Quote:

---

niteowl said:
I was watching this video about the Vampire squid

It is an interesting lil 3 min clip about
an ancient fish living in the deep ocean

At the end the commentator says something about the
need for humans to stop the extinction of species

If evolution is real then isn't extinction part of it
shouldn't some species go extinct if they can't adapt

---

Quote:

---

niteowl said:
IF certain animals didnt go extinct we wouldnt be here today

---

Why what? Sorry I added more to my post.

--EDIT--

Niteowl origionally asked "Why?" However it seems my post and his have been changed for unknown reasons.

Quote:

---

Spency said:
It's not necessarily fair to say if an animal can't adapt then it should die, when our actions are what is causing the species to die off. That would be like saying we shouldn't help polar bears in the arctic  because they can't grow fins fast enough to adapt to the heavy melting caused by global warming.

---

At humans causing global warming.

The planet has gone through warm and cold periods WELL before humans came on the scene.
If polar bears survived then and cant now...its time to go extinct

Quote:

---

niteowl said:

Quote:

---

Spency said:
It's not necessarily fair to say if an animal can't adapt then it should die, when our actions are what is causing the species to die off. That would be like saying we shouldn't help polar bears in the arctic  because they can't grow fins fast enough to adapt to the heavy melting caused by global warming.

---

At humans causing global warming.

The planet has gone through warm and cold periods WELL before humans came on the scene.
If polar bears survived then and cant now...its time to go extinct

---

Quote:

---

niteowl said:

Quote:

---

Spency said:
It's not necessarily fair to say if an animal can't adapt then it should die, when our actions are what is causing the species to die off. That would be like saying we shouldn't help polar bears in the arctic  because they can't grow fins fast enough to adapt to the heavy melting caused by global warming.

---

At humans causing global warming.

The planet has gone through warm and cold periods WELL before humans came on the scene.
If polar bears survived then and cant now...its time to go extinct

---

Quote:

---

Harry_Ba11sach said:

Quote:

---

niteowl said:

Quote:

---

Spency said:
It's not necessarily fair to say if an animal can't adapt then it should die, when our actions are what is causing the species to die off. That would be like saying we shouldn't help polar bears in the arctic  because they can't grow fins fast enough to adapt to the heavy melting caused by global warming.

---

At humans causing global warming.

The planet has gone through warm and cold periods WELL before humans came on the scene.
If polar bears survived then and cant now...its time to go extinct

---

If you had done even the slightest bit of research on the topic you would know that the current warming trend is 100% NOT natural. sure in the past there have been wide range temperature fluctuations, but the speed of the current trend is thousands of times faster than anything experienced in the past. additionally, we can say with 100% certainty that CO2, methane and water vapor are extremely potent greenhouse gases so it's a rather logical conclusion that dumping thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is going to have a discernible impact.

---

Quote:

---

niteowl said:
My POV is no more biased than yours man.

Extinction is a FACT of life no way around that.

If the Vampire squid survived for over 350 million years .....
and cant adapt to the current changes.....its time to go

If a house/factory/town is build and some rare field mouse becomes extinct



Life sux then you die.

Do I think we need to take care of our environment ...

Do I think it is our responsibility to prevent the extinction of random rare species ...

---

My view is not biased at all. I said we must be open to the possibility that it is in fact us - the video specifically said the species was dying due to pollution and changing ocean temperatures. One of those two is definitely our fault. There is no argument there.

Also, I must say, it seems unusual to me for one to dismiss a possible correlation between our consumption of fossil fuels and temperature changes. Mainly because glaciers across the planet have begun to melt at phenomenal rates in the last 50 years - coincidentally, in the last 50 years we have also seen enormous global industrialization, ever increasing fuel consumption and the introduction of mainstream air travel.

Sorry just seems fishy to me.

In addition, like I also said: ecosystems can be extremely delicate, and even miniscule changes can cause butterfly effects throughout an entire ecosystem. These butterfly effects can happen in short term and long term scenarios. We can not let one species die dismissing it as "just one species."

Perhaps its wrong of me to say we have an obligation to prevent extinction, but if anything we should at the very least prolong the death of a species in the name of science. Especially considering the prehistoric qualities of this creature, can give interesting insight for prehistoric marine animal research.

