Notre Dame Football News And Talk  


Come check out the news feed! DD Front Page

Go Back   Notre Dame Football News And Talk > Message Board > Open Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-05-2013, 01:28 PM
piratey's Avatar
piratey piratey is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 7,299
Default Global Warming

http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-...s-evaporating/

Been saying since the start, the whole thing has been a massive cash grab. The amount of money pumped into Green Power, research grants, carbon credits, EPA taxes, book deals/movies(Al Gore) and the various donation groups, is simply staggering.

The science has always been flimsy and the proof has never been there. I honestly believe these liberal causes are filling the void left by people becoming more secular. They need something to believe in. It feeds the ego and self importance of people to believe by going green, they are contributing to the greater good.
__________________
Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Don't like this ad? Register to make it go away!

  #2  
Old 12-05-2013, 01:59 PM
nd1baby's Avatar
nd1baby nd1baby is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,532
Default

I think they saw global warming kind of cooling off so its now "climate change".
__________________
Top o' the world Ma!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-05-2013, 02:08 PM
1qa 1qa is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,832
Default

Piratey, you're clearly not a scientist.


Global "Warming" is happening, and you can't pick on a data point to say the science is flimsy.

The planet's climate has been trending up since the industrial age hit in full force, and it is well correlated to CO2 levels in the atmosphere and oceans.

http://climate.nasa.gov/

Humans, as the most adaptable species, will survive... many others will not. Many parts of the planet will suffer from more FREQUENT and EXTREME weather events.

Follow the trends, not the data points... like stocks.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-05-2013, 02:33 PM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,841
Default

HMMM. Just last week or so, I read an article that discussed the decreased amount of sunspots that have been below the norm or projections for our sun. It discussed how the sun goes through 11 year cycles of activity with regard to sun spots etc, and how that activity effects the earth. Anyhow, the point of the article was that due to the reduced sunspot activity this cycle, scientists believed that it would have a cooling effect on Earth's climate as a result.

Now I'm sorry, but to imply that the large fiery ball in the sky has a direct effect on weather here is preposterous !

I have no doubt that the Earth's climate changes, that's what it does, and has for billions of years which is far longer than mankind's existence. Its really hard to buy into the arguments that man is directly responsible for the changes we see today. Are we part of the equation, sure, but entirely or mostly responsible for what's going on is a bullsh*t argument that cannot be proven. We cannot accurately gauge what we are or aren't causing, and what is natural cycles of the Earth and Sun coupled with tectonic activity(volcanoes and earthquakes) as well as numerous other variables.

Honestly its really hard to take some of the proposals seriously that come from the climatologists. For instance its been argued that animal flatulence is a direct contributor to climate change. That was argued about 20 years ago saying that the reduction of the rain forest caused the termite population to grow and their farts, methane, caused increased levels in the atmosphere. Now they argue that large cattle herds are in fact responsible. C'mon!

Science is far from perfect, and there are many holes with the work being done in proving climate change. There are so many variables that cannot be easily explained or accounted for. For God's sake the data was shown/admitted to be fudged in order to "prove" the shoddy theory a few years ago. How much research or how many papers before and since relied on faulty data to support a flawed idea? Where is the oversight?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-05-2013, 02:46 PM
nd1baby's Avatar
nd1baby nd1baby is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,532
Default

It's best to keep an open mind. Once upon a time plate tectonics was a crackpot theory and its father was ostracised from the scientific community. Then science evolved and accepted it as gospel.

If science is right that the earth is 4 billion years old, 200 years worth of data points is not enough for me to buy in yet. Especially not with the conflict of interest coming from the so called green industries who are in competition with big oil and the relationship between scientific studies and government grants. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
__________________
Top o' the world Ma!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-05-2013, 02:46 PM
piratey's Avatar
piratey piratey is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 7,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1qa View Post
Piratey, you're clearly not a scientist.


Global "Warming" is happening, and you can't pick on a data point to say the science is flimsy.

The planet's climate has been trending up since the industrial age hit in full force, and it is well correlated to CO2 levels in the atmosphere and oceans.

http://climate.nasa.gov/

Humans, as the most adaptable species, will survive... many others will not. Many parts of the planet will suffer from more FREQUENT and EXTREME weather events.

Follow the trends, not the data points... like stocks.
What trends again? The fact there has been no warming in decades?

Quote:
That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this “pause” could extend into the 2030
But it's cool that you use climate.nasa.gov as your source. Being an entity that stands to make a great deal of money to continue the myth of man-made global warming. They stop collecting checks and their careers are over if it is proved as not true...

