You can also think about why measuring stations located far from civilization and high in mountains are being removed from counting the average temperatures...

Written by akatana on 15.04.2010 at 12:28

Written by the stranger on 15.04.2010 at 07:53

Written by akatana on 14.03.2010 at 17:30

If on the other hand, you want to talk about it by presenting scientific papers and results, than you are more than welcomed to. But I doubt you will find something like that graph in a peer-reviewed journal.

Have you read anything about Milutin Milankovitch cycles? I used to think that global warming or climatic change was man caused, but after reviewing paleoclimatological articles(since i'm studying archaeology it's a basic thing) I was more convinced that this is natural AND man made. The problem is how much of it is natural and how much of it is man made?
I'm gonna bring more articles(written stuff obviously not crap from the internet) after I revise the things I have from past cycles. So you can read and see that it's not only man made.

Yes, I am aware of this research. First of all, there are natural cycles in the climate, no doubt about that, the problem of the influence that man has on the climate is another, namely that of potentially generating the conditions for a positive feedback. There are discussions, asfar as I have read about the Milankovitch cycles. There is the transition problem and other inconclusive issues like the cycles predicting that we are in a cooling period, yet the earth is warming and so on. Since climate is a very complex system, the difficulty lies in determining how much influence man has on climate. There is no doubt that man has a significant influence but it is very difficult to isolate the particular culprits and their share. But the consensus is that even if the Milankovitch cycles turn out to be accurate, an stil lhas the greater influence to tilt the balance in global climate into a positive feedback loop. And if you worked with control mechanisms you know the problem oscillation poses in positive feedback.

But I think no one argues that fluctuations in the climate are entirely man made since the natural cycles are widely known. So yes, climate change is natuaral and man made, but the natural cycles can be easily controlled by the earths natural mechanisms.

So we are on the same page. But fluctuations on the climate are not entirely man made, don't forget that above all things the main factor about the planet's climate is the sun. It's cycles of every 11, 22, 200 & 5000 years have much more influence than man's activity. And this are cycles that can not be controlled.

Now that Eyjafjallajökull has erupted and created a mess in airplane traffic and fucked tourism industry up on a large scale, we also might have cooler summers and who knows what more if Katla starts as well...

So what shall we do then? Place heavy tax on Icelanders for huge dirt and CO2 emission? How nasty of them Icelanders... they have done a lot more with their smoke holes than Chinese car owners or worse... a zillion cows farting...

Now we have proof... more climate changes ain't not just entirely man made but also, more precisely, ICELANDER made... boycott Björk! She is from Iceland. She makes climate change!

Ellrohir likes it

Written by akatana on 21.04.2010 at 10:08

Written by the stranger on 21.04.2010 at 00:18

Written by akatana on 15.04.2010 at 12:28

Written by the stranger on 15.04.2010 at 07:53

Written by akatana on 14.03.2010 at 17:30

If on the other hand, you want to talk about it by presenting scientific papers and results, than you are more than welcomed to. But I doubt you will find something like that graph in a peer-reviewed journal.

Have you read anything about Milutin Milankovitch cycles? I used to think that global warming or climatic change was man caused, but after reviewing paleoclimatological articles(since i'm studying archaeology it's a basic thing) I was more convinced that this is natural AND man made. The problem is how much of it is natural and how much of it is man made?
I'm gonna bring more articles(written stuff obviously not crap from the internet) after I revise the things I have from past cycles. So you can read and see that it's not only man made.

Yes, I am aware of this research. First of all, there are natural cycles in the climate, no doubt about that, the problem of the influence that man has on the climate is another, namely that of potentially generating the conditions for a positive feedback. There are discussions, asfar as I have read about the Milankovitch cycles. There is the transition problem and other inconclusive issues like the cycles predicting that we are in a cooling period, yet the earth is warming and so on. Since climate is a very complex system, the difficulty lies in determining how much influence man has on climate. There is no doubt that man has a significant influence but it is very difficult to isolate the particular culprits and their share. But the consensus is that even if the Milankovitch cycles turn out to be accurate, an stil lhas the greater influence to tilt the balance in global climate into a positive feedback loop. And if you worked with control mechanisms you know the problem oscillation poses in positive feedback.

But I think no one argues that fluctuations in the climate are entirely man made since the natural cycles are widely known. So yes, climate change is natuaral and man made, but the natural cycles can be easily controlled by the earths natural mechanisms.

So we are on the same page. But fluctuations on the climate are not entirely man made, don't forget that above all things the main factor about the planet's climate is the sun. It's cycles of every 11, 22, 200 & 5000 years have much more influence than man's activity. And this are cycles that can not be controlled.

There are many external factors that contribute to the climate, but for the current warming they do not have more influence than man, this is where you and I disagree.

I refer you to following article:
http://aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/ClimateChange/whyClimate/human/human.htm

No, we don't. It just seemed like if you were saying that fluctuations(in general) are man made, that's why I pointed out the sun cycles. So, yes, current warming(as the last hundred, two hundred years) is man made.

