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 (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter NCCommish
- Start date
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
If you read the article it seems as though the 44,000 number is just the lower limit of what the scientific test can show. It might not have been this temperature for as long as 120,000 years, they can't tell for sure.So what happened 44,000 years ago that made it so hot?
It does not matter. They make 'scientific' statements as fact this type of weather has to be caused by man, but still 120,000 years ago it did naturally occur. So they look at 0.0003% of the earth's history to tell us what can and can not happen and they are not even sure about that time period.If you read the article it seems as though the 44,000 number is just the lower limit of what the scientific test can show. It might not have been this temperature for as long as 120,000 years, they can't tell for sure.So what happened 44,000 years ago that made it so hot?
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Isn't part of the scientific consensus that the temperature changes over the past 100 years or so have been far more rapid than any other time in the earth's history? Even if it was this hot 120,000 years ago, that would have been part of gradual heating and cooling patterns that take thousands of years, no?
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I'm asking a question.
That is the story line. But it seems our history is full of ice ages, warm periods, more ice ages, and more warm periods. 30 years ago all the craze was we were worried about global cooling due to the aerosols. Now we have 30 years of 'unprecedented' warming. Maybe the warming is because of fixing the holes in our ozone. We are seeing maybe 2 degrees over 100 years. I would be we have seen more rapid movement in our climate many many many times over throughout our planets history.
If you go back just 13,000 years ago, ice cores show a 10 degree shift in temperature over just a few year time period.
Last edited by a moderator:
I admire your attempt at rational debate but you're speaking to deaf ears. Climate alarmism/environmentalism is the quasi-religion of the left and they adhere to it with the same fervor as any fundamentalist. Never mind the utter inability to explain past far more drastic climate alterations, the reliance on computer models which could never possibly accurately account for the near infinite number of input variables, or the outright manipulation of data for political and monetary gain by the Climatic Research Unit. If you don't believe, you're a heretic simpleton who should simply shut up and listen to his betters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FAI_-woNh4
Megalomaniac
Footballguy
Some interesting articles for those wishing to learn more.
http://www.climatedepot.com/
http://www.cfact.org/
http://www.climatedepot.com/
http://www.cfact.org/
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
Dr Oadi
Footballguy
Sweedish study says roman times warmer than today. This means fall of American empire is close.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V16/N50/EDIT.php
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V16/N50/EDIT.php
Back in those days them Romans was riding their Vespas and putting leaded gasoline into the atmosphere. No wonder the climate was getting hot.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
When the left couldn't get anyone to believe "Global Cooling, they changed it to "Global Warming". When no one would bite on "Global Warming" they changed it to "Climate Change", which pretty much takes any weather event as proof of mans impact.
timschochet
Footballguy
There is not a single issue in which mainstream conservatism looks more foolish on than this one.
Fla\/\/ed
Footballguy
Dr Oadi
Footballguy
:crickets:
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
Yeah, we can't wait to take all your Jesus money and give it to the atheist hippie welfare queens! Mwah ha ha!
Whereas the BBC, which predicted that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013, deserves our highest encomium.
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
timschochet
Footballguy
To ignore science, because it doesn't fit one's political agenda, is appalling. To dismiss the vast majority of the world's most respected scientists and rely instead on a bevy of talk radio hosts and a few pseudo intellectuals looking to make a fast buck is both sad and absurd. 100 years from now historians will look back at today's conservative movement and shake their heads, specifically over this issue.
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
Maybe there was a much higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere.So what happened 44,000 years ago that made it so hot?
Dr Oadi
Footballguy
PFTBAWe are all Gonna die!!Maybe there was a much higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere.So what happened 44,000 years ago that made it so hot?
Sand
Footballguy
Our buddy Al has made more than anyone else I can think of. Way more.
And what you would find, if looked at it without the huge political overhang, is that there is a huge space of "not known" yet. That combined with the proposed solutions proposed by liberals, which range from absurd to absolute lunacy, shift this well off of what you think the trajectory is.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
It's always funny to see you guys jump to the "crazy liberal solutions" when we can't even get you guys to own up to the science.
timschochet
Footballguy
I agree with you about Al Gore.
And I also agree with you about the proposed solutions. I am a huge critic. I think the ones that are presently on the table, such as Cap and Trade, will do nothing but punish business and achieve no noticeable improvement.
But one can be critical of people like Gore, and also critical of the solutions, and still acknowledge that the evidence is out there that this is a serious problem and that it needs to be addressed. What bothers me about so many conservatives is that they refuse to acknowledge it- they treat the whole thing with contempt. As witness this thread.
Oddly for 4 billion years, higher CO2 levels lagged higher temperatures by 600-800 years. Something that is impossible if you were to really believe that CO2 is this all powerful driver of global temperature.Maybe there was a much higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere.So what happened 44,000 years ago that made it so hot?
