Global Warming is a hoax.

[ironmonk]

LOL

I've been seeing a few things on the pole shifts lately. My guess will be that the media will jump on that in five years after the global warming scare is burned out...

I do not think we will see a global natural disaster before the second coming.

Most of these things we are able to see now, such as the poles. We have only been able to see them for a short time, more than likely they have always been shifting and we are just seeing a small portion of the movement. There is just not enough data to say something is "wrong" per say.

Spiritual needs outweigh the physical, and this includes comfort... and even life. I think most liberally inclined people do not realize this.

God will provide for our physical needs, we need to work on our spiritual needs and help people do the same. We need to do what we can to help others physically, but we cannot allow them to be lazy... but that's another topic.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[morostheos]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 5 2006, 12:35 AM']no it's not. it has nothing to do with politics and it's not unsubstantiated.[/quote]
Then please provide your substantial evidence that is is impossible for humans to cause major changes in the Earth's climate. I think you underestimate the capabilities of the human race.

[quote]I do not respect the opinions of "scientists" who are not science minded... these in particular ignore the blatent facts of historical temperature changes.[/quote]
I haven't seen these blatent facts the majority of the scientific community seems to be ignoring.
[quote]Worst case scenario is that IF we were hurring the warming we will just get to the cooling phase sooner.[/quote]
It's not a matter of just speeding up something that's already bound to happen, but a matter of making it happen on a greater magnitude.
[quote]Everything pushed by the left is tainted. I have yet to see something pushed by the left that does not have a spin or some obvious ulterior motive.

There are tell tale traits that people do that show their character...
people that want to kill babies do not want to give money to the poor for sake of the poor and to end poverty.

People that kill babies don't care about the earth for the sake of the earth.

People that kill babies because they can because of privacy are selfish people.

The ends do not justify the means.

I take everything from the wrong side with a grain of salt, I think maybe "this time" they have a point,  I listen to them, and I do my own research... then I base my opinion on the research that I have found. I try to research the sources of the research that I find. It is foolish to accept the opinion of a group that time and time again show a serious use of unsound logic, misconstrued information, and upside down priorities. Therefore I believe it is foolish to listen to anything from the wrong side (aka left/liberal). Mainstream journalism is not about facts anymore, it's about ratings. Fear sells... hate sells. Combine the two and you'll manipulate the ignorant like Hilter did... and that is what the mainstream media and democrat senators do.

God Bless,
ironmonk
[url="http://www.CatholicSwag.com"]http://www.CatholicSwag.com[/url] <-- Shirts that are free from leftist tainting
[right][snapback]876083[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There is a lot more to science than politics. It is unfair to assume that every scientist who believes we may be affecting the climate of this planet also happens to be pro-choice. Sure, the left is pushing this issue for probably not good reasons, but that doesn't invalidate it. It's been known to happen before that genuine problems are twisted for the use of someone's political agenda.

I also agree that mainstream media is generally worthless in reporting facts. However, I would not say the same for scientific journals. Sure, they will have some politics surrounding them as well, but in terms of facts their standards are pretty rigorous. Climate change is a very complicated subject, and while I'm sure you know plenty from your 12th grade science class, the chemistry involved in understanding it is definitely above that level.

[ironmonk]

[quote]There is a lot more to science than politics. It is unfair to assume that every scientist who believes we may be affecting the climate of this planet also happens to be pro-choice.[/quote]

Nor was I assuming that, it was in the context that it is the liberal media pushing it. The liberal media was hit on the head with the acorn of "global warming" and they are screaming the sky is falling.



[quote]Sure, the left is pushing this issue for probably not good reasons, but that doesn't invalidate it. It's been known to happen before that genuine problems are twisted for the use of someone's political agenda.[/quote]

It is not the left that invalidated it. The facts do. "Taken with a grain of salt" in other words anything they say needs to be scrutenized.

[quote]I also agree that mainstream media is generally worthless in reporting facts. However, I would not say the same for scientific journals. Sure, they will have some politics surrounding them as well, but in terms of facts their standards are pretty rigorous. Climate change is a very complicated subject, and while I'm sure you know plenty from your 12th grade science class, the chemistry involved in understanding it is definitely above that level. [/quote]

You are debating like a liberal... Just because one piece of information about the amount of gases that come out of a volcano came from my 12 grade class does not mean that I did not study it in college and does not mean that I did not study it on my own.

