Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter NCCommish
- Start date
Mister Martie
Footballguy
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
Mister Martie
Footballguy
I thought this was going to be a link to jon declaring that "Wind is a finite resource."
msommer
Footballguy
http://crx.sagepub.com/content/39/6/701
http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/i-dont-want-to-be-right
excerpt
Facts that contradict your beliefs is discarded by ardent believers
and
http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/i-dont-want-to-be-right
excerpt
tl;dr
Facts that contradict your beliefs is discarded by ardent believers
cstu
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
This is inevitably correct. But the transition could take 30-40 years (less if we're lucky) and there may be a lot of suffering in between.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
timschochet
Footballguy
Not in 40 years. The suffering will take place over the next few decades as we attempt to transition from fossil fuels to renewable fuels. Maybe.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
So not 40 years, but the next few decades? And by few, are you saying about 4 decades?
Josie Maran
Footballguy
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
Josie Maran
Footballguy
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
I just think it's ridiculous that we can put an amount of time (40 years) on something that has no actual time frame. When will we run low on fossil fuels? No one knows for sure. But we know that it will take 30 to 40 years from when we do until we can come up with something new?
Josie Maran
Footballguy
Don't ask me, I was just answering your first stupid question. Not gonna bother with this one.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
OKDon't ask me, I was just answering your first stupid question. Not gonna bother with this one.
cstu
Footballguy
See what I posted about the logarithmic effect of CO2.
Even a pro-global warming site says this about it:
Our current CO2 levels are around 400ppm, so that would need to increase to 800ppm.
Yet this is what they say:
If we've already gone from 280 ppm to 400 ppm and experienced a temperature increase of 0.85 C from 1880 to 2012 then how can going from 400 ppm to 560 ppm increase another 2.15 C?
Last edited by a moderator:
One day you might actually understand what infinite means. Until then, stay stupid my friend
Maelstrom
Footballguy
Top Global Warming Skeptic Richard Muller: I Was wrong on Climate Change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w&feature=share
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w&feature=share
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
Pretty ####### cold lately. Hoping that global warming kicks in soon because I'm tired of running the space heater.
cstu
Footballguy
msommer
Footballguy
No it is logarithmic. The growth in CO2 has been exponential, the growth in temperature linear. So the effect in theory would be logarithmic. HTH
3C's
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
The warmest year EVER!!!!!
And by ever, I mean the past 120 some years.
And by ever, I mean the past 120 some years.
Parrothead
Footballguy
And by 0.01 degrees +/-0.02 degrees! The models say we are suppose to be warming by about 0.04 degrees EVERY year, so we are more than 70 times behind the sceduled the model predict since 1998. Blind monkey's throwing darts would be more accurate.
apalmer
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
This is why my belief - until proven otherwise - is that the Earth is getting warmer but at a much slower rate than is being claimed.
cstu
Footballguy
IMO ocean acidification due to CO2 is a much larger problem than global warming:
So, yes, we do need to limit our CO2 production but not for the main reason the IPCC is claiming (GW).
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F
So, yes, we do need to limit our CO2 production but not for the main reason the IPCC is claiming (GW).
So you disagree with my point, so to disprove it you post a link which confirms exactly what I said.
The General
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
No. Seriously. Who thought climate change was a hoax? the climate is always changing. I don't think you'll find anyone that disagrees with that.
Last edited by a moderator:
The General
Footballguy
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
No, seriously. Who thinks climate change ISN'T happening? Because that is what the vote was. The climate has ALWAYS been changing.
I think you need to look a little closer at what they ACTUALLY voted on and what you THINK they voted.
Last edited by a moderator:
The General
Footballguy
Yup. Thought it was funny. I honestly only skimmed the article initially and see now that they are being clever.No, seriously. Who thinks climate change ISN'T happening? Because that is what the vote was. The climate has ALWAYS been changing.
I think you need to look a little closer at what they ACTUALLY voted on and what you THINK they voted.
One guy voted against it, guess he's the only true denier who won't depend on very specific wording to let us know where he stands. Expect more from these guys. 2016 is going to be good on this topic watching that group trip all over themselves on this.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/temperature-adjustments-transform-arctic-climate-history/#more-13039
I found this article interesting, someone who actually reviewed the data.
I found this article interesting, someone who actually reviewed the data.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/outposts/post/fox-glacier-timelapse-shows-stunning-retreat/
Ironic, I have not seen any deniers with time lapses of glaciers that are growing or new glaciers that are growing.
Can't deny its happening to some extent. Why?
Ironic, I have not seen any deniers with time lapses of glaciers that are growing or new glaciers that are growing.
Can't deny its happening to some extent. Why?
Jack White
Footballguy
[SIZE=18.5pt]The Clown of Climate Change is Gone[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The only sad thing about the resignation of Dr Rajendra Pachauri as chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is that it was brought about by allegations of sexual harassment by a young female employee of his Delhi research body, The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri), from which he has also now stepped down.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Laughably described as “the world’s leading climate scientist”, this absurd figure, with his PhD in the economics of railway engineering from an obscure US university, should never have been given the job in the first place. As a vegetarian, he jetted round the world exhorting everyone else to save the planet by giving up air travel and meat.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Thanks to the prestige of his position, his institute was showered with millions of dollars by international institutions, from global banks to Yale University (not to mention £10 million from British taxpayers).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]But above all, Pachauri, with the looks of a pantomime villain, should have resigned when, in 2010, the super-scary IPCC report over which he presided in 2007 was shown – not least by this column and by the assiduous researchers of my co‑author, Richard North – to have been full of wildly unscientific errors emanating from green activists.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]When we traced its claim that the Himalayan glaciers would have all but melted by 2035 to an obscure Indian scientist quoted by WWF (a claim so mad that even the IPCC had to withdraw it), we were even more amazed to find that Pachauri had hired the man responsible to be Teri’s chief glacier expert.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]He may now finally have gone, But the damage he did to the IPCC’s credibility as a serious scientific body is irreparable. What a pity the politicians of the West, led by President Obama and our own here in Britain, still don’t seem to have noticed.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Christopher Booker writeshttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...uri-the-clown-of-climate-change-has-gone.html at the Telegraph:[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]The only sad thing about the resignation of Dr Rajendra Pachauri as chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is that it was brought about by allegations of sexual harassment by a young female employee of his Delhi research body, The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri), from which he has also now stepped down.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Laughably described as “the world’s leading climate scientist”, this absurd figure, with his PhD in the economics of railway engineering from an obscure US university, should never have been given the job in the first place. As a vegetarian, he jetted round the world exhorting everyone else to save the planet by giving up air travel and meat.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Thanks to the prestige of his position, his institute was showered with millions of dollars by international institutions, from global banks to Yale University (not to mention £10 million from British taxpayers).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]But above all, Pachauri, with the looks of a pantomime villain, should have resigned when, in 2010, the super-scary IPCC report over which he presided in 2007 was shown – not least by this column and by the assiduous researchers of my co‑author, Richard North – to have been full of wildly unscientific errors emanating from green activists.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]When we traced its claim that the Himalayan glaciers would have all but melted by 2035 to an obscure Indian scientist quoted by WWF (a claim so mad that even the IPCC had to withdraw it), we were even more amazed to find that Pachauri had hired the man responsible to be Teri’s chief glacier expert.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]He may now finally have gone, But the damage he did to the IPCC’s credibility as a serious scientific body is irreparable. What a pity the politicians of the West, led by President Obama and our own here in Britain, still don’t seem to have noticed.[/SIZE]
Last edited by a moderator:
