|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JeJuJitsu
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Location: McDonald's
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:57 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| JeJuJitsu wrote: |
| Seems like a load of doodoo if you ask me. |
Well, if you think you're smarter than NASA, then good for you buddy. |
Link? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| As the kids say: PWNED! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
| JeJuJitsu wrote: |
| yeeeeeeeesssssss...climate change...lol |
wide fluctuations in freak weather patterns, extremes of hot and cold and wind and storms are all consistent with climate change |
a more idiotic post has never been made.
Let me restate for the blind.....
wide fluctuations in freak weather patterns (as opposed to predictable freak weather patterns) , extreme of hot and cold and wind and storms are all consistent with climate change........
hmmm....let me get this stright.....
so you are trying to tell us that when weather patterns, temperature, wind and storms change......the climate itself is also changing?????
that makes perfect sense.
On what scale are these weather changes occurring?
seconds
minutes
hours
days
weeks
month
years
decades
centuries
millenia?
And how exactly are the changes occuring every hour related to those occurring every century?
If you can answer that....then you are a major major genius.....and not just a government-funding-seeking global-warming employee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
and if you are at all interested in intellectual honesty, please watch the following http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA&mode=related&search=
Doomsday Called Off.
I know for many of you, environmentalism is a religion...and questioning it is sacreligious. And of course, global warming is the Jesus-like focus of your urge for salvation....
But honestly.....humans have been measuring the world's weather for a bit over a century...and measuring it accurately...for how long? a few decades??????
And now a bunch of trans-national diplomats/hangers-on is trying to steer the global economy on the basis of bull-shit manipulated science....
Is that your religion????
Well good luck with redeeming yourselves.
Wake Up! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1) Why does your graph use 1960 as a baseline? What is the use in that?
2) What is the source of that graph? It looks more doctored than Michael Jackson.
3) Let's assume that it IS an ACTUAL REPRESENTATION of historical climate: Why is it that prehistory peaks are so nice and defined up until the last 10,000 years or so?
| Quote: |
And now a bunch of trans-national diplomats/hangers-on is trying to steer the global economy on the basis of bull-*beep* manipulated science.... |
My sentiments EXACTLY! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khyber wrote: |
1) Why does your graph use 1960 as a baseline? What is the use in that?
2) What is the source of that graph? It looks more doctored than Michael Jackson.
3) Let's assume that it IS an ACTUAL REPRESENTATION of historical climate: Why is it that prehistory peaks are so nice and defined up until the last 10,000 years or so? |
I think the graph just shows Milankovitch cycles. Of course, according to the graph, the earth should be cooling right now. It's not.
I'm now on capped bandwidth for the rest of the month, so youtube is off-limits. Could someone tell me who the scientists featured in sundubuman's documentary are? (you know the guy is really scraping the bottom of the barrel when he's having to get his material from the CBC)
And don't worry, sundubuman. Almost every single scientist in the world has accepted the First Great EnviroTruth: global warming is happening. And now more and more of the noble deniers are caving to the bullying and intimidation of our Science Priestlords, and are beginning to believe the Second Great EnviroTruth - that humans are at least partially responsible for the warming. Why, even Richard Lindzen has admitted this. Pathetic! We had thought his spirit stronger. Soon, all will accept the Third Great EnviroTruth - that we must cede all personal and economic control to the government under the stilleto heel of the divine dominatrix Hillary Clinton; all industry will be dismantled; and gay marriage will be compulsary for all. We will be one world, finally united under the Clinton earthmother and the spectre of imaginary global warming.
Last edited by gang ah jee on Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:20 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The video you are pushing is THREE YEARS OLD. That puts the science at 4 to 6 or more years old. For *beep*'s sake...
There is no debate on global warming. Show me ANY legitimate, peer-reviewed science that debunks. It doesn't exist.
The historical record is consistent. That's the point. It's consistent. What is happening now is inconsistent with past activity. That's how we know we are the problem. The only new variable is human activity.
The level of CO2? Off the charts. Literally. It has never been where it is today in the past 600,000+ years. Never. How does that not end up in higher temps?
You're asking for how it's connected? Freaking idiot. How is it NOT connected? Instead of telling us what GW isn't, why don't you tell us how they are not connected. The science is not in dispute. If you want to dispute the science you have to fight it with science. You have none.
Economically remake the world? Oil WILL run out. Do the math. And long before it does, it will go up to $200+ per barrel. How does that not economically remake the world? Why would you even begin to claim people wanting to prepare for that problem are a massive conspiracy? And tell me how a vast majority of the world can be a conspiracy?? It's an overwhelming majority. You're the one engaging in conspiracy. But Exxon did such good job that even after they have stopped funding the disinformation, you still cling to it.