I mean if anything, we should at least preserve a species with the intention of perhaps finding out whether or not it provides some kind of use to humans: for example, the squid may carry an unknown medicine.

Quote:

---

niteowl said:
All the numbers collected in the past 20 years are skewed

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=yd4zSUqGnz

Global warming is nothing more than political B.S.

---

Quote:

---

THEBats said:
How come mars is seeing similar changes?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

---

Quote:

---

Spency said:
Do you have anything else perhaps a bit more substantial to support you claim?

---

Quote:

---

8 Arguments Against Global Warming
Adapted from The Heartland Institute

Many claim that global warming is obvious and that all arguments against global warming fall.  The problem is that what is "obvious" often isn't true.

Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.

1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.

More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend.

Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes.

All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.

Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.

This is one of the greatest arguments against global warming.  Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”

6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing.

Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets.

After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.

8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.”

The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.

This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.

Even The Washington Post stated in 2006, "Al Gore calls global warming an "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming."

---

Quote:

---

niteowl said:

Quote:

---

Spency said:
Do you have anything else perhaps a bit more substantial to support you claim?

---

There are tons of evidence against
human based global warming
all you have to do is look for it
just because the 6 o'clock news said its real

doesn't make it so

Quote:

---

8 Arguments Against Global Warming
Adapted from The Heartland Institute

Many claim that global warming is obvious and that all arguments against global warming fall.  The problem is that what is "obvious" often isn't true.

Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.

1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.

More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend.

Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes.

All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.

Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.

This is one of the greatest arguments against global warming.  Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”

6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing.

Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets.

After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.

8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.”

The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.

This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.

Even The Washington Post stated in 2006, "Al Gore calls global warming an "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming."

---

link

the evidence is everywhere
if you are willing to look

EPA suppressed evidence against global warming

The simple fact that it is being shoved down my throat makes me suspicious if it.....
just like the swine flu that still hasn't turned in to the pandemic it was supposed to

Their is an underlying agenda
in the Global Warming crowd and
is isn't about saving the planet

---

Quote:

---

Spency said:

Quote:

---

THEBats said:
How come mars is seeing similar changes?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

---

Read that article again. They attribute the temperature changes to dust storms (which get pretty big on Mars.) They say the dust storms are caused by variations in both radiation and temperature. Note, that the variations causing the dust storms could be within the natural fluctuations of the planets environment. However, we don't have dust storms here on Earth, so it is very difficult to suggest that this is not merely coincidence.

---

Quote:

---

niteowl said:
the evidence is everywhere
if you are willing to look

EPA suppressed evidence against global warming

The simple fact that it is being shoved down my throat makes me suspicious if it.....
just like the swine flu that still hasn't turned in to the pandemic it was supposed to

---

Oh by the way, I did a little more research into the EPA thing. Turns out the report was submitted by a think tank called CEI. I looked up the org, and found out some interesting things about its funding.

Turns out it receives funding from:
- Ford Motor Company
- Exxon Mobil
- Pfizer - "Pfizer pleaded guilty in 2009 to the largest health care fraud in U.S. history and received the largest criminal penalty ever levied for illegal marketing of four of its drugs. Called a repeat offender, this was Pfizer's fourth such settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice in the previous ten years." (Quoted from Wikipedia)
-Earhart Foundation - "Harry B. Earhart started the foundation in 1929 with the fortune he made with White Star Oil Company." (Quoted from Wikipedia) The Earhart Foundation also funds the George C. Marshall institute, another think tank that apposes global warming.


So 3 connections to the oil industry and a fraudulent pharmaceutical company. Sorry seems fishy to me. I can understand why the EPA suppressed such a document.

Anything else you can show me?

Quote:

---

FurrowedBrow said:
  I dont even know where to begin with this thread.  So i will put it shortly.  There can really be no debate about human's contributions to our environment effecting it in a negative way.  Look at the way we completely exploit a resource and then move on to the next one.  That's been going on since well before the industrial revolution.  The scientific community doesn't view this as something that's debatable.  The media outlets love to make it something that can be questioned.  Money will make people say anything.  Yes, extinction is necessary, so long as it's caused naturally.  Now, if the squid existed for 350 million years and now it'd dying (lets say hypothetically from increased water temperature in their habitat) surely we can attribute that rise in temperature to something, and i would suspect it would be from our actions over the last 200 years.  So, when we can partially attribute a life forms extinction to OUR behaviour then extinction is not a good thing as bats said, it'll fuck up our ecosystems and could eventually get back to us.  denying global warming is like being a prohibitionist.  throw out reason and science for political gain.  pffft!

