OOPS IT'S NOT THE SUN!!!!

[Jonne]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm



HI CIRCUS!

[Jonne]

*Disclaimer* This post is in no ways a serious attempt to do any debate on the topic of climate change because the only result of such a debate would be nothing but pages of Googled articles and most likely Daniel saying something stupid and then clinging on to what he said like the Black Knight of Monty Python.
This post is merely meant as a parody of the way Circus gets a boner every time some random scientist questions climate change

[OmGee]

i actually dont think there is a debate we can make here...

[Goldshlager]

Damn jonne, I was going to post the same exact article and make a new thread for it too.

[Goldshlager]

What countries fighter jets produce the least amount of carbon emissions?

[deg]

What countries fighter jets produce the least amount of carbon emissions?
Slovenian Airforce
http://images.istheshit.net/kzsxchyh.jpg

[Tsgumi]

*Disclaimer* This post is in no ways a serious attempt to do any debate on the topic of climate change because the only result of such a debate would be nothing but pages of Googled articles and most likely Daniel saying something stupid and then clinging on to what he said like the Black Knight of Monty Python.
This post is merely meant as a parody of the way Circus gets a boner every time some random scientist questions climate change

Well one of us has to stick to their points instead of changing their position every other post.

[LightsabeR]

What countries fighter jets produce the least amount of carbon emissions?
American fighter jets are the SUV's of the skies! They are the sole cause of global warming.

[Goldshlager]

Well one of us has to stick to their points instead of changing their position every other post.


and it begins!

[Jonne]

Well one of us has to stick to their points instead of changing their position every other post.


Yes Daniel, I'm capable of admitting that I'm wrong sometimes.
You however are the kind of a guy who would've sank with the Titanic, shouting "THIS SHIP IS UNSINKABLE"

[Adrien]

Yes Daniel, I'm capable of admitting that I'm wrong sometimes.
You however are the kind of a guy who would've sank with the Titanic, shouting "THIS SHIP IS UNSINKABLE"

Wtf titanic wasn't unsinkable?

[Rikku0]

Wtf titanic wasn't unsinkable?

i lold

[Tatsumasa]

first...how many artical you think ppl could post now which proof that one wrong? its a huge discussion all over the world and BBC wont end it.

second...and if its not the sun, then its mostly American and China :dem_wink:

Mfg Tatsu

[Circus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm



HI CIRCUS!

first of all Jonne, global temperatures have not risen since 1998. Second, the .5 degree of "global warming" we have experienced in the last 100 years was completely wiped out last year. So yes, by all means lets continue the expensive process of trying to take plant food out of the atmosphere. :om_swt:

[Goldshlager]

whoa, you arent allowed to argue without links.

[Jonne]

first of all Jonne, global temperatures have not risen since 1998. Second, the .5 degree of "global warming" we have experienced in the last 100 years was completely wiped out last year. So yes, by all means lets continue the expensive process of trying to take plant food out of the atmosphere. :om_swt:

While arguments like these might be useful in convincing the simple minded schmucks that are about 60% of the electorate in a regular democracy, they are pretty much totally ignorant and irrelevant as far as the science is concerned

[Circus]

While arguments like these might be useful in convincing the simple minded schmucks that are about 60% of the electorate in a regular democracy, they are pretty much totally ignorant and irrelevant as far as the science is concerned

Pick your story Jonne

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=antarctica+ice+thickening&spell=1

Do you care the Antarctic Ice is thickening?

simple minded schmuck pretty much sums you up well.

[Jonne]

Oh for fuck sakes, we just went through all of that in the previous thread so I'm not even gonna bother replying to that. Just go read the previous fucking thread.
Or alternatively actually READ the first article from your link:


Antarctica's "weight gain" is due to extra snowfall, caused by rising temperatures, the US-UK team thinks.


Sea levels are currently rising at about 1.8mm per year, largely because ice sheets in polar regions are melting, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said.

However, the panel also predicted that global warming would lead to an increase in snow fall over the Antarctic, because warmer air leads to more evaporation and precipitation.

[Jonne]

Btw, that was a pretty good example of exactly what I was saying about the convincing the generally dumb schmucks.

A dumb schmuck looks at the headline that says "Increased snow fall in the Antarctic". And because people often assosiate snow fall with cold weather, they think "well if it's snowing there more, the planet can't be getting warmer"

However, if this dumb schmuck would read the article, he'd see that warmer temperatures cause more evaporation which causes more rainfall. At this point he/she turns into a vegetarian and goes save the world in a Live Earth concert with Al Gore and Jon Bon Jovi.

But if the person reading the article is familiar with science, she/he will know that even in science, nothing is 100% certain. So we need to keep doing research on this matter and find out as much as we can.
However, in the mean time it's better to be safe than sorry. It's better to use some money now and realize that we didn't really need to do that than it is to not use the money now and in 50 years realize that we're fucked and it's because we were too cheap to save our own asses.

[Circus]

Oh look Jonne, from your precious UN.....get ready to freeze....I feel sorry for the people of the world that are going to starve due to shorter growing seasons.

U.N. Forecasters: Global Temperatures to Decrease

Average global temperatures in 2008 are forecast to be lower than in previous years, thanks to the cooling effect of the ocean current in the Pacific, U.N. meteorologists say.
The World Meteorological Organisation's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, said it was likely that La Nina, an abnormal cooling of sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, would continue into the summer.
If the forecast holds true, global temperatures will not have risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
A small number of scientists doubt whether this means global warming has peaked and the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted, but Jarraud insists this is not the case and notes that 1998 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.
"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he told the BBC. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming."
"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up."
Experts at the U.K. Met Office's Hadley Centre for forecasting in Exeter said the world could expect another record temperature within five years or less, the BBC reports, probably associated with an episode of El Nino.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346310,00.html

OH MY GOD!!!!!!!! WE'RE all going to die unless you pay the UN billions of dollars to remove plant food from the atmosphere!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111

Stop trying to find trends in 100 year cycles when the earth is billions of years old Jonne, then maybe you'll have some credibility.

[Jonne]

Seriously, did you even read that text before pasting it?

Or did you read and then take a sip of your "They're putting communism in our drinking water" magic juice?

[Tsgumi]

But if the person reading the article is familiar with science, she/he will know that even in science, nothing is 100% certain.

Uh....


However, in the mean time it's better to be safe than sorry. It's better to use some money now and realize that we didn't really need to do that than it is to not use the money now and in 50 years realize that we're fucked and it's because we were too cheap to save our own asses.

False dilemma.

[Hanoverfist]

If you must invest in this garbage, invest in ways to deal with the change not in trying to stop it. Even if we stopped everything now it's all still going to go to hell. That fact cannot be changed. Crying only makes the seas rise faster.
Buy property inland and wait for your beach.

[Jonne]

Uh....


That's the nature of science. You can build the best theory possible, even provide proof of it, call it a scientific law and then you wait couple decades or centuries and some guy comes up with a theory that shows that your theory was faulty


False dilemma.

Granted there's one fault in it.

The safest way of doing things would be to get ready for both scenarios, that climate change is caused by human actions and that climate change is caused by natural reasons.
The first one requires actions to cut CO2 emissions. The second requires actions that are basically like Hanoverfist said, to buy property inland and get ready for a flood.

However, the living in denial is all and all the worst option.

[Hanoverfist]

The problem I have is people wanting our money to try to "fix" what is going on. We can't, even Al Gore the demigod can't help us. We may slow or speed it up, but it is going to happen. If I think someone is trying to capitalize off global warming I can only laugh.