I'm fully aware of what scientific journals are. Many of them seem to have a liberal bias.

I am fully aware of what a complex issue climate change is. The fact is that the climate has always fluctuated and always will. The earth will cool before we bake ourselves with global warming. IF we are affecting the speed of the warming the only thing that will happen is that the cooling effect will start sooner than if we were pre-industrial.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[morostheos]

I'm sorry for assuming that you did not have any further training in science, that was wrong of me. However, you are not debating like a scientist, you are debating like a politician. You keep saying that "the facts" invalidate the possibility of global climate change, but have not provided us with any of the facts. Iacobus and I have provided multiple links to scientific websites as well as quotes that you have not refuted. So you say you're right and we're not, but you provide no proof. How are we supposed to believe you?

[Laudate_Dominum]

WWBNCGS?


What would Bill Nye the science guy say?

[ironmonk]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Feb 5 2006, 11:00 AM']I'm sorry for assuming that you did not have any further training in science, that was wrong of me.  However, you are not debating like a scientist, you are debating like a politician.  You keep saying that "the facts" invalidate the possibility of global climate change, but have not provided us with any of the facts.  Iacobus and I have provided multiple links to scientific websites as well as quotes that you have not refuted.  So you say you're right and we're not, but you provide no proof.  How are we supposed to believe you?
[right][snapback]876231[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I believe the facts to be points that I have already made, and I think the strongest fact to be the history of the earths fluctuating temperatures.

Computer models are depend on programming, if the programming is flawed the computer model will be worthless. We would have to look at the program code before believing them... but that is not going to happen. We do not know everything that the programs take into account and how much validity that the program gives each piece of data.

I'm beginning to doubt the amount of gases released by volcanoes, but the bigger eruptions are without doubt worse than we can do in at least hundreds of years because there have been big eruptions that changed temperatures drastically in a few months. Something to also consider is that because of way search engines work, not being able to find something does not mean something is wrong. Search engines move the most popular results to the top of searches, global warming is a very popular topic so finding things to contradict the massmedia's global warming is not going to be an easy task.

I still believe global warming is a hoax because it has happened before and the world then went into a cooling phase.

It's nothing to be worried about because we are to put our faith in God and not worry (St. Matt 6:25-32).

God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Feb 5 2006, 11:04 AM']WWBNCGS?
What would Bill Nye the science guy say?
[right][snapback]876233[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[morostheos]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 5 2006, 12:02 PM']I believe the facts to be points that I have already made, and I think the strongest fact to be the history of the earths fluctuating temperatures.

Computer models are depend on programming, if the programming is flawed the computer model will be worthless. We would have to look at the program code before believing them... but that is not going to happen. We do not know everything that the programs take into account and how much validity that the program gives each piece of data.
[right][snapback]876257[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I actually have looked in depth at the computer models used in the study of global climate change, and have found them to be convincing. In college one of the classes I took was "modelling environmental interactions." That was a couple years ago now and I don't remember the specifics of the model, but I do remember they definitely have cause to examine the situation more closely. No one says they know exactly what will happen and what is causing it, but there is plenty of evidence to make an educated guess.

Sure, the media claims "the sky is falling" and tries to spread fear, but that is not what convinces me that global climate change is something to be concerned about. The scientific facts are what concern me, and I believe changes to the way the world uses natural resources is going to have to happen sooner or later, so why not sooner?

[quote]Something to also consider is that because of way search engines work, not being able to find something does not mean something is wrong. Search engines move the most popular results to the top of searches, global warming is a very popular topic so finding things to contradict the massmedia's global warming is not going to be an easy task[/quote]

You just have to know how to look. Here's a link to an article abstract supporting your point that politics have clouded the issue considerably. [url="http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0004-5608.00245;jsessionid=eO9fGEYM1cL8YfD57K?cookieSet=1&journalCode=anna"]http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/1...ournalCode=anna[/url]

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote]If one inch of ice melts from Greenland's ice surface (up to a meter melts per year on the edges and there is melting on most of the surface, I am just saying one inch on the whole surface) 60,980,500,000,000,000 gallons of water will be added to the world's oceans. Think about that. Only six degrees and Greenland will be above 0 C almost all year.[/quote]

Can you substantiate this claim because, I'll be honest with you, that's absurd and it is comments like this that make people unsympathetic to your position. The number "60,980,500,000,000,000" is so large that I can't even write it out. If I were to drop the 60 and only have 980,500,000,000,000, it would be nine-hundred eighty TRILLION, five-hundred gallons of water. You would have to multiply that number by 62 to get the number that you quoted. Sorry, Iacobus, but that is simply not correct. There isn't even that much water on the planet.