It's not correlated to anything. Your flimsy science exists on a sample size of roughly 70-80 years and extrapolated over the history of the planet.

Quote:
The single most damning aspect of the “pause” is that, because it has occurred when “greenhouse gases” have been pouring into the atmosphere at record levels, it shows at the very least that something natural is at play here. The warmists suggest that natural factors have “suppressed” the warming temporarily, but that’s just a guess: The fact is, they have nothing like the understanding of the climate that they claimed (and their many models that all showed future warming mean nothing, since they all used essentially the same false information).
If Ma Nature caused the “pause,” can’t this same lady be responsible for the warming observed earlier? You bet! Fact is, the earth was cooling and warming long before so-called GHGs could have been a factor. A warm spell ushered in the Viking Age, and many scientists believe recent warming was merely a recovery from what’s called “the Little Ice Age” that began around 1300.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-05-2013, 03:23 PM
piratey's Avatar
piratey piratey is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 7,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nd1baby View Post
It's best to keep an open mind. Once upon a time plate tectonics was a crackpot theory and its father was ostracised from the scientific community. Then science evolved and accepted it as gospel.

If science is right that the earth is 4 billion years old, 200 years worth of data points is not enough for me to buy in yet. Especially not with the conflict of interest coming from the so called green industries who are in competition with big oil and the relationship between scientific studies and government grants. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
It's less than 200 years! What's the number one factor that global warming alarmist point to? The ice caps right? Man hadn't crossed the arctic circle until 1773. We hadn't spotted Antarctica until 1819. We didn't make confirmed land fall until 1853. The first extended stay in Antarctica was 1897...We reached the south pole first in 1911...And the north pole? The first time we mapped the north arctic ocean was 1946...

Look, we've only been monitoring the ice levels in the arctic regions for about 50 years. And using that we are making wild assumptions... Never mind we barely have any knowledge of Solar Science and space winds...

The whole thing is a ponzi scheme.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-05-2013, 03:25 PM
ND3 ND3 is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Walk-On
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 426
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by piratey View Post
What trends again? The fact there has been no warming in decades?

This is a pretty bold claim that I haven't heard before. Do you have a source? (The linked article isn't a source, it provides no data or sources, and it's excessive use of "quotes" makes me feel like he is just mocking at people who believe in climate change)

Quote:
Originally Posted by piratey View Post
But it's cool that you use climate.nasa.gov as your source. Being an entity that stands to make a great deal of money to continue the myth of man-made global warming. They stop collecting checks and their careers are over if it is proved as not true....

I think it's more NOAA that stands to make money/gain grants than NASA...

Quote:
Originally Posted by piratey View Post
It's not correlated to anything. Your flimsy science exists on a sample size of roughly 70-80 years and extrapolated over the history of the planet.
So we only have climate data for less than a century? So how do we know the Little Ice Age even happened? There are ways to measure average temperature over time without using thermometers.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-05-2013, 03:30 PM
piratey's Avatar
piratey piratey is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 7,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ND3 View Post
This is a pretty bold claim that I haven't heard before. Do you have a source? (The linked article isn't a source, it provides no data or sources, and it's excessive use of "quotes" makes me feel like he is just mocking at people who believe in climate change)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-recover.html

Quote:
The pause means there has been no statistically significant increase in world average surface temperatures since the beginning of 1997, despite the models’ projection of a steeply rising trend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ND3 View Post
So we only have climate data for less than a century? So how do we know the Little Ice Age even happened? There are ways to measure average temperature over time without using thermometers
The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. But nothing but "educated" guesses as far as actual temps go...
__________________

Last edited by piratey; 12-05-2013 at 03:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-05-2013, 03:32 PM
TDUB's Avatar
TDUB TDUB is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Freshman
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 832
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by piratey View Post
But it's cool that you use climate.nasa.gov as your source.
Almost as cool as citing the NYPOST. That rag is one step up from the National Enquirer...
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-05-2013, 04:06 PM
piratey's Avatar
piratey piratey is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 7,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDUB View Post
Almost as cool as citing the NYPOST. That rag is one step up from the National Enquirer...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-recover.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...ate-consensus/

Quote:
Barely half of American Meteorological Society meteorologists believe global warming is occurring and humans are the primary cause, a newly released study reveals. The survey results comprise the latest in a long line of evidence indicating the often asserted global warming consensus does not exist.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-05-2013, 04:28 PM
TDUB's Avatar
TDUB TDUB is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Freshman
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 832
Default

