Global Warming Debunked

[Norseman82]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1357345' date='Aug 12 2007, 01:44 PM']Regardless of whether global warming is actually happening or its causes, we cannot deny that human activity and development are detrimental to our natural environment. Even though I don't buy into the doomsday scenarios theorized by some, God did command us to be good stewards of this planet, so why not cooperate with envrionmentalists on these things?[/quote]

Besides, why make Hugo Chavez and OPEC rich?

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1357345' date='Aug 12 2007, 11:44 AM']Regardless of whether global warming is actually happening or its causes, we cannot deny that human activity and development are detrimental to our natural environment. Even though I don't buy into the doomsday scenarios theorized by some, God did command us to be good stewards of this planet, so why not cooperate with environmentalists on these things?[/quote]

Because such cooperation will cause widespread economic hardship to the working class.

[Fidei Defensor]

I think it's kind of pointless to try and "debunk" global warming when I'm fairly certain that most, if not all of us, are unqualified to discuss and understand the science. Where I see this discussion going is into the land of conspiracy theory, which has nothing to do with the science behind global warming.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1357345' date='Aug 12 2007, 02:44 PM']Regardless of whether global warming is actually happening or its causes, we cannot deny that human activity and development are detrimental to our natural environment. Even though I don't buy into the doomsday scenarios theorized by some, God did command us to be good stewards of this planet, so why not cooperate with envrionmentalists on these things?[/quote]
the ones who have the doomsday scenarios in mind propose DRASTIC changes which will impact negatively on the economy. If they were correct about the doomsday scenarios, such actions might be justified. If they are not, then those actions are not justified; we have plenty of time to continue research into better more profitable directions to take energy industries.

No one should skip a trip to their grandmother's because they're helping to stave off the global warming crisis, for instance. People before environment, always; protect the environment for the sake of its benefit to people; because it was made for us to enjoy.

personally, I'd love to see towns that had walking streets closed to cars and parkinglots on the outskirts of them... at least for the small towns... but that's just for sociological and cultural reasons that I think that'd be phat, its impact on the environment would be totally secondary... the overabundance of cars has far worse sociological implications on a society of anonymity than it has on the environment, in my opinion.

Anyway, I'd like to close with a comparison of your argument, don't know whether you'll like it or not, depends on your other politics. It is nonetheless an accurate comparison which illustrates how both arguments are not in line with logic. You saying "whether or not global warming is really happening or what it's causes are, we should still cooperate with the policies proposed in reaction to global warming" is nearly exactly alike to any republican warhawk saying "whether or not Sadam has weapons of mass destruction, we should still take him out of power"

fidei: while this does not debunk global warming necessarily, such that the science still needs discussed amongst scientists, it is a clearcut story about a computer glitch which miscalculated the temperatures. Global Warming activists use the "hottest year ever" as a trump card to show that it couldn't just be another climate cycle and that it must be in line with carbon emissions. That particular trump card has been trumped by this fact, and that changes the whole discussion drastically. No, we're not qualified with the science; but we can see when the proof someone proposed for their theory is clearly disproven, and this was offered as basically the most definitive proof any global warming activist could drum up: that the earth had not been as hot for thousands of years until we started emitting carbon.

all the scientists have been working with faulty data, and that's a really big deal.

[Dismas]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1357342' date='Aug 12 2007, 01:36 PM']Hey, how come I didn't get to retire?[/quote]

I guess you weren't in on it, or were too ethical to exploit others. As it was, some of my friends had their college loans paid off years ahead of time thanks to the Y2K panic.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Dismas' post='1357397' date='Aug 12 2007, 02:59 PM']I guess you weren't in on it, or were too ethical to exploit others. As it was, some of my friends had their college loans paid off years ahead of time thanks to the Y2K panic.[/quote]
In regards to COBOL, the panic was not totally unwarranted. Many programs had not concern for the century would have cause some serious calculation problems. I don't think COBOL programmers of the past meant to do this. There was no conspiracy. There were storage considerations and many programmers did not think their program would have such a long lifespan.

