribution of copyrighted DVDs.
<7> Comet: I'll trade you my drunken rage video for a video of you dancing naked on a table.
<7> Hehe
<9> praxis .. lol
<2> Comet, you don't have to trade movies to use it=)
<9> hemi but I have an awesome dvd player
<9> I have WinDVD 6 and its awesome
<1> hemi: this is an excellent companion piece with the Newsletter of the Geol. Sci. of NZ piece
<2> Comet, its probably DiVX capable=)
<4> CometBaby exactly, you download the latest movies from irc and bittorrent in divx avi or other, then burn them to DVD and enjoy them on your awesome dvd player
<2> gloriae wait til you get to the part about Al Gore as Senator
<2> amazing
<9> bud I don't download movies on bittorrent or irc
<7> Al Gore, man of the Tree People.
<2> Comet, you don't have to
<9> never have and never will
<4> CometBaby I know =D just giving you crap
<9> in fact I don't even dcc :)
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#politics
#mirc
Knghtonline 2.0
#linux-noob
#firebird
#hardware
#politics
#beginner
#stocks
#stocks
|
|