So the NYPOST (owned by Newscorp), The Daily Mail (considered the UK's most conservative tabloid), and an article written by a member of the Heartland Institute (who has ties to Exxon and at one time lobbied for Phillip Morris questioning the cancer risks associated with secondhand smoke)...not exactly unbiased media.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-05-2013, 04:52 PM
ND3 ND3 is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Walk-On
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 426
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by piratey View Post
The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. But nothing but "educated" guesses as far as actual temps go...
And that's exactly how we find historical climate data over thousands of years or more. Saying that we only have 70-80 years of data is unequivocally false.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-05-2013, 05:02 PM
corysold's Avatar
corysold corysold is offline
Tenured
Domer Domain Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Cortland, IL
Posts: 13,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ND3 View Post
And that's exactly how we find historical climate data over thousands of years or more. Saying that we only have 70-80 years of data is unequivocally false.
Sure, but that data also supports that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past then they currently are.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-05-2013, 05:12 PM
hawaiiirish hawaiiirish is offline
Tenured
Domer Domain Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 11,012
Default

I cannot take seriously stuff presented by Michael Fumento & Peter Ferrara---

Fumento has been on every conservative --pro corporate cause since hector was a pup--- second hand smoke is good for you--aids is myth-------he has been funded by both phillip morris & Monsanto---

Its just ridiculous to complain about a " massive cash grab" by green industries and scientists while gleening the REAL TRUTH on presentations by Fumento & Ferrara---two fella's whose backing and agenda are the VERY DEFINITION of corporate bias and whose reputation is quite checkered on many counts.

Best to leave conspiracy & ideology on the shelf when looking for SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS!

aloha's
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-05-2013, 05:29 PM
ND3 ND3 is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Walk-On
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 426
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corysold View Post
Sure, but that data also supports that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past then they currently are.
The world has been much hotter in the past than it is now.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-05-2013, 05:39 PM
corysold's Avatar
corysold corysold is offline
Tenured
Domer Domain Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Cortland, IL
Posts: 13,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ND3 View Post
The world has been much hotter in the past than it is now.
Right, so why would an increase in temperature or CO2 now be immediately linked to a human cause? Something like 3% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is released by humans, 97% is naturally released.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-05-2013, 06:01 PM
piratey's Avatar
piratey piratey is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 7,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corysold View Post
Right, so why would an increase in temperature or CO2 now be immediately linked to a human cause? Something like 3% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is released by humans, 97% is naturally released.
Shhh, that doesn't fit the narrative.

How are we suppose to feel good about buying our Prius's and our swirly light bulbs and donating to the Sierra club, when it actually doesn't influence the climate? How are we suppose to be feel like we can save the world now!? My inflated sense of importance on a global scale is going to take a massive hit. I'm going to feel like a total dupe for believing in a hoax this whole time... Man, I'm just glad I'm not a scientist. Imagine the egg on their face? Taking all this research money on something that turns out to be a fabrication... I bet they're just biting at the chomp to admit they were wrong for the last 10+ years
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-05-2013, 06:05 PM
1qa 1qa is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,832
Default

Throwing out conspiracy theories and articles written by largely corporate shills is not persuasive. Overwhelmingly scientific evidence is showing that "climate change is real and it is because of us"

Slate has an article and links to your counter argument.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...d_it_s_us.html

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a stark report... why are they any more believable than the NYPost?

"Of course, the deniers have been spinning at nearly relativistic speeds trying to downplay this report. They talk about the pause, they talk about how sensitive the climate is to CO2, they talk about the IPCC being unreliable. But the bottom line is they’re wrong. Ironically, due to its very nature, the IPCC is actually quite conservative; the panel has actually been getting flak from real scientists because the observations — heat absorption, ice loss, sea level rise, and so on — have in almost all cases actually outpaced predictions from earlier reports. In reality, things are worse."


Give me a better theory that supports the orgy of data saying CO2 is not the cause of warming... with sources, please.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-05-2013, 06:18 PM
ND3 ND3 is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Walk-On
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 426
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corysold View Post
Right, so why would an increase in temperature or CO2 now be immediately linked to a human cause? Something like 3% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is released by humans, 97% is naturally released.
Well, first of all, there's a lot of methane being released into the atmosphere as well.

A small percentage can play a big role when we're talking about how a few degrees of warming can drastically change the dynamics of the planet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by piratey View Post
Shhh, that doesn't fit the narrative.