Further, I am quite happy to be part of a conspiracy to 1. get people living and working locally, 2. get food grown locally, 3. clean up the environment 4. create sustainable living that is rewarding, healthy, stable and peaceful, 5. and create massive new industries (That's jobs, get it?) that will employ far more people than oil does. Oh, and where does the one government bullshit come from? Your wet-dream fantasy world?
The conspiracy started with Exxon and then the Cadre. Cheney actually stated to the oil study group prior to the Iraq war that the mission for the US was to secure new and current oil reserves. Get it? Why do we need to "secure" them? Why can't we just buy the oil? Because it is going into production decline. Peak Oil: Simmons on the GAO report |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Video Response:
**This movie was made in 2004. It is addressing the IPCC report of 2001, not current conditions or knowledge.**
And it is still bullshit.
| Quote: |
| "It's not a particularly warm period we're in. Not in the perspective of past climate." |
- Nameless person
That's it. No context. Here's the context: He's talking about times long prior to human existence, let alone lifetimes. It is absolutely true the Earth has spent large periods of time much hotter. The dinosaurs loved it. They're cold-blooded, you see? Are you? During the time of human existence the Earth has not been anywhere near as warm as during the dinosaurs times. In the last 600,000 years, cold has been the norm, not the exception. Also, a period like this of more than 10,000 years of relatively stable warmth is unprecedented during the period revealed by the ice cores. The only reason human activity and industry exists as it does today is due to that prolonged period of warmth couple with oil.
Now, let's get back to you being a dinosaur. Human beings have developed during a period of relative cool, in terms of Earth's history. Our own history has been during this period of coolness. We are not built for extremely hot temps. Have you ever tried working in 120 degree weather? People die in that. Europe saw 35,000 die in the heat wave of two years ago. (Prior to your video.) Yes, people can, but it means wholesale changes in lifestyles, work conditions, etc. And many, many people will die. Try not to forget that the majority of the world is POOR. Not just one pair of shoes a year poor, but living-in-dirt-with-no-power-and-food poor.
The issue, as the video misleads (lies), is not how hot the Earth has gotten. It is how hot is has gotten during human existence. Well, the answer is: not very. We're at the peak of that heat now, and the peak is going up, up, up.
| Quote: |
| "The thing that is of great concern to me is that some of these policies could cost a great deal, but have absolutly no effect on the climate." |
- nameless person
Context? None. Sources? None. FACT: It is figured that about 5 % of world GDP(?) will cover it. How much of our GDP goes to Iraq? Oil industry tax breaks? Oil industry subsidies? FACT: The development of othe fuel sources will create new economies. FACT: we are running out of oil. Changing now prevents massive, massive disruption and instability later.
| Quote: |
| "Why are flawed models used as the basis of policy decisions? They shouldn't be." |
- nameless person
By definition, a model is flawed. It is incomplete. They cannot perfectly recreate nature. This is a stupid, childish point. FACT: The models now being used (The video was from 2004, thus the science was from 2002 or earlier.) are far more accurate. Modelling in the last few years has been able to mimic the environment under three data sets: 1. natural forcings only, 2. natural forcings plus human activity, 3. human activity only. Guess which type most closely resembles current measurements? Guess which least closely resembles current measurements? If you said 2 and 1, respectively, you are correct.
Sheesh... this is just the intro...
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Video Response:
"It's not a particularly warm period we're in. Not in the perspective of past climate." - Nameless scientist. |
Is that right? The central thesis of the Doomsday video is that it's getting warmer, but not as warm as it has been in the past? Heh.
To me this suggests two things:
1. sundubuman has already accepted the First Great EnviroTruth! Global warming is taking place! Ahahahahaha!
2. People like sundubuman must be incredibly stupid if they think that this kind of childish explanation hasn't already occured to the world community of climate scientists. Presumably they imagine science all is about mixing baking soda and vinegar together then making a bunch of wild guesses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Watching it. Of the five scientists in the show, four are Exxon-paid. Baliunas is correct that the medieval warming period was a degree warmer than 2003/4. Does anyone go screaming through the halls about one degree? Nope. It's the 5, 6 and 7 or more we are worried about. The one degree will only get us, oh, half a foot or so of sea level rise. It's the other 20 - 40 feet we're really worried about.
One of the few things the movie did get right was Jorgen Peder Steffensen's comments on Antarctica. He stated that EAST Antarctica would likely increase in ice with warming. Correct. But guess what? The director/producers included nothing about the West Antarctica Ice sheet... the one that is melting and expected to continue to do so. Nor did they address Greenland, which is REALLY melting.
