Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Four Months to Save Planet


Caesar
 Share

Recommended Posts

LMAO I guess we need to do something to save the planet since we only have 4 months. :unsure2:

It is not meant to be literal

Bush supports the myth of man made global warming.

Only after years of his the US governments science depts showing him all the data. When he came to power he didn't even acknowledge it existed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Caesar

    32

  • Mattshark

    49

  • stevewinn

    20

  • Wickian

    10

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

It is not meant to be literal

Only after years of his the US governments science depts showing him all the data. When he came to power he didn't even acknowledge it existed.

C'mon bud, Al Gore brought it to everyones attention, he ran on it and lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon bud, Al Gore brought it to everyones attention, he ran on it and lost.

Really! I have read papers on the subject from 1974. It was well known well before Al Gore.

Now what you are arguing is a myth.

Edited by Mattshark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

alas, another myth is that Gore LOST. but global warming is real. we're doin it. we gotta fix it or we will face cataclysm. someone should shoot ceasar in the face with a reality gun.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alas, another myth is that Gore LOST. but global warming is real. we're doin it. we gotta fix it or we will face cataclysm. someone should shoot ceasar in the face with a reality gun.....

I suggest you put down the kool aid. Gore lost Bush won, global warming might be real but not man made global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there were ice ages once, too!

Humans didn't invent climate change. Nor did we invent fauna extinctions. Hell, we didn't even invent forest fires! But it seems that we have the ability to generate all of these, regardless of whether they've happened before. And yes, the present period of climate change promises to exacerbate social tensions and lead to more violence, as in Darfur. Turns out water is an important resource to a lot of people around the world.

What I do not like is that they try to prevent it, fires help the forest from bigger disasters, if they did not happen regularly, the kindling material would build up and make it all go PHOOF too fast, also the nutrients are helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest you put down the kool aid. Gore lost Bush won, global warming might be real but not man made global warming.

And what do you have to dismiss this in terms of evidence. I think I have posted quite a fair amount for you including a guide from a scientific publication for those not involved with science. I can even show you papers on the subject that show it was scientific well before you recognise (From the journal Science in 1974). So what evidence do you have to dismiss the work I have posted or to show naturalistic causes that contradict what my sources say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest you put down the kool aid. Gore lost Bush won, global warming might be real but not man made global warming.

You used the 2000 election to imply that if Gore's policy ideas were accepted he would've "won," which generally implies winning more votes. That Gore did win more votes running on those ideas would seem to be a relevant point.

What I do not like is that they try to prevent it, fires help the forest from bigger disasters, if they did not happen regularly, the kindling material would build up and make it all go PHOOF too fast, also the nutrients are helpful.

True, but when fires threaten our communities or our population we attempt to intervene. The sooner people realize that combating climate change is about saving our own asses (just like fighting forest fires that encroach on populated areas in California), the better off we'll be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You used the 2000 election to imply that if Gore's policy ideas were accepted he would've "won," which generally implies winning more votes. That Gore did win more votes running on those ideas would seem to be a relevant point.

No I think Gore discussed more on the man made global myth and thats whem it got alot of attention, in his talks and the left wing media. I'm not saying that it was never talked about but he was the leader in of that faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I think Gore discussed more on the man made global myth and thats whem it got alot of attention, in his talks and the left wing media. I'm not saying that it was never talked about but he was the leader in of that faith.

You don't have a left wing media.

I'm still wondering where this evidence that AGW is a myth, why is the evidence I presented incorrect?

Edited by Mattshark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I do not like is that they try to prevent it, fires help the forest from bigger disasters, if they did not happen regularly, the kindling material would build up and make it all go PHOOF too fast, also the nutrients are helpful.

It's a difficult situation, because many forested areas have already reached that point where they've accumulated too much underbrush and any benefits from clearing through that method are incinerated. Both our options are grim as a result: either attempt to control or prevent fires (which is borderline impossible and incredibly expensive) or let the fires go and either lose the forest anyway or endanger the people nearby, as Startraveler pointed out.

I'm still confused where this "religion" idea is coming from in some of the other posts here. A minority of scientists believe that humans have nothing to do with global warming (and please spare us the "all the scientists are bought out by the crazy libs!!!" conspiracy theories). And yet people are willing to not only accept that as unquestionable fact but claim it's the other side that's believing something based on faith.

Wikipedia has a nice page dedicated to the Global Warming Controversy, and ironically most of the accusations skeptics are leveling towards scientists who believe humans are affecting global warming are in fact in reverse (i.e. deniers offering $100,000 rewards to scientists providing information disproving the idea, politicians pressuring scientists to hush-up on evidence, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have a left wing media.