---

Quote:

---

niteowl said:
Here is another site you Global Warming Priests should look at

---

Quote:

---

Most Global Warming reports claim that the worlds glaciers are shrinking - but 90% of the total ice mass actually growing.

...over 90% of the Earth's ice is located in non-moving ice caps - and these are increasing mass.

---

Quote:

---

niteowl said:
So rather than debate the science you attack the messenger

---

Quote:

---

niteowl said:there is no real solid evidence either way TBH

---

Quote:

---

niteowl said:this issue kinda like God you can't prove nor disprove either theory.

---

However, in my opinion, there is more scientific evidence to suggest he does not exist than there is to support that he does. I'm sure you disagree.

If someone showed me evidence of gods existence, my opinion would be different.

Quote:

---

niteowl said:In my eyes if there is no concrete proof of something
only speculation and assumptions based on skewed numbers

then I tend to not believe the theory

---

I have yet to see evidence for your belief.

Still very open to the idea though. I'm not difficult to convince.

Quote:

---

THEBats said:
Here's another article.

http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/japan-warming-UN/2009/02/25/id/328463

Found these hypothesis's interesting.

# CO2 emissions began to increase significantly after 1946 and are still rising. Therefore, according to the IPCC, global atmospheric temperatures should continue to increase. However, temperatures stopped increasing in 2001.

# The global temperature increase up to today is primarily a recovery from the “Little Ice Age” that earth experienced from 1400 to 1800. This rise peaked in 2000.

---

Quote:

---

Over the past two decades, they say, "the percentage of [Canadian] stations in the lower elevations tripled and those at higher elevations, above 300 feet, were reduced in half."

The result, they say, is a warmer-than-truthful global temperature record.

"NOAA... systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler," the authors say. "The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs."

---

Quote:

---

It has been claimed that the emails show that scientists manipulated data to bolster their argument that global warming is genuine and is being caused by human actions.

---

Quote:

---

THEBats said:
Extinction can be a good thing in the long term, but in the short term an extinction, at least in the manner we are accelerating it, can cause the collapse of an ecosystem and cause not just one species to become extinct but many.

Life will continue though so really are only concern for extinction lies in our own selfish needs and desires.  People are constantly concerned for polar bears but they serve but one small part in the big picture.

---

Quote:

---

THEBats said:

Quote:

---

THEBats said:
Extinction can be a good thing in the long term, but in the short term an extinction, at least in the manner we are accelerating it, can cause the collapse of an ecosystem and cause not just one species to become extinct but many.

Life will continue though so really are only concern for extinction lies in our own selfish needs and desires.  People are constantly concerned for polar bears but they serve but one small part in the big picture.

---

What did I state wrong?

---

Quote:

---

niteowl said:
I question all of the data proposed by Global Warming nuts.

Since they all have a reputation of bending data to their favor

---

Quote:

---

"NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis," he said. "The agency is confident of the quality of this data and stands by previous scientifically-based conclusions regarding global temperatures."

---

Quote:

---

THEBats said:
Here's another article.

http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/japan-warming-UN/2009/02/25/id/328463

Found these hypothesis's interesting.

# CO2 emissions began to increase significantly after 1946 and are still rising. Therefore, according to the IPCC, global atmospheric temperatures should continue to increase. However, temperatures stopped increasing in 2001.

# The global temperature increase up to today is primarily a recovery from the “Little Ice Age” that earth experienced from 1400 to 1800. This rise peaked in 2000.

---

Quote:

---

Harry_Ba11sach said:

Quote:

---

THEBats said:

Quote:

---

THEBats said:
Extinction can be a good thing in the long term, but in the short term an extinction, at least in the manner we are accelerating it, can cause the collapse of an ecosystem and cause not just one species to become extinct but many.

Life will continue though so really are only concern for extinction lies in our own selfish needs and desires.  People are constantly concerned for polar bears but they serve but one small part in the big picture.

---

What did I state wrong?

---

well I clearly wasn't responding to that post now was I?

