[hwacker]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Hilarious. A hundred and fifty years worth of climate data, decades of research and the biggest peer reviewed study ever undertaken, but do the right-wing idealogues buy it? Nope--global warming is a farce, they say. A picture of the red sopt on Jupiter and all of a sudden they're convinced.

150 years, yeah that's plenty for a decisive decision. mensa man²

[Wada]

hwacker hwacker:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Hilarious. A hundred and fifty years worth of climate data, decades of research and the biggest peer reviewed study ever undertaken, but do the right-wing idealogues buy it? Nope--global warming is a farce, they say. A picture of the red sopt on Jupiter and all of a sudden they're convinced.

150 years, yeah that's plenty for a decisive decision. mensa man²

Well, one would be a fool not to wish for more years of data. I would put a loonie on the fact that what they have to offer in the way of data in terms of years is considerably more than you have to offer in terms of yearsof data. Probably why I have more faith in them than in you. Nothing personal.

[PluggyRug]

Wada Wada:

hwacker hwacker:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Hilarious. A hundred and fifty years worth of climate data, decades of research and the biggest peer reviewed study ever undertaken, but do the right-wing idealogues buy it? Nope--global warming is a farce, they say. A picture of the red sopt on Jupiter and all of a sudden they're convinced.

150 years, yeah that's plenty for a decisive decision. mensa man²

Well, one would be a fool not to wish for more years of data. I would put a loonie on the fact that what they have to offer in the way of data in terms of years is considerably more than you have to offer in terms of yearsof data. Probably why I have more faith in them than in you. Nothing personal.

The only thing they have to offer is a concensus. I'm keeping my looney.

[Zipperfish]

Wada Wada:

Well, one would be a fool not to wish for more years of data. I would put a loonie on the fact that what they have to offer in the way of data in terms of years is considerably more than you have to offer in terms of yearsof data. Probably why I have more faith in them than in you. Nothing personal.

Hey, I'm not asking climate change to be taken as an article of faith by anyone. I'm just talking about the science. Why is it that when presented with endlessly deatiled reports providing strong evidence that the climate is changing, the ideological right chose not to believe it, and then, based on a few grains of evidence regarding the Red Spot on Jupiter they are suddenly convinced that global warming is real.

As for your loonie--sorry I only bet beers!

[Zipperfish]

Wada Wada:

hwacker hwacker:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Hilarious. A hundred and fifty years worth of climate data, decades of research and the biggest peer reviewed study ever undertaken, but do the right-wing idealogues buy it? Nope--global warming is a farce, they say. A picture of the red sopt on Jupiter and all of a sudden they're convinced.

150 years, yeah that's plenty for a decisive decision. mensa man²

Well, one would be a fool not to wish for more years of data. I would put a loonie on the fact that what they have to offer in the way of data in terms of years is considerably more than you have to offer in terms of yearsof data. Probably why I have more faith in them than in you. Nothing personal.

Huh?

[juggernaut]

its not really a coincidence.

[LightStarr]

Or is it!

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Hey, I'm not asking climate change to be taken as an article of faith by anyone. I'm just talking about the science. Why is it that when presented with endlessly deatiled reports providing strong evidence that the climate is changing, the ideological right chose not to believe it, and then, based on a few grains of evidence regarding the Red Spot on Jupiter they are suddenly convinced that global warming is real.

As one of those "ideological right" people I've never denied that the earth is warming. I've pointed out that it has been warming for the last 15,000 years or so. That's why when you walk out your front door you don't have a few kilometres of ice over your head as there once was.

What I dispute is the "scientific" conclusion that global warming is somehow something new that was definitely caused by humanity.

What I dispute is the human arrogance that we somehow have a right to a stable climate when, in fact, such a thing would not be natural.

What I dispute are the anti-capitalists who always seem to be behind climate change discussions and who always seem to ignore any pollution that is created by their communist or socialist friends in China or the Third World.

What I dispute are the liberals who loathe and hate Western Civilization and who are using climate change as a tool to attack our culture, our ecomomies, and our national security.

But is the earth warming? Sure it is. And it's a good thing it is unless you want Canada back under that ice sheet of a few thousand years ago.

