Poll: Global Warming?
Poll Options
View poll results: Global Warming?
Man-Made, huge threat.
21 36%
Man-Made, little threat
6 10%
Natrual cycle, huge threat.
4 7%
Natrual cycle, little threat
20 34%
No threat at all, doesn't exist.
7 12%
Voters: 58.
Page 1 of 2
#1
How do you feel about it.


I think it is a natrual cycle that happens natrually.


Poll coming.
#3
Who cares?

I love ignorance


Quote by Dirge Humani
It is a natural cycle being accelerated by human waste.


But seriously. This
Quote by blackflag49
Condoms, for all the copious amounts of pussy with which you will be inevitably bombarded from this moment onward.


#5
It is a natural cycle. That's an indisputable fact... The question is whether human beings are influencing it.
Check out my band Disturbed
#7
Quote by abbey_road
How do you feel about it.


I think it is a natrual cycle that happens natrually.


Poll coming.


Why do people like oism have to fake results in order to make it seem as though there is debate then? There is no serious debate in the scientific community that this is caused by human action. If there were they wouldn't have to take studies.

They published a petition signed by Dr. Geri Halliwell PHD , which was taken 11 years ago, which might as well be a century in climate science.

Even at the time, Prestigious organisations, like the National Academy of Sciences, who OISM tried to make their documents look like, said:
"The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

Lets see what people in this century have been saying?

In 2001, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community. ”

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?


By the way, why not link to their co-publishers, the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute. Oh, right, because that would be like using a Malboro cigarettes study that showed no link between cancer and smoking.


Lets give it some more context shall we?


Sallie Baliunas
FELONY conspirator in
attempted MASS MURDER
by Weather Chaos
http://www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html

Case Study: The Oregon Petition

The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson and three other people, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A cover note from Frederick Seitz, who had served as president of the NAS in the 1960s, added to the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal.

... In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer.

None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary (home-schooled by his dad), along with astrophysicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. ... Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming.

"The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review," complained Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Chicago.


If there is debate among those studying global warming then why do these organisations have to resort to such tactics?
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#8
Quote by StewieSwan
It is a natural cycle. That's an indisputable fact... The question is whether human beings are influencing it.



I agree, but I dont think Al Gore does.
#9
Quote by Ur all $h1t
Why do people like oism have to fake results in order to make it seem as though there is debate then? There is no serious debate in the scientific community that this is caused by human action. If there were they wouldn't have to take studies.

They published a petition signed by Dr. Geri Halliwell PHD , which was taken 11 years ago, which might as well be a century in climate science.

Even at the time, Prestigious organisations, like the National Academy of Sciences, who OISM tried to make their documents look like, said:
"The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

Lets see what people in this century have been saying?

In 2001, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community. ”

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?


By the way, why not link to their co-publishers, the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute. Oh, right, because that would be like using a Malboro cigarettes study that showed no link between cancer and smoking.


Lets give it some more context shall we?


Sallie Baliunas
FELONY conspirator in
attempted MASS MURDER
by Weather Chaos
http://www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html

Case Study: The Oregon Petition

The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson and three other people, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A cover note from Frederick Seitz, who had served as president of the NAS in the 1960s, added to the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal.

... In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer.

None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary (home-schooled by his dad), along with astrophysicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. ... Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming.

"The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review," complained Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Chicago.


If there is debate among those studying global warming then why do these organisations have to resort to such tactics?

Someone has had this on this paste option for quite a bit.
He's no good to me dead-Boba Fett
#10
I think it is inevitable, but we are in fact speeding it up. It's our duty to try and not.
#11
There's a warm period between ice ages. we may be accelerating it with our aerosols and fossil fuel burning, but in a couple hundred-thousand years we'll have another ice age.
#12
We should be more worried about the disruption of the earths magnetic field than we should about global warming. Most likely the warming of the earth is a result of something else thats causing massive movement in the earths core. If we lose the magnetic field around the earth all life will be exposed to the full spectrum of solar radiation and die.