How are we suppose to feel good about buying our Prius's and our swirly light bulbs and donating to the Sierra club, when it actually doesn't influence the climate? How are we suppose to be feel like we can save the world now!? My inflated sense of importance on a global scale is going to take a massive hit. I'm going to feel like a total dupe for believing in a hoax this whole time... Man, I'm just glad I'm not a scientist. Imagine the egg on their face? Taking all this research money on something that turns out to be a fabrication... I bet they're just biting at the chomp to admit they were wrong for the last 10+ years
Obviously there are people who blindly buy into things like this- who think that buying an electric car will actually make a difference. That's clearly false and it often gives people an undeserved sense of elitism (RE: The South Park episode). So yeah, that describes some of the population, but not nearly all of it. Generalizations are rarely indicative of entire populations.

The point is, there is almost a consensus among the scientific community that global warming is real and it's caused by humans. To shove that to the side because a few articles from hyper-conservative writers/publications with an agenda say so is naive and, frankly, foolish.

Look, the world isn't "supposed" to be any particular temperature. We're not damaging the planet by standing by while we're pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We are, however, putting the future of humanity at risk. If it's worth it to you to say "I don't think it's real, I should mock everyone who believes in it, we shouldn't even really care", fine. I think, for the future of our species, the onus of responibility is on us to be a little more forward thinking with our habits.

That said, I'm pretty sure China releases WAY more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than anyone in the Western world, and we aren't going to convince them to change anytime soon.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-05-2013, 06:54 PM
1qa 1qa is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,832
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ND3 View Post
That said, I'm pretty sure China releases WAY more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than anyone in the Western world, and we aren't going to convince them to change anytime soon.
China discharges more Carbon in absolute terms because they rely on coal as a primary source of energy; it's what they have.

But, on a per capita basis, Western industrialized nations are worse offenders.

Moreover, if you assign "Carbon Credits" to consumption... i am pretty sure most of the carbon emitted in China is for our material comfort.

I am pretty pessimistic that the we can reverse the pace of climate change, just slow it some to help some regions adapt. The poorest regions will be hit hardest, and I am sure we will have more regions of the world that are just politically unstable - think of more Somalias and Aghanistans... All hail the rise of city states, and the death of nation states.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-05-2013, 09:28 PM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1qa View Post

I am pretty pessimistic that the we can reverse the pace of climate change, just slow it some to help some regions adapt. The poorest regions will be hit hardest, and I am sure we will have more regions of the world that are just politically unstable - think of more Somalias and Aghanistans... All hail the rise of city states, and the death of nation states.
But are these types of instances you mention really becoming that way because of climate change? For instance the argument has been made that fresh water will be fought over in the years to come, due to a lack of adequate supplies in many areas of the world. Is more of that problem because of over population in the areas that are unfit to sustain the resources like food and water for such a large population.

I remember a George Carlin skit where he discussed starving people in Africa and his bottom line was basically "move out of the f*cking desert!"

I have no doubt that there is climate change, since the Earth is in a constant flux. Man has had to evolve, migrate, and adapt to the constant changes in weather and temperatures of the Earth. We've seen global warming and cooling before, certainly to greater extremes than scientists are predicting now. We aren't changing the Earth one bit that it won't correct/adapt in some way on its own with or without mankind's presence.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-06-2013, 02:12 AM
1qa 1qa is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,832
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
But are these types of instances you mention really becoming that way because of climate change? For instance the argument has been made that fresh water will be fought over in the years to come, due to a lack of adequate supplies in many areas of the world. Is more of that problem because of over population in the areas that are unfit to sustain the resources like food and water for such a large population.
IMO, climate change compounds the problem. There will be less arable land and different growing seasons than our recent history. Worse, the most affected areas have large populations (Bangladesh, Indonesia, Africa) ... people will be displaced, and they will seek refuge. I can't imagine Australia and Russia just opening their doors because they are good people. Canada might... they're patsies in that way.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/world/...dex/index.html

http://www.cgdev.org/page/mapping-im...climate-change
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-06-2013, 03:37 AM
irishwavend's Avatar
irishwavend irishwavend is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Happiest Place on Earth, FL
Posts: 6,697
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1qa View Post
Piratey, you're clearly not a scientist.


Global "Warming" is happening, and you can't pick on a data point to say the science is flimsy.

The planet's climate has been trending up since the industrial age hit in full force, and it is well correlated to CO2 levels in the atmosphere and oceans.

http://climate.nasa.gov/

Humans, as the most adaptable species, will survive... many others will not. Many parts of the planet will suffer from more FREQUENT and EXTREME weather events.