Real dangerous PHYSICAL POLLUTION is a problem that we humans can work to solve. global warming is however out of our hands. global warming is the biggest hyped sinister aweful evil greed corrupt filled scam con game in history.

Please remember that my opinion/belief against global warming is in no way to say that i dont respect yovr all opinion on this subject. i do respect your opinions.

http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2010/09/arctic-news-and-global-cooling-update.html

'nuff said.

Talking about all this global warming shit...why not to ask:

- how can "exhaust permits" business even exist? those are commercial papers substantiated by literally nothing...still billions are drowning in it, not talking about immense cheats happening here and there...
- when it is all for the planet - why is Al Gore one of the co-founder and co-owner of Chicago exhaust permits stock exchange?
- who allowed US and GB retirement funds to invest into those obscure exhaust permits? (relatively recent action of Obama and Labourists party)

Global Warming SUCKS.

Written by DoommooD on 25.07.2010 at 06:08

Real dangerous PHYSICAL POLLUTION is a problem that we humans can work to solve. global warming is however out of our hands. global warming is the biggest hyped sinister aweful evil greed corrupt filled scam con game in history.

We should act as if global warming was our fault, whether it is or isn't. We won't get a second chance if we're wrong, we don't have another planet to run this experiment on. And as for "scam", how many scientists do you think those running the scam could possibly pay off? Get real.

Written by CrypticMyth on 02.10.2010 at 06:25

http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2010/09/arctic-news-and-global-cooling-update.html

'nuff said.

that blog is the shit man . sadly there are many people who believe this stuff, and even more bullshitting pretentious bloggers who will gladly jump on any "alternative theory" just to look so cool and non-mainstream. they're also the kind of people who listen to Hoobastank, The Kooks and The Killers and think they're so not mainstream when it comes to music.

Written by [user id=105293] on 27.02.2011 at 12:27

We should act as if global warming was our fault, whether it is or isn't. We won't get a second chance if we're wrong, we don't have another planet to run this experiment on. And as for "scam", how many scientists do you think those running the scam could possibly pay off? Get real.

I find that a lot of people with this mentality would think differently if they were aware of the true cost differential between wind and coal/nuclear/natural gas.

The short of it is, A lot of wealthy people are getting even wealthier through the consumer reaction to widespread eco-guilt hysteria that is being spread by easily digested faux-science in the media. By telling consumers and governments that 'green' technology (which would be otherwise laughed out of the marketplace) is saving the world from the evil capitalists, things such as hybrid cars are being sold in droves.

PEOPLE ARE BEGGING ENERGY COMPANIES TO CHARGE THEM TWICE AS MUCH MONEY TO IMPLEMENT WIND POWER. Think about that. Think about how inefficient that industry really is. Why would you want to exchange reliable power plants for a power grid supplied by something so fleeting as the wind? The battery backup needed is huge, and frankly it would be almost impossible to predictably power a whole country off wind power alone. Big batteries have a short lifespan, and are extremely toxic and hazardous to the environment in a way that is REAL. And the rare earth magnets used to generate the power in a wind turbine? Responsible for huge lakes of tailings in China, where the government turns a blind eye as volatile toxins destroy the land, people and wildlife for miles around. Sounds familiar...oh yes, this is what Big Oil in the Alberta Oilsands is being crucified by the environmental movement for...except in the oilsands it is extensively monitored and there are no populations of human life to be tainted. They have 'bird deterrent systems' worth millions of dollars to prevent birds from getting sick for christ sake. These measures do not exist in China's rare earth magnet production industry.

Details of the consequences of the industry are here. http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_212353495.shtml

If you ask me, it would seem that those same people who are guilting the average Joe into buying products produced by wind power, or lobbying governments to protect the environment and promote wind energy, are really just the same people who average Joe thinks he is defeating. They are the same people environmentalists think are the enemy. You are all being manipulated, and are trying to make everyone who doesn't buy it feel bad for killing seals and polar bears by driving a vehicle with more than 3 cylinders.

You can buy a hybrid Cadillac Escalade now...how retarded is that?

All I am trying to say is, a lot of people have a lot to gain by making us think that we are killing the world through greenhouse gasses. I believe Gore and his shenanigans have already been covered, so I'll leave that part out of my rant.

P.S. I am all for REAL renewable energy...for example, photovoltaics are approaching the point where they may make a significant difference when implemented on an INDIVIDUAL basis. If your home can use energy from the sun, it will cut down on cost to the consumer, strain on the grid, and reduce needs for new energy infrastructure. This is especially true if it can be done efficiently without significant dependence on batteries.

Again, I am all for real sustainable energy, just try to research what is real and what is bullshit...and I mean for real, beyond the Greenpeace homepage and beyond the tip of your nose. We should not need to create mass poverty in order to relieve our false guilt. There are real solutions to real problems out there...but the masses are just listening to the wrong people.

I don't understand why so many social conservatives are so adamant about denying it, like, what do they truly gain? It's strange to mix scientific fact with politics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/its-official-2014-was-the-hottest-year/2015/01/16/e207b8ee-9db8-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html

Yet people still insist on denying that global warming is a reality.

Trojan Horse, that is all.