I believe we should stop using carbon fuels due to needing a cleaner environment and having less smog but not for "global warming"
#13
Quote by Dirge Humani
That would be apathy.

Although, you are ignorant for not knowing what ignorance means. A vicious cycle, really.




I'm so ignorant, I ignore the fact that I don't know the difference between ignorance and apathy
Quote by blackflag49
Condoms, for all the copious amounts of pussy with which you will be inevitably bombarded from this moment onward.


#15
Quote by buddyboombotz
Someone has had this on this paste option for quite a bit.

It was a previous post in another thread that I was able to find on google pretty quickly because I don't make many posts about Geri Halliwell
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#16
Quote by Dirge Humani
It is a natural cycle being accelerated by human waste.


OMFG THIS!!!

+1000000000000

Al Gore is a manipulative, greedy, horrible human being that successfully mind ****ed hundreds of millions of people by using incomplete, biased and unsubstantiated research/claims.
#17
Here were go. All the closet environmental reporters and scientists on UG will come out with their expert opinions.
Yours Sincerely,


Dr. Speakers
#18
Quote by Guitar_Jester
We didn't listen!


I don't believe in global warming, though. Myth.

Ya, damn those lying eminent scientist with their consensus and their decades of research and mountains of evidence
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#19
Global warming is completely natural, it is a life cycle of the Earth. I truly believe that through our extensive use of hydrocarbons, we are indeed creating the so-called "Greenhouse Effect", which basic science proves is an accelerant. This said, it is a completely natural thing, 10 000 years ago was an ice age, when the majority of the globe was completely encased in ice, so isn't it obvious that it's getting warmer and the glacier is receding? The Earth has been getting progressively more mild for the past 10 000 years. It's only now that we're aware of it thanks to advances in technologies that enable us to have enough spare time on our hands to actually conduct studies.
#20
Quote by diabolus
Global warming is completely natural, it is a life cycle of the Earth. I truly believe that through our extensive use of hydrocarbons, we are indeed creating the so-called "Greenhouse Effect", which basic science proves is an accelerant. This said, it is a completely natural thing, 10 000 years ago was an ice age, when the majority of the globe was completely encased in ice, so isn't it obvious that it's getting warmer and the glacier is receding? The Earth has been getting progressively more mild for the past 10 000 years. It's only now that we're aware of it thanks to advances in technologies that enable us to have enough spare time on our hands to actually conduct studies.

Ya, the worlds climatologists never even thought of the fact that it might be a natural cycle

Do you really think that wasn't the first bloody thing they thought and ruled out?
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#21
Quote by Ur all $h1t
Ya, damn those lying eminent scientist with their consensus and their decades of research and mountains of evidence


*pulls out conspiracy theory*
Quote by blackflag49
Condoms, for all the copious amounts of pussy with which you will be inevitably bombarded from this moment onward.


#23
Global warming WILL have a devastating effect on the human race, but instead of doing anything about it, people just continue to babble.... I highly doubt anyone on UG has done anything to reduce there carbon footprint, but I suppose there's a chance....
If you want to shine like the sun first you must burn like it.
#24
In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet (The IPCC recently revised its conclusion to say that evidence of anthropomorphic climate change is unequivocal.) Ninety-eight percent of the world's scientists concur. Many of them think the results are grossly understated..

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

They said the rate of increase in global warming due to these gases is very likely to be unprecedented within the past 10,000 years or more.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#25
Quote by Dirge Humani
It is a natural cycle being accelerated by human waste.



This. Obviously
#26
Quote by Dirge Humani
It is a natural cycle being accelerated by human waste.


Yes.
XIAOXI
Last edited by Abunai X at Sep 21, 2009,
#27
Quote by MaxLees666
This. Obviously


+10,000 internets.

Global Warming has little threat. There is a natural cycle that is being accelerated by human waste, but the amount of waste we are putting into the atmosphere is completely neglect able. Due to certain conditions the next Ice Age is estimated to be delayed, however our emissions offset this.