---

Perhaps you should learn to use the reply function and there wouldn't be this confusion.  I was responding to DudeTron who was responding to that particular post.  You then responded to my post.  In the context of the conversation, yes that's the post you were responding to.  Also I didn't state anything I merely posted information from an article. Never stated that I believe the information.  In fact I said in my others posts we are not helping and accelerating the process. 

Quote:

---

FurrowedBrow said:
are vs. our.

---

Quote:

---

Harry_Ba11sach said:
#1) wrong. 2001 was not the stop of the warming. wtf is that even supposed to mean? 6 out of the 10 warmest years EVER RECORDED have been since 2001. I don't have any idea where you're getting that stat from, you could not be further from the truth

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

#2) Look at this graph. a recovery from the "little ice age" (known by smart people as the maunder minimum, a 75 year period in the late 1600s which attributes its low temperatures to a lack of sunspots) was temporary and completely unrelated to current warming. the graphs relevant to this discussion display the hockey stick shape, you'll see right around the turn of the century global mean temperatures take a dramatic turn upwards. coincidentally this perfectly coincides with the Industrial Revolution, which is when anthropogenic CO2 emissions really began


And niteowl- there aren't enough days in a year to address all the erroneous and illiterate science you're attempting to spew at us

---

I'd also like to pose the question on how we are getting reliable global temperature data as far back as 1700.  If we're just using atmospheric composition tests through drilling ice cores then are we simply concluding that atmospheric composition has a direct correlation with global mean temperature?

Also last year also broke records as far as low temperatures go.

Seem to have found a graph that represents what they were talking about perhaps.



Here's the article it came from.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/01/global-cooling-in-2009.html

Quote:

---

Harry_Ba11sach said:
Of course, by the very nature of global climate change then the extremes on both ends of the spectrum will increase. the warm will be warmer and the cold will be colder.

---

Quote:

---

Harry_Ba11sach said:

It's actually extremely accurate to extrapolate past temperature patterns through ice cores because the heavier molecular weight of water composed with delta18-O oxygen affects the rate of evaporation. by measuring the concentration of water made with d18-O atoms versus standard atomic oxygen we can very accurately calculate what the temperature was at that point. further, when the majority of the 16-O has been evaporated and stored on land in snow pack then the concentration of d18-O in the ocean is significantly higher. Foraminifera and diatoms within the ocean use oxygen, silicon and carbon (all three of which have temperature sensitive isotopes) to form their shells, so combining the ratios of isotopic oxygen within their shells on the ocean floor combined with isotopic concentration in ice cores is an extremely accurate and entirely errorless way of calculating past temperatures. the 1700's is just the start of it, we've accurately mapped temperatures for the last couple hundred thousand years, and at this point we're only limited by our extraction technology. the only reason we haven't mapped farther is because we haven't drilled deep enough.

---

Quote:

---

THEBats said:
I'd also like to pose the question on how we are getting reliable global temperature data as far back as 1700.

