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