Some time ago our local politicians freaked out when some poll revealed that majority of people don't take this climate thing seriously anymore, and I really don't blame them. Politicians and mass media have pushed climate fear porn up their asses for years now, there's just horror scenario after horror scenario, politicians use the fear to sell one moronic solution or tax after another that wouldn't pass in normal circumstances and most the time don't necessarily even have the claimed effect to the environment, but the fearmongering just keeps on going and going and going. Now we have this energy crisis and some European countries are shutting down their nuclear power plants because climate something green whatever while burning more coal and other fossil fuels.

Written by Metal Diogenes on 24.09.2022 at 15:16

Some time ago our local politicians freaked out when some poll revealed that majority of people don't take this climate thing seriously anymore, and I really don't blame them. Politicians and mass media have pushed climate fear porn up their asses for years now, there's just horror scenario after horror scenario, politicians use the fear to sell one moronic solution or tax after another, but the fearmongering just keeps on going and going and going. Now we have this energy crisis and some European countries are shutting down their nuclear power plants because climate something green whatever.

It's sorta the same that happened with corona virus on a far smaller time scale. The problem may be serious and existent, but treating it as means of generating profit will always attract doubt from the masses. Media and corporations deal with it in a way that is hard to take seriously every piece of info that's scattered there, and thus people start not taking it as seriously as they should.

Greta Thunberg...literally staged...being arrested...

It was fucking STAGED... and there's footage of her laughing with the police to prove it.

Wow.

I cannot unsee that, and I 100% refuse to quit spreading the word about it!

She's an absolute pawn, and by the time she realizes it...it will be too late.

https://youtu.be/_-OX-ZNAN-I

Watch to the end of the video. I found this is a good argument that many climate activists overlook. What do you guys think?

Written by F3ynman on 21.01.2023 at 19:15

Watch to the end of the video. I found this is a good argument that many climate activists overlook. What do you guys think?

I like this speech quite a bit, it's pretty entertaining.
Kisin is a talented orator who is not stingy with comprehensible arguments and vivid examples. His position is clear and he gets straight to the point without sacrificing a good dose of humor. Also, his final conclusion sounds totally logical.

However, I believe he makes the same mistake many climate activists do.
To pick up on a topical example: if, in the midst of an energy crisis, Germany's second largest power supplier intends to relocate a small village in order to mine lignite, then it will happen, no matter how, and if necessary with the support of the state. Everyone knew what was going to happen in Lützerath. It was naive to think that this process could have been stopped by some protesters clinging to a fence or occupying houses.

But Kisin's conclusion is just as naive. "Work! Create! Build!" - yeah, that sounds like a good plan to improve the world and to save the planet, doesn't it? But it won't work, and it's Kisin himself who provides the main reason why this grand plan is doomed to fail. Because most people think in the short term, and first and foremost they are focused on improving their own acute situation. There's no room to worry about potential threats lurking in the distant future that are not yet tangible when personal prosperity, short-term health and individual freedom occupy the top of everyone's list of priorities.
Kisin says we should strive for the scientific and technical breakthrough that will make renewable energy affordable for everyone.
Okay, but if this breakthrough is ever going to happen, why would anyone, any country or any corporation, make this new technology available to the rest of the world for free?

Written by Starvynth on 24.02.2023 at 00:59

Because most people think in the short term, and first and foremost they are focused on improving their own acute situation. There's no room to worry about potential threats lurking in the distant future that are not yet tangible when personal prosperity, short-term health and individual freedom occupy the top of everyone's list of priorities.

I agree. Do you think this is a byproduct of everything becoming faster? Faster communication, instant accessibility, so that 5 second ads on YouTube feel like a pain to get through.

-------

(A fitting song as a side note: )

Written by F3ynman on 24.02.2023 at 01:09

Do you think this is a byproduct of everything becoming faster? Faster communication, instant accessibility, so that 5 second ads on YouTube feel like a pain to get through.

Kind of, but it's a bit too easy to blame everything exclusively on short attention spans, sensory overload and the fast pace of our affluent society.
Now that all the knowledge in the world is just a mouse click away, shouldn't it be even easier to get comprehensive information and make the right long-term decisions than it was 100 years ago?

But people have always been easily manipulated. A thousand years ago, the Bible determined what was right and what was wrong, then newspapers came along, later radio and TV took over this task, and nowadays the internet decides on the only truth or fake news. And that's not to blame on too much (or too quick) information, but on the human nature to believe what corresponds with one's personal conviction, regardless of the medium you worship. The only new factor is that anyone can now reach a global audience within seconds, and everyone's happy to believe even the biggest bullshit just because they want to believe.

As far as global warming is concerned, I'm unfortunately a very typical human being and It doesn't even matter whether I believe in it.
Because I'm too often too lazy not to drive short distances by car. Besides, I'd rather have a comfortably warm temperature in my apartment than dress appropriately. Groceries? I rarely ever pay attention to whether my stuff has generated endless amounts of CO2 and had to be transported halfway around the world. Instead, I look at the price tag.
Kudos to anyone who has enough discipline, dedication and patience to be different.