The earth will be fine in 50 years. It'll be fine in 500 years. And it'll be fine in 5,000 years.

Chill the **** out people, global warming won't have any effect on you.
Quote by satchgear
I tried it out in store.

Great neck, nice n light, good tuning stability. Overall a good guitar. I didn't but it cause I generally only buy guitars over a grand now.
#28
Quote by V.U.K
+10,000 internets.

Global Warming has little threat. There is a natural cycle that is being accelerated by human waste, but the amount of waste we are putting into the atmosphere is completely neglect able. Due to certain conditions the next Ice Age is estimated to be delayed, however our emissions offset this.

The earth will be fine in 50 years. It'll be fine in 500 years. And it'll be fine in 5,000 years.

Chill the **** out people, global warming won't have any effect on you.



Look! It's the blind men discussing the elephant!
I'll play it and tell you what it is later.
-Miles Davis
#29
Global Warming is a completely natural cause. The world has been warming and cooling for millions of years, before man created "Greenhouse Gases". These Greenhouse gases are not having an effect on global warming considering in the last ice age, emissions were 16 times higher than they are today.
#30
You're all silly. It's Jeremy Clarkson's fault entirely.

ಠ_ಠ

wat

#31
Quote by Dirge Humani
It is a natural cycle being accelerated by human waste.

Yyyyep.
Quote by dudetheman
So what? I wasted like 5 minutes watching DaddyTwoFoot's avatar.


Metalheads are the worst thing that ever happened to metal.
#32
Quote by smiidger
Global Warming is a completely natural cause. The world has been warming and cooling for millions of years, before man created "Greenhouse Gases". These Greenhouse gases are not having an effect on global warming considering in the last ice age, emissions were 16 times higher than they are today.

Wrong. False. Current CO2 levels are unprecedented for the last 650,000 years


This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Source: NOAA)
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


If it is natural then why is the scientific consensus that it is caused by human activity?
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
Last edited by Ur all $h1t at Sep 21, 2009,
#33
Cuz scientists are D-bags, and like to blame the world "issues" on other people.
#34
Quote by smiidger
Cuz scientists are D-bags, and like to blame the world "issues" on other people.

Learn how science works then come back and troll more effectively. These thousands of independent scientists from around the world have no common agenda, the only thing that they have in common is the opinion that Climate Change is caused by humans, an opinion based on the mountains of incontrovertible evidence.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#35
Seriously. It's ****ing pathetic how if someone posts a conspiracy theory lets say.. about JFK or 9/11 everyone ridicules it but when it comes to global warming which has overwhelming evidence to support it then everyone is like 'Yeah it's bull****! **** yeah'. Humans are causing it to happen INCREDIBLY fast. Much much faster than naturally. All you people who decide it's bs because jeremy clarkson said that are idiots.

I knew idiots like this at college, they all were car anoraks surprisingly enough.. Wonder if there's a correlation there...
Last edited by Zoot Allures at Sep 21, 2009,
#36
I find it funny that there are still people out there who don't believe that global warming exists.
Chinese Democracy is a great album, people need to get over Slash.

Proud fan of Pop, Rap, Rock, and Metal.
#37
If it has to happen it has to happen... Specially if its our fault. >_>

Edit: lol rock^
GEAR

Guitars
Danelectro Double Cutaway 1959 reissue, Jay Turser Vintage Series Strat

Pedals
Danelectro Reel Echo, Crybaby Wah, Boss DS-1

Amplifiers
Orange Crush 30w
Fender Pro Junior
#38
Quote by maidenfan15
I find it funny that there are still people out there who don't believe that global warming exists.

I find it stroke inducingly infuriating and pants shittingly terrifying.
Particularly where people will post something like "It is a natural process lolz" in a thread where they had to scroll past the evidence to post.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#40
Wow, lots of people seem to have taken my statement to mean that we should do nothing. Quite the opposite. Global Warming isn't a 'problem' per se, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make attempts to slow our effect we are having on the process.
Page 1 of 2