---

Cause they make up numbers
to fit their theories ...
not the other way around

Here is a list from NASA on yearly temps

year    Annual_Mean  5-year_Mean
---------------------------------
1880      -.36        *
1881      .18        *
1882      .10      -.27
1883      -.75      -.32
1884      -.50      -.45
1885      -.60      -.52
1886      -.50      -.48
1887      -.27      -.35
1888      -.54      -.22
1889      .16      -.19
1890      .05      -.25
1891      -.33      -.27
1892      -.59      -.27
1893      -.64      -.41
1894      .18      -.30
1895      -.66      -.19
1896      .22      -.09
1897      -.06      -.20
1898      -.12      .06
1899      -.36      .04
1900      .61      .05
1901      .12      -.04
1902      -.01      -.04
1903      -.55      -.24
1904      -.34      -.26
1905      -.40      -.28
1906      .02      -.14
1907      -.14      -.11
1908      .17      .05
1909      -.19      .08
1910      .37      -.06
1911      .16      -.12
1912      -.84      -.07
1913      -.10      -.18
1914      .05      -.31
1915      -.15      -.33
1916      -.50      -.31
1917      -.97      -.34
1918      .05      -.39
1919      -.12      -.07
1920      -.41      .16
1921      1.12      .13
1922      .15      .02
1923      -.08      .18
1924      -.68      -.04
1925      .38      -.03
1926      .05      .00
1927      .18      .03
1928      .06      -.03
1929      -.54      .16
1930      .11      .12
1931      1.00      .24
1932      -.03      .59
1933      .65      .58
1934      1.22      .41
1935      .03      .39
1936      .16      .41
1937      -.14      .32
1938      .77      .32
1939      .80      .39
1940      .02      .43
1941      .51      .30
1942      .03      .15
1943      .13      .13
1944      .04      .16
1945      -.05      .16
1946      .64      .12
1947      .06      .15
1948      -.09      .11
1949      .17      -.10
1950      -.23      -.05
1951      -.39      .14
1952      .28      .27
1953      .87      .30
1954      .82      .43
1955      -.06      .40
1956      .26      .24
1957      .13      .11
1958      .05      .07
1959      .15      .02
1960      -.23      -.01
1961      -.01      .02
1962      -.01      -.03
1963      .18      -.01
1964      -.11      -.06
1965      -.13      -.07
1966      -.23      -.17
1967      -.09      -.19
1968      -.30      -.19
1969      -.20      -.17
1970      -.14      -.21
1971      -.11      -.10
1972      -.31      -.03
1973      .24      -.04
1974      .19      -.07
1975      -.20      .07
1976      -.25      -.07
1977      .37      -.22
1978      -.48      -.13
1979      -.56      .05
1980      .25      -.09
1981      .67      .01
1982      -.32      .13
1983      .00      .00
1984      .04      .02
1985      -.37      .24
1986      .75      .32
1987      .80      .29
1988      .38      .55
1989      -.09      .54
1990      .91      .45
1991      .70      .30
1992      .36      .43
1993      -.36      .33
1994      .55      .18
1995      .43      .14
1996      -.06      .47
1997      .14      .58
1998      1.31      .63
1999      1.07      .83
2000      .69      .93
2001      .92      .81
2002      .68      .72
2003      .69      .76
2004      .61      .84
2005      .92      .88
2006      1.31      .77
2007      .88      .70
2008      .12        *
2009      .25        *

link

Looks like things are cooling off to me

Quote:

---

niteowl said:

Quote:

---

THEBats said:
I'd also like to pose the question on how we are getting reliable global temperature data as far back as 1700.

---

Cause they make up numbers
to fit their theories ...
not the other way around

Here is a list from NASA on yearly temps

year    Annual_Mean  5-year_Mean
---------------------------------
1880      -.36        *
1881      .18        *
1882      .10      -.27
1883      -.75      -.32
1884      -.50      -.45
1885      -.60      -.52
1886      -.50      -.48
1887      -.27      -.35
1888      -.54      -.22
1889      .16      -.19
1890      .05      -.25
1891      -.33      -.27
1892      -.59      -.27
1893      -.64      -.41
1894      .18      -.30
1895      -.66      -.19
1896      .22      -.09
1897      -.06      -.20
1898      -.12      .06
1899      -.36      .04
1900      .61      .05
1901      .12      -.04
1902      -.01      -.04
1903      -.55      -.24
1904      -.34      -.26
1905      -.40      -.28
1906      .02      -.14
1907      -.14      -.11
1908      .17      .05
1909      -.19      .08
1910      .37      -.06
1911      .16      -.12
1912      -.84      -.07
1913      -.10      -.18
1914      .05      -.31
1915      -.15      -.33
1916      -.50      -.31
1917      -.97      -.34
1918      .05      -.39
1919      -.12      -.07
1920      -.41      .16
1921      1.12      .13
1922      .15      .02
1923      -.08      .18
1924      -.68      -.04
1925      .38      -.03
1926      .05      .00
1927      .18      .03
1928      .06      -.03
1929      -.54      .16
1930      .11      .12
1931      1.00      .24
1932      -.03      .59
1933      .65      .58
1934      1.22      .41
1935      .03      .39
1936      .16      .41
1937      -.14      .32
1938      .77      .32
1939      .80      .39
1940      .02      .43
1941      .51      .30
1942      .03      .15
1943      .13      .13
1944      .04      .16
1945      -.05      .16
1946      .64      .12
1947      .06      .15
1948      -.09      .11
1949      .17      -.10
1950      -.23      -.05
1951      -.39      .14
1952      .28      .27
1953      .87      .30
1954      .82      .43
1955      -.06      .40
1956      .26      .24
1957      .13      .11
1958      .05      .07
1959      .15      .02
1960      -.23      -.01
1961      -.01      .02
1962      -.01      -.03
1963      .18      -.01
1964      -.11      -.06
1965      -.13      -.07
1966      -.23      -.17
1967      -.09      -.19
1968      -.30      -.19
1969      -.20      -.17
1970      -.14      -.21
1971      -.11      -.10
1972      -.31      -.03
1973      .24      -.04
1974      .19      -.07
1975      -.20      .07
1976      -.25      -.07
1977      .37      -.22
1978      -.48      -.13
1979      -.56      .05
1980      .25      -.09
1981      .67      .01
1982      -.32      .13
1983      .00      .00
1984      .04      .02
1985      -.37      .24
1986      .75      .32
1987      .80      .29
1988      .38      .55
1989      -.09      .54
1990      .91      .45
1991      .70      .30
1992      .36      .43
1993      -.36      .33
1994      .55      .18
1995      .43      .14
1996      -.06      .47
1997      .14      .58
1998      1.31      .63
1999      1.07      .83
2000      .69      .93
2001      .92      .81
2002      .68      .72
2003      .69      .76
2004      .61      .84
2005      .92      .88
2006      1.31      .77
2007      .88      .70
2008      .12        *
2009      .25        *

