Europe getting better conditions from global warming?

Just bcause its getting colder doesnt mean its gonna snow more or it'll be better to ski. So no, europe isnt getting better conditions. And i dont see how SOME people cant comprehend that the warmth is melting the cold ice which is going to the ocean streams therefore its getting colder.
 
Surely the free market can be influenced by government? Promotion of green technologies as part of a national drive to be more energy self sufficient is both environmentally sound, but also economically productive as it requires the development of engineering, manufacturing and management skills that help promote good business outside of environmental applications.

Additionally, sustainable development and self sufficiency create a more secure international system. Promotion of sustainable ideas in developing states can limit the processes that lead to conflict within and outwith state borders (Kaldor, New Wars) and self sufficiency liberates the state from security concerns regarding resources, which is regarded as one of the major forseeable sources of conflict on an interstate level in the coming future (Kaplan, "Resource Wars" et al).

I would argue that the market shouldn't be limited by government policy, but it does require guidance. Through incentives and gov't investment in technologies that help promote sustainability I would argue that the market would become more successful than if left on it's own to come to the same conclusions on a much longer timescale.
 
Interesting that you're now responding with proper punctuation and grammar. What provoked that I wonder, Max?

Um...was that question serious? I said "bra" once, you repeated it nearly a half-dozen times. As with the userID attack you aped with hamhanded non-eloquence. C'mon dude, are you for real?

You throw ad hominem attack like a teenage momma's boy. Please point out where you've made a logical refutation of anything I've said. Or offered counter evidence. Or research. Or anything beyond personal attack (e.g., "armchair scientists", "retards.")

Spend a little time understanding elementary school logic instead of elementary school namecalling.

To have an intelligent discussion one must possess both intellectual honesty and the ability to exercise linear logic. You have neither. This is the reason why a) you rant and b) no one takes you seriously. And comically, the two feed upon each other like a tantrum of infantilism where you bang your rattle because no one's listening so you bang your rattle which causes no one to listen so you bang your rattle…Sad and funny at the same time.

I thought Canadian schools had higher standards. But please hit me with a friend request. I'd like to keep track of wherever you end up building bridges so I may adjust my route accordingly.
 
it was 130 degrees in nyc in the summer during the cretacious. so i could give a shit about .1 degree. the more co2, the more trees and plankton will convert. theres so many things we could do to get oxygen levels back up.

we could irrigate the sahara, we could dump megatons of fertilizer into the ocean. if we can warm it we sure as fuck can cool it. we could nuke dust into the atmosphere.

stop with the armegadden shit. im so sick of global warming
 
this reads as "I didnt major in an environmental field because I dont have a degree or any certification whatsoever so I will continue to completely ignore the question"

I haven't opened an avenue for discussion on the environment because you continously avoid the question. You are preventing the possibility of an intelligent discussion by not responding to my question and as such, we are stalled here.

I understand logic on a far more complex scale than you will likely encounter in the rest of your life.
 
LOL! Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back yet sport. You never TRIED to open an "avenue for discussion." If you can bend your massive brain to examine your initial post, it was simply a school-yard attack bereft of any "avenues of discussion." Perhaps the weed you're not smoking is frying the fragile remains of your "far more complex" intellect.

The only one here "ignoring the question" is you, chief Here's the tally:

# of Mr. 666's challenges to presented evidence: 0

# of Mr. 666's challenges to expert opions: 0

# of Mr. 666's challenges to exposed fallacies in GW: 0

# of fattys smoked when Mr. 666's should've been studying: 147

I do love "I understand logic on a far more complex scale than you will likely encounter in[sic] the rest of your life." Can you autograph that on a bong for me?
 
BoilingMidnight, i thoroughly enjoy your conspiracy theories and love of isolated evidence/examples. Ignoring the general consensus of the scientific community, pointing out individual scientists remarks (likely taken out of context), quoting newspapers as evidence (ha!); please fuck off.

What I would love you to do is to actually link us to the data you use so that instead of telling us what individual scientists and politicians think/say. Your writing just smacks of standard conspiracy theory wishwash, throwing unsupported data and quotes at people until they come to the conclusion that you MUST know what you are talking about.

Hit me up with some evidence (not words) to show its a scam.

peace
 
The work of science has nothing to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics, science requires only one investigator to be right, to have verifiable and repeatable results. In science consensus is irrelevant. What IS relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

Do a little bit of research you lazy fuck. The names and dates are there. Just ask mommy how to use the search bar when she comes down to your basement command center during a WoW break.