[kamiller42]

In the Dallas, TX area, a majority of our winter has been been around a wonderful 70 degrees. If that's global warming, I'M ALL FOR IT!

Seriously, I think there are galactic and earthly forces at work that make human activity as significant as ant pile on the side of a driveway. One bad solar storm season on the sun has immense impact on weather patterns on earth, more so than anything mankind does.

Given that, I still think we should make efforts to keep the home we've been given to live in as clean as _reasonably_ possible. I can see God the father looking at us, his children, commanding us to keep our room clean.

[iheartjp2]

HA! Global warming, not up here in Ann Arbor MI!

wish it was though

[Iacobus]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Feb 5 2006, 02:24 PM']Can you substantiate this claim because, I'll be honest with you, that's absurd and it is comments like this that make people unsympathetic to your position.  The number "60,980,500,000,000,000" is so large that I can't even write it out.  If I were to drop the 60 and only have 980,500,000,000,000, it would be nine-hundred eighty TRILLION, five-hundred gallons of water.  You would have to multiply that number by 62 to get the number that you quoted.  Sorry, Iacobus, but that is simply not correct.  There isn't even that much water on the planet.
[right][snapback]876463[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Greenland — Area: 2,175,600 SQ KM (848,484 SQ MI); estimated 341,600 SQ KM ice-free, 1,834,000 SQ KM ice-covered

So,

1,834,000 sq km*(0.3861 sq miles)=sq miles=708 100 sq miles

708100 sq miles*27,890,000 sq feet*(1/12 feet)=volume of ice (one inch thick)=1.646 × 10^12 cubic feet

1.646x10^12 cubic feet*7.481 gallons=1.231× 10^13 gallons

or

12,310,000,000,000 gallons (12 trillion, 310 billion gallons)

As you noted, my math was wrong. I don't have my intial work up, however, looking at the calulations I have in front of me now, it appears that I made a mistake when converting to square miles. Most likely, I failed to convert to sq miles properly. It looks like instead of a conversion fact of .3861 sq miles to one sq km, I converted in terms of linear space. I am not sure that is the mistake, I don't feel like running every possible number error (and even then it could just have been a mispunch on the calculator). However, I have proofed this set and put it up as part of the record so I have a saved copy of it.

And there are ax. 3.6x10^20 gallons of water on earth's surface.

Or

360,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons, or

Such a huge amount that the amount that you claimed exceeded the full amount of water on earth doesn't even amount to a reduction whatsoever.

3.6*10^20-6.1*10^16=3.6× 10^20

[ironmonk]

[quote][b]Scientist predicts 'mini Ice Age'[/b]
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- A Russian astronomer has predicted that Earth will experience a "mini Ice Age" in the middle of this century, caused by low solar activity.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory in St. Petersburg said Monday that temperatures will begin falling six or seven years from now, when global warming caused by increased solar activity in the 20th century reaches its peak, RIA Novosti reported.

The coldest period will occur 15 to 20 years after a major solar output decline between 2035 and 2045, Abdusamatov said.

Dramatic changes in the earth's surface temperatures are an ordinary phenomenon, not an anomaly, he said, and result from variations in the sun's energy output and ultraviolet radiation.

The Northern Hemisphere's most recent cool-down period occurred between 1645 and 1705. The resulting period, known as the Little Ice Age, left canals in the Netherlands frozen solid and forced people in Greenland to abandon their houses to glaciers, the scientist said.

[url="http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060207-041447-2345r"]http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=...07-041447-2345r[/url][/quote]

[Iacobus]

And other scientists dispute the extent of that "Mini-ice age" and think that the reason people left Greenland wasn't because of weather but rather because the ships were sailing on different routes and it was now an out of the way place.

Strange also that google only has two hits total for Khabibullo Abdusamatov and neither of them are journals.

[Cow of Shame]

"She sipped her latte gracefully, unaware of the milk foam droplets building on her mustache, which was not the peachy-fine baby fuzz that Nordic girls might have, but a really dense, dark, hirsute lip-lining row of fur common to southern Mediterranean ladies nearing menopause, and winked at the obviously charmed Spaniard at the next table."