link

Looks like things are cooling off to me

---

Quote:

---

niteowl said:

Quote:

---

THEBats said:
I'd also like to pose the question on how we are getting reliable global temperature data as far back as 1700.

---

Cause they make up numbers
to fit their theories ...
not the other way around

Here is a list from NASA on yearly temps

year    Annual_Mean  5-year_Mean
---------------------------------
1880      -.36        *
1881      .18        *
1882      .10      -.27
1883      -.75      -.32
1884      -.50      -.45
1885      -.60      -.52
1886      -.50      -.48
1887      -.27      -.35
1888      -.54      -.22
1889      .16      -.19
1890      .05      -.25
1891      -.33      -.27
1892      -.59      -.27
1893      -.64      -.41
1894      .18      -.30
1895      -.66      -.19
1896      .22      -.09
1897      -.06      -.20
1898      -.12      .06
1899      -.36      .04
1900      .61      .05
1901      .12      -.04
1902      -.01      -.04
1903      -.55      -.24
1904      -.34      -.26
1905      -.40      -.28
1906      .02      -.14
1907      -.14      -.11
1908      .17      .05
1909      -.19      .08
1910      .37      -.06
1911      .16      -.12
1912      -.84      -.07
1913      -.10      -.18
1914      .05      -.31
1915      -.15      -.33
1916      -.50      -.31
1917      -.97      -.34
1918      .05      -.39
1919      -.12      -.07
1920      -.41      .16
1921      1.12      .13
1922      .15      .02
1923      -.08      .18
1924      -.68      -.04
1925      .38      -.03
1926      .05      .00
1927      .18      .03
1928      .06      -.03
1929      -.54      .16
1930      .11      .12
1931      1.00      .24
1932      -.03      .59
1933      .65      .58
1934      1.22      .41
1935      .03      .39
1936      .16      .41
1937      -.14      .32
1938      .77      .32
1939      .80      .39
1940      .02      .43
1941      .51      .30
1942      .03      .15
1943      .13      .13
1944      .04      .16
1945      -.05      .16
1946      .64      .12
1947      .06      .15
1948      -.09      .11
1949      .17      -.10
1950      -.23      -.05
1951      -.39      .14
1952      .28      .27
1953      .87      .30
1954      .82      .43
1955      -.06      .40
1956      .26      .24
1957      .13      .11
1958      .05      .07
1959      .15      .02
1960      -.23      -.01
1961      -.01      .02
1962      -.01      -.03
1963      .18      -.01
1964      -.11      -.06
1965      -.13      -.07
1966      -.23      -.17
1967      -.09      -.19
1968      -.30      -.19
1969      -.20      -.17
1970      -.14      -.21
1971      -.11      -.10
1972      -.31      -.03
1973      .24      -.04
1974      .19      -.07
1975      -.20      .07
1976      -.25      -.07
1977      .37      -.22
1978      -.48      -.13
1979      -.56      .05
1980      .25      -.09
1981      .67      .01
1982      -.32      .13
1983      .00      .00
1984      .04      .02
1985      -.37      .24
1986      .75      .32
1987      .80      .29
1988      .38      .55
1989      -.09      .54
1990      .91      .45
1991      .70      .30
1992      .36      .43
1993      -.36      .33
1994      .55      .18
1995      .43      .14
1996      -.06      .47
1997      .14      .58
1998      1.31      .63
1999      1.07      .83
2000      .69      .93
2001      .92      .81
2002      .68      .72
2003      .69      .76
2004      .61      .84
2005      .92      .88
2006      1.31      .77
2007      .88      .70
2008      .12        *
2009      .25        *

