Conquer Club

IS REAL!!!

Okay, let's do a poll on this shizzle. I've just read something interresting about it and wonder what the opinion of you people is.

i would say its more global climate change then global warming. just my opinion...

That it is going through a warming cycle muck like it has in millenia past? Yes. Do humans plat a part in it? A small part, maybe, but there are many, MANY natural producers of the greenhouse gases. Do I think Al Gore is very credible? Nope. The guy is a hypocrite and uses more electricity then the average American. And the only thing he's done to "curb his emissions" is put in fluorescent bulbs instead of regular.

That about covers it, I think.

... Snorrii, you lazy b*stard. How many of these threads have we already seen here? Couldn't you just have brought one back from the dead?

... Now it starts.... charts, graphs... Al Gore is God... Al Gore is a lying b*stard.... yada yada yada ...

...

Bavarian Raven wrote:i would say its more global climate change then global warming. just my opinion...

Yeah, whatever. "Global warming" is the term most people use so I figured I'd go with that.

Uhm guys....this is not actually a debate about Al Gore's credibility. Can't you seperate the issues from the politician?

We can actually use scientific data from scientists with no agenda (like not being paid by one of the largest oil-distributers in the world). No need to bring up politicians and how much of a hypocrit they are. (Honestly, a hypocritical politician? That's a suprise!)

muy_thaiguy wrote:That it is going through a warming cycle muck like it has in millenia past? Yes. Do humans play a part in it? A small part, maybe, but there are many, MANY natural producers of the greenhouse gases.

Indeed. But many producers does not in fact mean they hold the greatests influence. Self-regulating systems can be enormously influenced by small outside sources.

Do I think Al Gore is very credible? Nope. The guy is a hypocrite and uses more electricity then the average American. And the only thing he's done to "curb his emissions" is put in fluorescent bulbs instead of regular.

Well Al Gore is no scientist so I don't think his credibility is actually important.

And also, the whole hypocrit-angle is silly. It's exactly that which makes the American Elections a farce all the time because you can't seperate people from issues.

they can't even tell me what the weather will be a couple days out.....how the hell do you think they can know what happens 10years-10million years from now?

bedub1 wrote:they can't even tell me what the weather will be a couple days out.....how the hell do you think they can know what happens 10years-10million years from now?

SCIENCE!

bedub1 wrote:they can't even tell me what the weather will be a couple days out.....how the hell do you think they can know what happens 10years-10million years from now?

You can't even tell me what a politician's going to do tomorrow, much less the day after! Why vote? Just give me yours!

I like using clever, overused statements as well.

Snorri1234 wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:That it is going through a warming cycle muck like it has in millenia past? Yes. Do humans play a part in it? A small part, maybe, but there are many, MANY natural producers of the greenhouse gases.

Indeed. But many producers does not in fact mean they hold the greatests influence. Self-regulating systems can be enormously influenced by small outside sources.

Do I think Al Gore is very credible? Nope. The guy is a hypocrite and uses more electricity then the average American. And the only thing he's done to "curb his emissions" is put in fluorescent bulbs instead of regular.

Well Al Gore is no scientist so I don't think his credibility is actually important.

And also, the whole hypocrit-angle is silly. It's exactly that which makes the American Elections a farce all the time because you can't seperate people from issues.

For the first one; I meant that though humans are producing some, and that the earth is warming, but little evidence that humans are the sole cause of it.

The second one; I was going on about how many people see Gore as a scientist, and mainly because he's the one (to blame?) who started the "green movement" here with his power point presentation.

muy_thaiguy wrote:For the first one; I meant that though humans are producing some, and that the earth is warming, but little evidence that humans are the sole cause of it.

Not being the sole cause of it doesn't mean you shouldn't try to do anything about it. Ofcourse man is not the sole cause of the warming, but we're speeding it up and that's not a good thing.

The second one; I was going on about how many people see Gore as a scientist, and mainly because he's the one (to blame?) who started the "green movement" here with his power point presentation.

Oh yes I know that, it's still entirely silly to do that though. Global climate change is aboot science.

Snorri1234 wrote:Oh yes I know that, it's still entirely silly to do that though. Global climate change is aboot science.

Bad science, on your tv. This is all about money.
It's a fact that earth isn't the only planet going through a climate change. All of the planets in our solor system are. That's why it is called Global climate change, instead of global warming. Al Gore lied his ass off in his film.
Humans cannot be causing a global warming on every planet in our system. The un-scientists like to point out that CO2 is warming our atmosphere, but historically, CO2 doesn't rise untill after global climate change. Clearly this is just part of a solor anomoly. It should be "solor climat change."

Now, I would accept the arguement that humans my throw this cycle a little out of wack, but we are definitly not the main culprits. TZOR and I killed the last thread aboot this.

Global communist propaganda. The end.

HapSmo19 wrote:Global communist propaganda. The end.

Since when are most scientists commies?


And how in the bleeding hell does this help communist agenda? Is the proletariat suddenly going to rise up because we're harming the climate? Aren't the most communists societies also the ones who really don't care about the environment?


I mean, shit, I would've understood if you had said "environmentalist propaganda" but this just doesn't make sense.

30 years ago people were scared to death of global cooling. It turned out to be nothing.

Climate change has been around since the beginning of time. The earth has gotten hotter and cooler long before humans started spraying their fancy aerosols and hairsprays into the ozone layer.

Al Gore is just using fear tactics to advance his liberal agenda.

Welcome to Hapsmoworld

Snorri1234 wrote:Since when are most scientists commies?

Since when can people not be bought?
Have you seen this?: http://www.petitionproject.org/

One side or the other is lying and/or has insufficient evidence to back their claims.