(BTW, I provided a few links too. Just take your wank hand out of your panties and click on them.)
 
You sure are fascinated with weed, want me to link you to some super cool government funded studies about the negative effects of weed?

Sorry I forgot, you probably know everything about that subject too.

What was that about schoolyard name calling? Or is it considered a 'witty rebuttal' when you do it?

And why would you want a bong? The only hookah I use is for diving. Unlike yourself, I am not a burnout conspiracy theorist.
 
Nope you are wrong. Have you heard of peer review in the science system? Although it doesn't ensure consensus, it sure as hell stops those scientists who use invalid, outdated data to reach false conclusions. Which global warming doubters regularly run into trouble with, so resort to publishing in journals which aren't specifically related to climate/enviroment, and have less stringent quality control.

I also find your point about notable scientists in history breaking out of consensus quite amusing. It is true they were breaking out of consensus - however, their views were progressive. Global warming IS a progressive view, a fairly recent realisation that we cannot continue unsustainable practises. Not believing in global warming is somewhat regressive, which I cannot think of anyone famous ever who was successful in such a school of thought! We shall see about that though with the new findings of speed > c .

Once again, you've exhibited classic conspiracy theorist tactic of attempting to belittle the person who you are conversing with in order to make his arguments look invalid. A very effective tactic with an uneducated audience.

I will read through your links but I suspect I will not find anything relevant in there. Will report back with my findings!

Last thing, and perhaps most importantly - Science doesn't ever claim to `know' anything. It is simply the way our society understands the world at the time. You are speaking with such conviction that global warming cannot be true that I suspect you don't actually understand the point of science. But that is somewhat irrelevant :). Just thought I would give a little character assessment of you, just like you did to me, as an avid basement dweller (nevermind my 4 month vacation I am currently on in whistler).
 
Ugh. Now I have to school you on what a Conspiracy Theory is? Max, Global Warming IS the conspiracy theory. Conspiracy Theory deals with large and/or hidden threats. um...THAT'S Global Warming. It's nonsense to say that someone debunking a made-up threat is a "conspiracy theorist." That's like you being called a conspiracy theorist for attacking the nonsense government/mafia JFK murder plots.

BTW, you started the ad hominem attack. Now all of a sudden you're pussing out after you're getting your ass handed to you?!? lol
 
Haha I love the definition (please reply to my above post too :3 )!! Where did you get this definition from my friend, of conspiracy theory?

Just a quick google search (by your sources, pretty accurate haha) gets this:

A belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.

so, you believe that the covert organisation is responsible for, in your eyes, an unexplained event.

whereas we think that a well documented series of failures, notably the emission of greenhouse gases, is responsible for a well explained event, climate change.

please stop making things up! please. it hurts my eyes and makes me compelled to answer, and my mates want to go to dinner :(

 
LOL! Are you related to Maxy boy? You both start out with a personal attack and then go all Mary on us when it's thrown back in your face (remember the "fuck off" comment, chief?)

And boy do you have things backwards. It's the GW alarmists who refuse to allow peer-review and shut out contrary points. Ever hear of a little something called Climate Gate my man? One of the faux scientists who started this whole GW hoax LOST HIS JOB because of it. I'll post it again here for the lazy:

Climategate e-mails made public in November ’10 that showed how top-level climate scientists distorted research, plotted to destroy data and conspired to prevent publication of dissenting views. "The University of East Anglia breached Britain's Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. Disgraced professor Phil Jones lost his job when it was discovered he pressured others to delete the data."

-The Times of London, 1/28/2010

Got it? That was YOUR boys who destroyed research.

YOUR boys who prevented peer review.

YOUR boys who distorted temperature data.

Finally, GW isn't new. And of course you don't know this because you get all your news from Eminem or a ranting coffee-house radical. It was brought up before the "Global Cooling" scare of the 70s. Remember that?

There really is no hope trying to convince you of the truth ("I suspect I will not find anything relevant in there.") I know I can't confuse you with facts, as your mind is already made up. But I AM convincing tons of silent readers of this thread who otherwise would believe in this hoax. And that is immensely satisfying.
 
