Because what someone calls it makes a difference whether it is true or not...

I always kind of lumped GW with GC. It seems like both are plenty possible with the amount and quality of particulates we are throwing into the air.

I don't think there is enough evidence to determine that.

Whether or not it is true, we should be taking all of the same steps anyway, from switching to renewable energy to strong recycling initiatives, because shitting where you eat (or, where everybody eats) is always a bad idea.

Really, I thought this theory was dead as this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environ...tists.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...ve-it.html
Global warming stopped 16-17 years according to the met office. Now the ipcc claim that this means that it is going to the bootom of the ocean instead, which prompts me to ask why is it none of there models predicted this. Not fucking one. Also isnt this working agianst the temperature gradient. It is also not helping that arctic and antarctic ice have hit records in the last 2 years, and the east coast is being hit by a record winter so far this year.

---

(December 30, 2013 at 12:10 am)Ryantology Wrote: Whether or not it is true, we should be taking all of the same steps anyway, from switching to renewable energy to strong recycling initiatives, because shitting where you eat (or, where everybody eats) is always a bad idea.

I agree here, the oil won't last for ever.

---

(December 29, 2013 at 9:17 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: Because what someone calls it makes a difference whether it is true or not...

I Thought cooling ment cooler temperatures and warming ment higher and that those felt very different. Funny that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF9LNuH3IpU

What is becoming clear is the facts are not all in yet and our understanding of climate and climate trends is very poor.

I agree

Quote: because shitting where you eat (or, where everybody eats) is always a bad idea.

and we should be doing something to clean up our environment. And wouldn't be just wonderful IF, like Sweden (?), we ran out of recyclable materials?

Uhm, no. Global warming comes with erratic and hard to predict and increasingly extreme weather patterns. It was predicted by the IPCC. Global warming is a huge process and you need to understand it in its entirety and not just look for temperature hikes. There has been extensive studies trying to find the cause of the temperature rise and they settled on anthropomorphic causes. The IPCC is written by scientists all around the world combing through a lot of data and fact checking them, it isn't biased towards one government or another or has a "different agenda". The IPCC has several models of the next few decades, including a model that shows the best case scenario, which we've gone too far to achieve. It's pool of data is more expansive and that is important because temperature is not an easy thing to measure, you need a huge data pool for the statistics to work properly.

I don't want to get into a "debate" where I basically just keep digging up papers and paste them here. Global warming for me is as solid as evolution, if I'm not mistaken, like evolution, global warming is also only controversial in the US. Your politicians have been spilling a lot of bs on this topic, I've taken environmental chemistry courses as well as other ecology courses and global warming comes up consistently and is treated as fact. I have seen the data myself as well.

This is the Met office (same one the link claimed said global warming stalled), releasing a report saying they expect rises and record temperatures in the following years: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/release...-forecasts

CO2 going into the ocean is also not the end of the problem, it acidifies the ocean and endangers biodiversity because it dissolves calcium, affecting corals, temperature rising also causes coral bleaching, which causes them to die. As most of you would know, corals are very important to biodiversity. And when biodiversity gets messed up, a lot of shit gets messed up.

I really just want to say that you need to look this up, you need to take time and really study how global warming affects everything and then take a good look at the data and come to a conclusion. Not see a news paper article and then think that everything is fine or that "scientists can't make up their mind". Their minds are pretty much made up on this topic, it's just a lot of interests ride on environmental policies and news reporting gets really biased. So that's not your best source of information.

(December 30, 2013 at 12:40 am)Raeven Wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF9LNuH3IpU

He failed to address the issue with the plateau in warming, and the constant doomsday, then doosmday postponed mentality around this.

(December 30, 2013 at 12:46 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(December 30, 2013 at 12:40 am)Raeven Wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF9LNuH3IpU

He failed to address the issue with the plateau in warming, and the constant doomsday, then doosmday postponed mentality around this.

Can't refute everything in under 4 minutes. But you shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water. Perhaps you should spend more time on my first posting. That one's a little more in depth.