Follow the trends, not the data points... like stocks.
The University of Michigan is calling. They want you to come back.... You should read Freakonomics if you really want to be educated about correlations. Just because CO2 goes up doesn't mean the warming trend (if there is one) is related. Just because the Notre Dame wins a football game and it rains that night doesn't mean a Notre Dame win equals rain. You sound like a primitive when you speak like that. Are you going to worship a windmill one day?

This global warming sh*t is a scam from liberals who have all their money in green stocks. Or, from scientists who are more in it for the fame and money than the actual science. When you cite climate "science," you're citing lies and coverups, because every piece of data that calls the theory into question is thrown away. Don't point fingers at the newspapers as a red herring. That has no relevance to the fact that the accumulation of data that is being leaked out points to this whole thing being a sham.

Also, you're misleading everyone when you say the trend has been on the rise since the industrial revolution. In fact, there has been a push since then to stop global cooling. So, tell me how that trend works. Further, your data points are screwed up, because the monitoring stations are often sitting in the middle of a city where the temperature is naturally higher due to being in the concrete jungle, yet you don't see these "scientists" accounting for those differences.

In terms of climate change and global heating or cooling, you should look to the stars, because the biggest factor is likely sunspots. Also, don't forget that there was a study in the spring saying that the rise in CO2 is actually showing a trend that sunlight is being reflected and the CO2 is acting as a cooling agent.

And one last point about the sham is how far these people will go to prove a point, like the guy who was recently fired for fraud. You know, the guy who took the pictures of the poor polar bears drowning due to global warming? It turns out that his 2011 antics were knowingly grossly overstated, but he wanted to make a point without any basis in fact.

F'ing liberals... They whine like little bitches when they don't get their way, but when they're in power, you better watch out, because they're ten times dirtier and nastier than any conservative would be. maybe it's because the conservatives have a sense of morality and professionalism that the nasty little hippies don't. Liberals are like the little kid who keeps picking at the bigger kid until the bigger kid finally swats the sh*t out of him to teach him a lesson. It's coming... Just watch out if Republicans actually take the 12 seats in the Senate they're currently projected to steal. Can you say "Impeachment"?

Get some.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-06-2013, 08:59 AM
ObieKnobbe's Avatar
ObieKnobbe ObieKnobbe is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Broken Bow, NE
Posts: 1,122
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishwavend View Post
The University of Michigan is calling. They want you to come back.... You should read Freakonomics if you really want to be educated about correlations. Just because CO2 goes up doesn't mean the warming trend (if there is one) is related. Just because the Notre Dame wins a football game and it rains that night doesn't mean a Notre Dame win equals rain. You sound like a primitive when you speak like that. Are you going to worship a windmill one day?

This global warming sh*t is a scam from liberals who have all their money in green stocks. Or, from scientists who are more in it for the fame and money than the actual science. When you cite climate "science," you're citing lies and coverups, because every piece of data that calls the theory into question is thrown away. Don't point fingers at the newspapers as a red herring. That has no relevance to the fact that the accumulation of data that is being leaked out points to this whole thing being a sham.

Also, you're misleading everyone when you say the trend has been on the rise since the industrial revolution. In fact, there has been a push since then to stop global cooling. So, tell me how that trend works. Further, your data points are screwed up, because the monitoring stations are often sitting in the middle of a city where the temperature is naturally higher due to being in the concrete jungle, yet you don't see these "scientists" accounting for those differences.

In terms of climate change and global heating or cooling, you should look to the stars, because the biggest factor is likely sunspots. Also, don't forget that there was a study in the spring saying that the rise in CO2 is actually showing a trend that sunlight is being reflected and the CO2 is acting as a cooling agent.

And one last point about the sham is how far these people will go to prove a point, like the guy who was recently fired for fraud. You know, the guy who took the pictures of the poor polar bears drowning due to global warming? It turns out that his 2011 antics were knowingly grossly overstated, but he wanted to make a point without any basis in fact.

F'ing liberals... They whine like little bitches when they don't get their way, but when they're in power, you better watch out, because they're ten times dirtier and nastier than any conservative would be. maybe it's because the conservatives have a sense of morality and professionalism that the nasty little hippies don't. Liberals are like the little kid who keeps picking at the bigger kid until the bigger kid finally swats the sh*t out of him to teach him a lesson. It's coming... Just watch out if Republicans actually take the 12 seats in the Senate they're currently projected to steal. Can you say "Impeachment"?

Get some.
That was an epic rant... I love rants and whole-heartedly agree with your opinion.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Also visit IrishEnvy, our Notre Dame Football partner site

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:13 AM.

Last Updated: May 31, 2020

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.