Well at least we know now you've figured out how to look up stuff on the internet. Bully for you! But you make my point for me. Someone trying to reveal the hoax of global warming doesn't fit even your "definition." Duh.
 
yYs it does, you simply can not read. You think that global warming is a fake made up by alarmists and environmental groups for an evil purpose, that is by definition a conspiracy theory. If you are so determined to respond to everything by selectively reading, then why are you still here? to convince yourself?

I have noticed that since hipsters have become common, there are way more people denying commonly accepted ideas like climate change.

By the way, everyone is in agreement that it is climate change not global warming.
 
lol More people are denying it because Global Warming is a fake. I guess that means it's not even a "consensus" anymore. Actually it's you who cannot read, or understand, or respond to a single article I posted. Still waiting on that Maxy boy...
 
successful-troll-is-successful-naked-girl-hrBsur.jpg
 
aah, gotta love the good old climategate card. Let me enlighten you on something.

Taken from wikipedia (summary, so valid).

''Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[14] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result ofhuman activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.[17] However, the reports criticised climate scientists for their disorganised methods, bunker mentality and lack of transparency. ''

Saying Fuck you is very very different to postulating about the other persons life and lack of reasoning.

The sad thing is, and the reason why I am posting in here, is that you unfortunately have probably convinced those `silent readers' who won't bother to go out and see how selectively you choose your examples and evidence. My above quotation is a very good example of this. No data was changed, you simply capitalized on the media craze on it, once again quoting a newspaper (they all sensationalist these days to keep the subsiding sales up, no newspaper is spared).

It is true I've made up my mind (for now); however, with further understanding of our climate, I'm happy to change my opinion if the general consensus of the scientific community does as well.

and at california, he's not a fucking troll (wish he was). Midnight is an example of why I don't believe in free speech.
 
you dont know me, and no one mentioned trannies...that was really the first thing that popped into your mind when i mentioned sexy women? again, keep on doing your thang!
 
nah hes a troll. kinda similar to how glen beck trolled the nation.

if you know a lot about any subject its pretty easy to argue effectively for and against both sides. I highly doubt he believes everything he has posted...but its been inflammatory and has kept the discussion going.
 
Wikipedia! LOL!! You obviously are a man who loves bullshit. Let me enlighten you on something:

The Florida-based Wikimedia Foundation is aware of its Website's reputation. Board member Erik Moller was very frank in a recent essay. One of their 10 things they wanted you to know about Wikipedia is: "We don't want you to trust us. It's in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. We are fully aware of this."

Thus "wikipedia" admits it can't be trusted. Nice job.

But thank you for admitting you're an anti-freedom free-speech hating anarchist/communist/whatever. Why don't you man up and emigrate to N. Korea, and stop being a hypocritical coward?

(Here's more evidence for you to ignore: One of Australia's foremost Earth scientists, Ian Plimer, exposes GW as fraud. The book is FIVE-HUNDRED pages. It has over TWO-THOUSAND footnotes: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/beware-the-climate-of-conformity-20090412-a3ya.html?page=-1)

 
Once again, completely ignoring the point of my post, how your argument was 100% invalid, to point out some stupid bullshit about wikipedia (I already pointed out its a factual summary, so thus is valid...)

There will always be individuals who have differing opinions. Do you know what other scientists say about Ian Pilmer? That he misinterprets data and displays shitloads of fundamental scientific errors. Tony Abbott got slapped on the wrist for backing Ian's writing, and retracted his statement after being showed a bit of logic (i remember this, am an ausfag)

Here is an article (first google search, seems fairly valid, just skimmed it) detailing why Heaven and Earth is an unreliable text.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php

You can find 100 articles and papers saying that climate change doesnt exist, but on the converse, you can find 100,000 articles that say the opposite. The choice is yours to be selective in what you read and ignore evidence, but please don't parrot it to the heavens when you really do not know what you are talking about. Yes, you have a very nice arsenal of weapons to use against the faithful to convince them that you are right, but these are either unreliable or emotional weapons designed to bypass normal human logic to convince. You are a conspiracy theorist through and throughout. It's very sad actually. Most people who are conspiracy theorists will be more partial to believing more conspiracies, which compounds with age. It's not fun to be old and be looking over your shoulder thinking everyone is out with the very worst intentions.