[juggernaut]

LightStarr LightStarr:

Or is it!

global warming is a very unsual thing, scientist still dont know if we ( humans) caused it or if its a natural evolution. the sun melting all the ice in the north causing a major flood which covers only the northern part of the world, and then causing the next ice age, which kills everyone in the northern hemisphere. very wierd.

[hurley_108]

Kay, there are serious problems here. First of all, this is Lorne Gunter we're talking about. He's never been one to shy away from anything which casts any doubt on GW.

Second, only four or five other bodies are mentioned, and we have little to no infomation given as to wheter these could be seasonal effects (seasons can be much longer on other bodies since the orbits of the outer planets are very long). Also, some of the changes are radical in the extreme, with doublings or triplings in atmospheric density. If the Sun's output was changing that much, wouldn't we see such changes on all bodies, or at least a much more noticable one on our own?

Lastly, this is all being treated as proxy evidence for an increase in solar output. Show me direct evidence and maybe I'll pay some more attention.

As it is, this is a collection of random studies badly put together to serve an anti-GW viewpoint.

[LightStarr]

Bart is right, on many respects. Its not caused by humans, the earth really has been warming up and like he said that is why where we are in Canada is not a giant ice shelf.

However, there is cause for concern in our rapid expansion of industries that cause pollution. Pollution that ruins air, destroys forests, makes water undrinkable and so on. We need to slow our expansion in these respects and devise ways to work around the difficulties presented by nature, not go out and bury our waste.

Sure global warming will mean bigger and stronger storms, but it will also mean extended growing seasons for crops. Of course it will also lead to expansion of desert areas, but we have no idea how the earth truly functioned before we got here. We really don't, there is only theory and speculation.

We need to curb our pollutants and think before we expand.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Hey, I'm not asking climate change to be taken as an article of faith by anyone. I'm just talking about the science. Why is it that when presented with endlessly deatiled reports providing strong evidence that the climate is changing, the ideological right chose not to believe it, and then, based on a few grains of evidence regarding the Red Spot on Jupiter they are suddenly convinced that global warming is real.

As one of those "ideological right" people I've never denied that the earth is warming. I've pointed out that it has been warming for the last 15,000 years or so. That's why when you walk out your front door you don't have a few kilometres of ice over your head as there once was.

What I dispute is the "scientific" conclusion that global warming is somehow something new that was definitely caused by humanity.

What I dispute is the human arrogance that we somehow have a right to a stable climate when, in fact, such a thing would not be natural.

What I dispute are the anti-capitalists who always seem to be behind climate change discussions and who always seem to ignore any pollution that is created by their communist or socialist friends in China or the Third World.

What I dispute are the liberals who loathe and hate Western Civilization and who are using climate change as a tool to attack our culture, our ecomomies, and our national security.

But is the earth warming? Sure it is. And it's a good thing it is unless you want Canada back under that ice sheet of a few thousand years ago.

I don't think there is a scientific conclusion that the warming was definitely caused by humans. It's hard to get a scietnist to say "definitely." It implies certainty, and certainty doesn't exist in science, except as an ideal. There is a good many scientists who think it is quite probable that we are changing the climate. I agree with them.

Is the earth warming a good thing, necessarily? I'm not sure I agree with that logic. I think the adaptation costs for climate change are going to be quite expensive economically and destabilizing geopolitically.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't think there is a scientific conclusion that the warming was definitely caused by humans. It's hard to get a scietnist to say "definitely." It implies certainty, and certainty doesn't exist in science, except as an ideal. There is a good many scientists who think it is quite probable that we are changing the climate. I agree with them.

Is the earth warming a good thing, necessarily? I'm not sure I agree with that logic. I think the adaptation costs for climate change are going to be quite expensive economically and destabilizing geopolitically.

Since the earth is cooler than it's historical average what do you propose we do to keep it cool?

And why should we interfere in a natural process?

[BartSimpson]

LightStarr LightStarr:

Sure global warming will mean bigger and stronger storms

Curiously, of the nine super-powerful hurricanes and typhoons that were predicted for the 2006-2007 season based on global warming climate models we didn't have any.

So since global warming will bring stronger storms the absence of stronger storms indicates that global warming isn't occuring, right?

[LightStarr]

Dude, we should totally drop giant ice cubs inthe water, thereby creating huge Tsunami waves, wiping out our enemies!