HapSmo19 wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Since when are most scientists commies?

Since when can people not be bought?
Have you seen this?: http://www.petitionproject.org/

One side or the other is lying and/or has insufficient evidence to back their claims.

I bet it's the side that is paid by one of the largest oil-companies in the US.http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

The thing is: AMERICA is not the world. 31thousand AMERICAN scientists having signed a petition (nothing about what their field of expertise is...) doesn't tell us much about global consensus. What does tell us about global scientific consensus are the large scientific allegiances like The Royal Society (UK version of National Academy of Sciences) that publicly told Exxonmobil to stop with the spreading of misleading and inaccurate information.


Or how about the Union of Concerned Scientists who published a paper on how ExxonMobil paid nearly 16 million dollars to companies which would tell their version of the truth.

jonesthecurl wrote:Welcome to Hapsmoworld

Hapsmoworld Mission Statement:
Hapsmoworld is a pretty cool place. Here in Hapsmoworld we like to see things as they are. We have the ability to put square pegs into square holes, round pegs into round holes etc. Hapsmoworld reserves the right to recognize the blatantly obvious pro-communist agenda within it's own government as well as within other governments.
In Hapsmoworld, we don't get into emotional circle-jerks over such things as bums digging through garbage cans. However, Hapsmoworld recognizes the right of any individual to take in the homeless to show their true concern for humanty. Hapsmoworld also will not frown upon individuals who, in a state of disbelief over what they were thinking, return said homeless to the street within the first twenty-four hours. It goes on and on...

Here's another convienient bit supporting global warming.....or does it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.j ... ate130.xml

"Your not going to notice anything for the next seven to ten years but, after that....."

Snorri1234 wrote:I bet it's the side that is paid by one of the largest oil-companies in the US.

31,000 of em' huh? It's your prerogative.

So, in your opinion, does co2 increase lead or follow temperature rise?

Snorri1234 wrote:Or how about the Union of Concerned Scientists who published a paper on how ExxonMobil paid nearly 16 million dollars to companies which would tell their version of the truth.

Thats called PR isn't it? When it comes to the UCS, I get supiciuos when the propaganda department outnumbers the "experts" 10 to 1.

"Experts"

Brenda Ekwurzel
Climate Scientist
Global Environment Program
Climate Program
Washington, DC
Brenda Ekwurzel works on the national climate program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). She is leading UCS's climate science education work aimed at strengthening support for strong federal climate legislation and sound U.S. climate policies.

Peter C. Frumhoff
Director of Science & Policy and
Chief Scientist, Climate Campaign
Executive Program
Cambridge, MA
Peter Frumhoff is Director of Science & Policy and Chief Scientist, Climate Campaign, at UCS. A global change ecologist, he has published and lectured widely on topics that include climate change impacts, climate science and policy, tropical forest conservation and management, and biological diversity.
Expertise
climate science and policy
climate change impacts
tropical forest and biodiversity conservation
forest and land-use solutions to climate change

"Staff"

Kate Abend
Climate Change Outreach Coordinator

Douglas Boucher
Director, Tropical Forest & Climate Initiative

Ron Burke
Midwest Climate Campaign Director

Christopher Busch
California Climate Economist

Chris Carney
California Outreach Organizer

Rachel Cleetus
Climate Economist

Nancy Cole
Director of Climate Outreach

Melanie Fitzpatrick
Northeast Impacts Science Coordinator

Monica La
Climate Change/Invasives Program Assistant

Katherine Lake
Northeast Outreach Assistant

Claudio Martinez
Risk Analyst

Eric Misbach
Administrative Coordinator

Diana Movius
Policy Analyst/Advocate, Tropical Forest & Climate Initiative

Lance Pierce
Climate Program Director

Ned Raynolds
Northeast Climate Policy Coordinator

Erin Rogers
California Outreach Coordinator

Lexi Shultz
Deputy Director, Climate Campaign

Jean Sideris
Outreach Coordinator

Erika Spanger-Siegfried
Northeast Climate Project Manager

I'm confused....

Patriot Radio WTPRN just did a story about the Rockefeller family(with taped interviews) firing the CEO of EXXONMOBILE because his practices weren't "green" enough.

The "owners" of EXXON have a different agenda then EXXON?

There is a ton of money to be made by going green.. just not by the oil companies, per say....

Juan_Bottom wrote:There is a ton of money to be made by going green.. just not by the oil companies, per say....

Which is the industry that owns the US government.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:There is a ton of money to be made by going green.. just not by the oil companies, per say....

Which is the industry that owns the US government.

Which is suspicious to me.

If big oil calls the shots... then how does "going green" get so much play? And how are big-name politicians able to go there?
My point above was that the people in power all have an agenda. The company wants to profit, but the people who control the company can profit more themselves, by manipulating public opinion; By sacrificing their CEO...

The data itself suggests to me (I'm no climatologist) that global climate change is solor triggered. And that man has affected this change, but not too impossably drastically.

Global Warming is just a scam that scientists pull off to make us more energy efficient, reduce the pollution in our air, help us find sources for energy that ill not run out eventually (unlike oil), increase the size and number of forests of the world, make humans better care takers of the planet, make peace among many nations by having them untie on solving global warming, provide a healthier place to live in for all of us, and provide a paradise of gardens, and wildlife throughout the globe.

That is why I believe in global warming and will promote anyone who says it is true. Screw the scientific info, the above is all I need to give this theory my support.

What are the negatives of this theory?
Well, the economy will suffer temporarily because of the switch of energy sources....

But.... the economy will come out much much better since the cost of energy and transportation will go down, dragging almost all other costs with it.