link

Looks like things are cooling off to me

---

Quote:

---

FurrowedBrow said:
  I dont even know where to begin with this thread.  So i will put it shortly.  There can really be no debate about human's contributions to our environment effecting it in a negative way.  Look at the way we completely exploit a resource and then move on to the next one.  That's been going on since well before the industrial revolution.  The scientific community doesn't view this as something that's debatable.  The media outlets love to make it something that can be questioned.  Money will make people say anything.  Yes, extinction is necessary, so long as it's caused naturally.  Now, if the squid existed for 350 million years and now it'd dying (lets say hypothetically from increased water temperature in their habitat) surely we can attribute that rise in temperature to something, and i would suspect it would be from our actions over the last 200 years.  So, when we can partially attribute a life forms extinction to OUR behaviour then extinction is not a good thing as bats said, it'll fuck up our ecosystems and could eventually get back to us.  denying global warming is like being a prohibitionist.  throw out reason and science for political gain.  pffft!

---

Quote:

---

DudeTron said:
As far as global warming/climate change I think it's wrong to assume we know what's going on.  More so when we really on figures and organizations whose drive to discover and enlighten is outweighed by their need to promote agendas and make money.
It's silly to assume we don't affect the Earth, though to what degree is debatable.  We're trying to predict the future, and we've never been very good at that... It's still a matter of opinion and faith when we try to state what's going to happen to Earth because of us.  My personal opinion is that our system is just not that fragile.. Life is robust and extremely persistent.

---

Quote:

---

FurrowedBrow said:
Do we really need to use global warming to catalyze moral behavior?  Isn't it obvious that spewing all sorts of chemicals into a formerly pristine atmosphere will cause damage to some degree?  Are we going to debate to what degree of damage is necessary before we change things? 

Niteowl, should we change our current coal burning ways in favor of a more sustainable alternative?

---

Of course, when have I said otherwise?

Why is it when I disagree with the human based global warming theory
that people instantly believe that I am some how pro oil

x10

Fossil fuels are a finite source of energy, they will run out one day
and we need to find a cleaner better source of energy that is abundant
it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that simple fact

Quote:

---

If you say yes to that question, does the global warming debate become irrelevant?  This isn't the fucking debate that should be going on.  We should be debating the economics and feasibility of alternative methods of energy production and reduction.

---

Actually this debate was about animals going extinct

Some people got their panties all wadded up
when I said it was a good thing and
spun off on a rant about human based global warming
being the reason for these recent extinctions



I have never supported the theory of human based global warming
I do believe that the planet has been moving out of an ice age, so a warming is expected
I have simply not seen any real evidence of humans having a dramatic affect on this system

the only people pushing this issue are ones with an underlying agenda of getting reelected

hence my suspicions

Quote:

---

niteowl said:
Actually this debate was about animals going extinct

Some people got their panties all wadded up
when I said it was a good thing and
spun off on a rant about human based global warming
being the reason for these recent extinctions

---

Lol but you posted a vid of an animal, who's existence was threatened by pollution and asked isn't extinction a good thing.

No one got their panties wadded up and the conversation did not spin off. You evidently started it poorly. All I did was give an example of an animal that is threatened due to "possible" global warming, and you said global warming is a government conspiracy.

Quote:

---

Harry_Ba11sach said:


If you had done even the slightest bit of research on the topic you would know that the current warming trend is 100% NOT natural. sure in the past there have been wide range temperature fluctuations, but the speed of the current trend is thousands of times faster than anything experienced in the past. additionally, we can say with 100% certainty that CO2, methane and water vapor are extremely potent greenhouse gases so it's a rather logical conclusion that dumping thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is going to have a discernible impact.

---