I hope that ive shown people how unreliable your evidence is for them to discredit any more garbage that you type.
 
and just for a bit of a laugh, id thought id point out the ` incongruity of the three endorsements on the back cover of his book; two politicians (Vaclav Klaus and Nigel Lawson) and an historian (Geoffrey Blainey) rather than someone who might actually know something about the topic.' {Verrun, ABC RN}
 
LOL! That implicates yourself, since a bomb-throwing anarchist/communist/whatever like yourself endorses the GW hoax. Are we to now disbelieve in GW? lol
 
ok you have no response for me (that statement didnt even make sense, I was mocking your choice of argument) so I arbitrarily declare you the loser in this debate. I hope you stop believing in crap.
 
Your critique is quoted from a "computer scientist" at an unknown university in the backwater of Oz. He's as much a climatologist as you are, my fascist friend. And once again, where's the critique of all my other evidence?

You think you make a point by putting up an opinion piece by a non-climatologist and then bask in self-congratulatory piety as if you've just won a pissing contest. I think you scored more points with "fuck you."

If you want to talk about being non-objective, however, we need look no further than the IPCC, the UN leaders of the GW movement - a body utterly biased from inception. The IPCC was formed in 1988 with the purpose of assessing “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.” -- i.e. its main goal is based on the assumption of “human-induced climate change” – there was never an attempt to evaluate the scientific evidence of the cause. Although the IPCC always makes statements regarding the definite human causation and upcoming disaster, it has never provided substantial scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause. The only evidence provided is a correlation with CO2 since 1950, but mainly the output of computer models. Solar irradiance is not incorporated. Precipitation is not incorporated.

I've exposed as frauds both your sources (Wikipedia, and "Tim Lambert the CompSci Guy"), and then provided even more evidence. You however have not addressed the vast bulk of mine. But the real point is most people have figured out this hoax for what it is, and eco-conspiracy nuts like you are left holding the smoking shards of another failure. In time global warming will take its place in the museum of hysteria alongside overpopulation, nuclear winter, and Y2k.

When you're old and on to another quack theory someone will ask "Didn't you believe in that global warming crap?" And you'll say "Concerned people like me solved it!" The same thing you said when killer bees, Y2k, and global cooling were exposed as frauds and forgotten. Of course it won't be fun ignoring the laughter, but with increasing practice I'm sure you're getting used to it.
 
directly from the article you just posted "Such dramatic falls in temperatures provide superficial evidence for those who doubt that the world is threatened by climate change."
 
Guys, guys, guys, you're all wrong. Climate change is caused by the drastic fall in the number of pirates since the 19th century. Please stop obfuscating the truth.
 
those were endorsements of your source...

california called it on the troll part, just not the part where you actually know anything about the subject.
 
Mr. "666", I once thought you were a dishonest idiot, but now I know you're just an idiot. You can neither follow nor understand a simple train of thought. Along with the fool from Oz, you can't comprehend the simple analogy used to show that his indictment of those praising a scientist's book as "non-scientists" can also be used to indict his own praise of his own sources. Got it? No? Didn't think so.

You're other idiocy is our grade-school foolishness of making an out-of-context quote of the article I just provided. Yes the article mentioned your selective quote, but it was talking about temperature measurements in Austria, NOT Professor Don Easterbrook's work , and NOT the point of the article. If you would've taken a bong break and read just the next paragraph you'd read the following:

"But most pertinent of all, of course, are the growing volume of statistics. According to the National Climatic Data Centre, Earth’s hottest recorded year was 1998. If you put the same question to NASA, scientists will say it was 1934, followed by 1998. The next three runner-ups are 1921, 2006 and 1931.

Which all blows a rather large hole in the argument that the earth is hurtling towards an inescapable heat death prompted by man’s abuse of the environment. Indeed, some experts believe we should forget global warming and turn our attention to an entirely differently phenomenon – global cooling."

Mr. "666", you are an example of the willful eco-nuts that still cling to the Global Warming hoax. Meanwhile the rest of us have moved on. Want proof?

A U.K. poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June 2007 - found most people believed scientists were still questioning climate change and thought the problem was exaggerated to make money. The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog messes were all of greater concern than the global warming hoax.

And another: "Only 37% would support a cap-and-trade bill that raises their utility bill by just $10 per month, even if it meant a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions." (Associated Press-Stanford University Poll, November 29,2009.)

See? You've already lost. You're like the nutty japanese holdouts found on isolated islands 30 years after WWII was over still "fighting" in the jungle.