Were there people who took advantage of the situation? Probably so, but it's not part of some diabolical master plan by the original program authors.

Thanks for link Justin86. You made my day and maybe the week. I believe even if all of the data was correct, the history of recorded temperature data is too short to draw any conclusions on long term trends, especially for events of a global scale.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1357377' date='Aug 12 2007, 12:31 PM']all the scientists have been working with faulty data, and that's a really big deal.[/quote]
That's a really big claim to make...

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Dismas' post='1357397' date='Aug 12 2007, 02:59 PM']I guess you weren't in on it, or were too ethical to exploit others. As it was, some of my friends had their college loans paid off years ahead of time thanks to the Y2K panic.[/quote]

Funny but true story:

During one major brokerage company's testing of a Y2K fix, they inadvertantly added 19,000,000 to everyone's account balance (we're talking the actual live [i]production[/i] data, not a test copy of a file)! Unfortunately for my IRA, the "fix" was backed out withing a few hours and the balances were restored to normal.

[Dismas]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1357461' date='Aug 12 2007, 03:45 PM']In regards to COBOL, the panic was not totally unwarranted. Many programs had not concern for the century would have cause some serious calculation problems. I don't think COBOL programmers of the past meant to do this. There was no conspiracy. There were storage considerations and many programmers did not think their program would have such a long lifespan.

Were there people who took advantage of the situation? Probably so, but it's not part of some diabolical master plan by the original program authors.

Thanks for link Justin86. You made my day and maybe the week. I believe even if all of the data was correct, the history of recorded temperature data is too short to draw any conclusions on long term trends, especially for events of a global scale.[/quote]

In all seriousness, there was legitimate concern and a need for the appropriate countermeasures. Even so, this "legitimate concern" was elevated by several orders of magnitude to "gibbering panic" by the Chicken Littles of mass media. I know that there was no conspiracy in the beginning or during the panic, however there were plenty of people exploiting the panic for personal gain. As one swindler came up with dire predictions that only he could save people from, another would necessarily have to top the first swindler's story. The result was booking hourly programmers with consultant wages, then driving them to work sometimes up to 70+ hours a week. Business owners would require whole libraries of code that had nothing to do with the date problem be combed, tweaked, and certified Y2K apocalypse compliant.

I may be more than a little jaded about this issue, as I was working for a bank during Y2K.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1357472' date='Aug 12 2007, 05:08 PM']That's a really big claim to make...[/quote]
Read the artical: The guy alerted NASA that he had found a flaw in their calculations based upon a computer glitch. NASA has since revised its data. That's not a claim, it's a fact: climatologists have been working with data which was contaminated by a computer glitch, namely Y2K.

[XIX]

Global warming or no global warming, I look at what comes out of the exhaust pipes of a car and say to myself "Gee, I don't want that in my lungs!"

GW or no GW, I have bigger political issues to give myself to.

GW or no GW, I still don't want to pay half of my life savings to an evil Iranian dictator.

GW or no GW, there is a very good chance that oil will become obsolete before we melt ourselves.

GW or no GW, I just wanna know what happens in the year 2012.

[Sojourner]

Why 2012?

[Aloysius]

That's when the Mayans predicted the end of the last age of history. Considering they were right about the end of their own age, people fear the date 12-21-12, the last day of the last age and thus the end of the world.

I think it's gonna be a combination of Y2K and the extinction of the bees.

Again, that's all well and good, but there's legitimate discussion to be had. Just because you'd like there to be less pollutants or whatever doesn't justify the histeria-machine that is global warming activism. Stick to truth.

[jeffpugh]

I don't think he's sticking up for the hysterics, but just saying how he feels about it. I know everyone here wants the right thing done, and that is stewarding the earth properly.

[Aloysius]

Not saying he does; just reacting to the "whether or not there is manmade global warming, let's act as if there is" position.