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about, referencing or implying here.
Last edited by a moderator:
matuski
Footballguy
jason_85 wants his schtick back.Oddly for 4 billion years, higher CO2 levels lagged higher temperatures by 600-800 years. Something that is impossible if you were to really believe that CO2 is this all powerful driver of global temperature.Maybe there was a much higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere.So what happened 44,000 years ago that made it so hot?
Funny how you both use the word "driver", isn't it?
Driver is kind of a common term when speaking of things with lead or lag. If I stole the schtick from anyone, it was from John Daly who was a very smart mathematician who was usually able to cut through much of the propaganda put out by the fear-mongers.jason_85 wants his schtick back.Oddly for 4 billion years, higher CO2 levels lagged higher temperatures by 600-800 years. Something that is impossible if you were to really believe that CO2 is this all powerful driver of global temperature.Maybe there was a much higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere.So what happened 44,000 years ago that made it so hot?
Funny how you both use the word "driver", isn't it?
Sand
Footballguy
A CO2 restriction act that would cost a trillion dollars and yet have no measurable temperature impact over the next 100 years? That's good policy? Sometimes I just shake my head at the ideas that get traction. Ridiculous. People running around with their heads cut off. Ideology run amok.
BTW, I've made myself pretty clear on how I think this problem is solved. I see two birds and one stone. The CO2 problem is irrelevant - I think we will solve it anyway in our search for new energy.
timschochet
Footballguy
If that means alternatives to oil and coal, I'm for it. But many conservatives seem to think this involves more drilling.
Nuclear, natural gas, wind, solar, I'm for all of it, so long as it makes reasonable economic sense and so long as we can solve whatever safety concerns there are. But more drilling for oil at this point, just making the situation even worse, seems like the height of insanity to me.
timschochet
Footballguy
Besides, there is no way to be oil independent anyhow. Even if we drilled everywhere we could in this country, it wouldn't lower oil prices one iota, because they're dependent on what the entire world does.
jonessed
Footballguy
Because importing rare earth metals and solar panels from China makes so much more sense than utilizing our massive oil and coal reserves.
Energy independence is going to require harnessing all of our natural resources. Small-minded political ideologies are only going to drive us farther away.
Last edited by a moderator:
jonessed
Footballguy
The price of oil has nothing to do with energy independence. Prices for solar, wind, natural gas, etc. are all driven by global markets. Energy independence simply refers to domestic production.
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
If it's going to (a) not make climate change worse and (b) not affect consurmer prices anyhow, then yes of course it does. Our massive oil and coal reserves need to be left exactly that- reserves- until the time comes when we can hopefully eliminate the need for them. Utilizing them now, when they will not lower our prices, and make climate change worse, is the height of insanity IMO.
jonessed
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Their own lack of cohesion has prevented them so far. (Also, their desire to stay in power.)
timschochet
Footballguy
I want all that, but not at the price of making global warming worse. That's why we need to turn to alternatives to carbon fuels. Doubling down is not the solution.
msommer
Footballguy
I believe the current thinking is that oil prices have stabilised in spite of ever growing demand in Asia because of shale oil production in the US.
http://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/oil-gas-energy/publications/pdfs/pwc-shale-oil.pdf
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/328389-without-shale-oil-prices-would-be-a-lot-higher
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/09/16/dont-count-out-the-oil-shale-revolution-just-yet/
As to what the point is to have energy selfsufficiency without being able to set the world prices: it's a hedge. If none of your oil needs to go through the Strait of Hormuz, your actions are less restricted that if the closing of the Strait will close your economy.
http://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/oil-gas-energy/publications/pdfs/pwc-shale-oil.pdf
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/328389-without-shale-oil-prices-would-be-a-lot-higher
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/09/16/dont-count-out-the-oil-shale-revolution-just-yet/
As to what the point is to have energy selfsufficiency without being able to set the world prices: it's a hedge. If none of your oil needs to go through the Strait of Hormuz, your actions are less restricted that if the closing of the Strait will close your economy.
jonessed
Footballguy
The current energy boom stems from new technologies being implemented. If you lock off the resources the technology will never develop to utilize them.
timschochet
Footballguy
Who is talking about locking off current resources? Not me. Keep the current resources. But don't tap into the reserves unless we have to. And in the meantime, let's move forward with alternatives.
jonessed
Footballguy
Then stop coming up with other excuses that make no sense and wasting everybody's time.
jonessed
Footballguy
What are you talking about? They are all current resources. Reserves are resources. If you don't continue to tap reserves then the pipeline dries up.
The current boom is in shale. If you lock the shale reserves up the technology to access it stagnates.