I'm glad you're still posting so we can all enjoy your antics and see you for what you are: a clown prancing at the edge of a society that ignores you utterly.

P.S. I'm still waiting for you to address the mountain of other sources I've provided.
 
so because a bunch of non scientists in the UK thought its not a problem its not a problem? and I have told you already, Hot death isnt the problem as you are the only person arguing about GLOBAL WARMING, we are arguing about CLIMATE CHANGE.
 
double post but, that quote was a paragraph, you can't really take an entire paragraph out of context, especially a statement that doesnt directly refer to anything else in the article. so keep grasping at straws. or google "global cooling" again and argue as if you know what you are talking about some more.
 
Um....you're not arguing anything, sport. You're just spewing schoolyard names like the child you are, returning again and again because you've never gotten over the thrashing I've given you. I'm calling shenanigans on your claim of being an "engineering student. I don't think you're even in college. But I am glad that you're in Canada so my tax dollars won't be supporting your welfare ride. (Does your mommy know you're impersonating a productive member of society?)

I'm still waiting for you to contest any of my references on the globaloney warning hoax.
 
You laughed at references to your own source, you posted a source that directly disagreed with you and you continue to misinterpret everyone's arguments against the arguments that you posted. Beyond that you continue to incriminate yourself as a troll with ridiculously blatant baiting like "Does your mommy know you're impersonating a productive member of society?" come on.Anyways, you have no arguments of your own, only heavily political non-scientific sources.
 
You're other idiocy is your grade-school foolishness of making an out-of-context quote of the article I just provided. Yes the article mentioned your selective quote, but it was talking about temperature measurements in Austria, NOT Professor Don Easterbrook's work , and NOT the point of the article. If you would've taken a bong break and read just the next paragraph you'd read the following:

"But most pertinent of all, of course, are the growing volume of statistics. According to the National Climatic Data Centre, Earth’s hottest recorded year was 1998. If you put the same question to NASA, scientists will say it was 1934, followed by 1998. The next three runner-ups are 1921, 2006 and 1931.

Which all blows a rather large hole in the argument that the earth is hurtling towards an inescapable heat death prompted by man’s abuse of the environment. Indeed, some experts believe we should forget global warming and turn our attention to an entirely differently phenomenon – global cooling."

Mr. "666", you are an example of the willful eco-nuts that still cling to the Global Warming hoax. Meanwhile the rest of us have moved on. Want proof?

A U.K. poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June 2007 - found most people believed scientists were still questioning climate change and thought the problem was exaggerated to make money. The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog messes were all of greater concern than the global warming hoax.

And another: "Only 37% would support a cap-and-trade bill that raises their utility bill by just $10 per month, even if it meant a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions." (Associated Press-Stanford University Poll, November 29,2009.)

See? You've already lost. You're like the nutty japanese holdouts found on isolated islands 30 years after WWII was over still "fighting" in the jungle.

I'm glad you're still posting so we can all enjoy your antics and see you for what you are: a clown prancing at the edge of a society that ignores you utterly.

P.S. I'm still waiting for you to address the mountain of other sources I've provided.
 
lol

WUT?

As there is no hope of you graduating college with this sort of laughable idiocy I think your time would be better spent knitting a bong cozy out of all the term papers you failed. You can even start an eBay biz with it as the supply will be nigh inexhaustable.
 
I just read through this entire thread....And I feel dumber having read it. Why are you both feeding each other over this? The name calling, etc. It's almost comical and unbelievable. Let me give you a few tips when debating these type of topics. As soon as someone starts calling you a "conspiracy theorist" or says anything involving "tin foil hat", get out immediately. These types are fully invested in their beliefs and will make huge leaps of logic to defend their agenda. The only way to win is to bow out. With that said, the name calling from the other side completely erodes your credibility. You must approach these topics with a certain level of patience and understanding. You were probably once like them before you started seeing the big picture. I know I was. Back then I was awful quick to poo poo outside the box thinking. What woke me up wasn't someone telling me I was dumb or stubborn. It was someone who I respected a great deal and had the patience to show me what I wasn't seeing. He didn't berate me into submission. He let me see it for myself and made me want to see it. So slow your roll and be patient. You can't force this stuff as some are so hypnotized by authority that they will believe anything they're told. Current events will show you that. Good luck to you both in life. I mean neither of you ill will and am sendin vibes your way. Maybe if we all stop attacking each other we can actually come together and do some good in this world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top