I'm still wondering where this evidence that AGW is a myth, why is the evidence I presented incorrect?

There are no facts or proof, its simply opinions and theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no facts or proof, its simply opinions and theories.

Look up what a scientific theory is. It is very much not an opinion, it is not a guess and it requires facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look up what a scientific theory is. It is very much not an opinion, it is not a guess and it requires facts.

Fact is I froze my butt off at work yesterday. And am going to today as well. It still SUMMER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fact is I froze my butt off at work yesterday. And am going to today as well. It still SUMMER.

Great, well done, irrelevant information and showing a complete lack of understanding.

Your local weather for one day = irrelevant, you may as well say it was cold. It is meaningless. This is about long term, global climatological changes, not the temperature near your house or work.

Weather does not equal climate. They are two separate things.

Edited by Mattshark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So even though the last 7 or so years, aside from a warm spike in '07, has been reporting and dropping temperatures, and colder than average summers/winters recently, all over the globe, it's still warming at an "unprecedented rate?"

The climate models, that supposedly predict a "much warmer year this time around" every single year, have been wrong for quite some time now. They've essentially lost all credibility to predict climate patterns with their string of incorrect predictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So even though the last 7 or so years, aside from a warm spike in '07, has been reporting and dropping temperatures, and colder than average summers/winters recently, all over the globe, it's still warming at an "unprecedented rate?"

The climate models, that supposedly predict a "much warmer year this time around" every single year, have been wrong for quite some time now. They've essentially lost all credibility to predict climate patterns with their string of incorrect predictions.

Climate Change: Key Indicators

The point of interest is the section under "Global Average Temperature". Perhaps rising temperatures have plateaued a bit recently (emphasis on perhaps), however they hardly count as a dramatic drop. In fact it's been quite the opposite: even if temperatures plateau now and never rise again (unlikely), we're currently residing in the hottest decade on record.

I'm confused what you're arguing, anyway. It seems you're implying that global warming isn't even happening, regardless of whether it's caused by man or not ("temperatures are dropping", etc). There is literally no scientific body of any standing that supports such an argument (source), and only a very small minority of fringe scientists who do (and after a second glance, most of those only question the anthropogenic causes). Some question whether humans have contributed, but you're really going to be hard-pressed to find any "science" that denies the whole thing.

Edited: typos.

Edited by Teej
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So even though the last 7 or so years, aside from a warm spike in '07, has been reporting and dropping temperatures, and colder than average summers/winters recently, all over the globe, it's still warming at an "unprecedented rate?"

The climate models, that supposedly predict a "much warmer year this time around" every single year, have been wrong for quite some time now. They've essentially lost all credibility to predict climate patterns with their string of incorrect predictions.

Yeah its been like that here as well. climate models are wrong about half the time, you have a better chance using a ouija board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah its been like that here as well. climate models are wrong about half the time, you have a better chance using a ouija board.

Great so because it was a bit colder by you that means the average GLOBAL temperature is dropping?!

Seriously get an education. Especially to how science actually works.

Edited by Mattshark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great so because it was a bit colder by you that means the average GLOBAL temperature is dropping?!

Did I say that? my opinion is that the planet has been getting warmer since it was created and it has nothing to do with man, now you can post all the global warming science hacks you want to try and link the two, my opinion is shared by others scientists. its hard to believe that the moon, sun and mars are getting warmer because of changes in the sun or that the sun is causing many other planets to get warmer but man made global warming is caused by man on earth.

Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its hard to believe that the moon, sun and mars are getting warmer

They are not. We have no data for which to conclude that these bodies are getting warmer. You're mis-comparing weather again instead of climate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are not. We have no data for which to conclude that these bodies are getting warmer. You're mis-comparing weather again instead of climate.

Correct.

In fact Caesar if you bothered to read the links I put you will see their is a paper showing the sun is not warming (and that is a real paper in a top level journal, not nat geo or livescience). If it was we would see system wide warming. We don't though.

Secondly the first article is not evidence of anything. It is just claims of position and meaningless.

I have also read the EPA minority report (ignoring the fact that the man who wrote it knowingly lied about NOAA data in congress) and found there was no science in it just quotes and baseless claims.

The major issue is that I can find good papers showing AGW, where as there is deliberate lying and known bribery from from those who oppose it (like Fred Singer claiming to get data about glaciers advancing from an article in Science that never existed or the American Enterprise Institute offering $10000 to dispute global warming).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are not. We have no data for which to conclude that these bodies are getting warmer. You're mis-comparing weather again instead of climate.

No, I suggest you read the articles and use some common sense. its research into its climate and not weather.

At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades

Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.