 
Legates
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=18
| Quote: |
National Center for Policy Analysis
Source: NCPA website 4/04
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Source: CEI website, 3/04
Independent Institute
Source: Independent Institute website 4/04
George C. Marshall Institute
Source: George Marshall Institute website 5/06
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station
Source: Tech Central Station Bio - Legates
Interfaith Stewardship Alliance
Source: Heritage Foundation Press Release (2006)
Heartland Institute
Source: Heartland Institute - HeartlandGlobalWarming.org |
Sallie Baliunas
| Quote: |
| In the mid to late 1990 she also worked with the Global Climate Coalition, a special interest group of coal, oil and utility companies, set up to lobby against international action on climate change. (NCPPR expert guide, 1996) |
Exxon Stooge
She asserts the warming from human-caused CO2 can ONLY be attributable to warming since 1950. This is bull. Industrialization, and concern about CO2, started in the 1800s. Her own graph shows that the current warming is steeper on the slope than that in the early part of the century, supporting the anthropogenic theory.
Dr. John Christy - a skeptic only of the claims of massive change, but still he's an...
Exxon Stooge
...via the Competitive Enterprise Institute and, more directly, via ExxonMobile Teaching Fellowships.
| Quote: |
Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $2,005,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
1998
$85,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 1998 grants list
2000
$230,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
general support
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990
2001
$280,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Annual Report
2002
$205,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
50K congressional briefing program, 140K general operating support, 60K legal activities
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report
2002
$200,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
140K general operating support, 60K for legal activities.
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report
2003
$25,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Annual Dinner
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report
2003
$440,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report
2004
$90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004
2004
$90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Global Climate Change
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004
2004
$90000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Global Climate Change Outreach
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004
2005
$90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)
2005
$180,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving) |
Wikipedia:
| Quote: |
It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way.
...More recently, in a publication in the series Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy he said:[5]
* "I showed some evidence that humans are causing warming in the surface measurements that we have but it is not the greenhouse relation."
* Christy has also said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that human activities are a cause of the global warming that has been measured, he is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels."[4] |
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:14 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Denial is a terminal disease. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JeJuJitsu
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Location: McDonald's
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2007/04/11/global_warming/?source=whitelist
Real inconvenient truths--Top Feminist Camille Paglia spews.
| Quote: |
Just wondering what your thoughts are on the global warming issue. Have you seen the Al Gore movie? Any thoughts on the current debate on climate science?
Many thanks,
April
Vancouver
Oh, great, here comes the hornet's nest!
As a native of upstate New York, whose dramatic landscape was carved by the receding North American glacier 10,000 years ago, I have been contemplating the principle of climate change since I was a child. Niagara Falls, as well as the even bigger dry escarpment of Clark Reservation near Syracuse, is a memento left by the glacier. So is nearby Green Lakes State Park, with its mysteriously deep glacial pools. When I was 10, I lived with my family at the foot of a drumlin -- a long, undulating hill of murrain formed by eddies of the ancient glacier melt.
Geology and meteorology are fields that have always interested me and that I might well have entered, had I not been more attracted to art and culture. (My geology professor in college, in fact, asked me to consider geology as a career.) To conflate vast time frames with volatile daily change is a sublime exercise, bordering on the metaphysical.
However, I am a skeptic about what is currently called global warming. I have been highly suspicious for years about the political agenda that has slowly accrued around this issue. As a lapsed Catholic, I detest dogma in any area. Too many of my fellow Democrats seem peculiarly credulous at the moment, as if, having ground down organized religion into nonjudgmental, feel-good therapy, they are hungry for visions of apocalypse. From my perspective, virtually all of the major claims about global warming and its causes still remain to be proved.
Click Here!
Climate change, keyed to solar cycles, is built into Earth's system. Cooling and warming will go on forever. Slowly rising sea levels will at some point doubtless flood lower Manhattan and seaside houses everywhere from Cape Cod to Florida -- as happened to Native American encampments on those very shores. Human habitation is always fragile and provisional. People will migrate for the hills, as they have always done.
Who is impious enough to believe that Earth's contours are permanent? Our eyes are simply too slow to see the shift of tectonic plates that has raised the Himalayas and is dangling Los Angeles over an unstable fault. I began "Sexual Personae" (parodying the New Testament): "In the beginning was nature." And nature will survive us all. Man is too weak to permanently affect nature, which includes infinitely more than this tiny globe.
I voted for Ralph Nader for president in the 2000 election because I feel that the United States needs a strong Green Party. However, when I tried to watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" on cable TV recently, I wasn't able to get past the first 10 minutes. I was snorting with disgust at its manipulations and distortions and laughing at Gore's lugubrious sentimentality, which was painfully revelatory of his indecisive, self-thwarting character. When Gore told a congressional hearing last month that there is a universal consensus among scientists about global warming -- which is blatantly untrue -- he forfeited his own credibility.
Environmentalism is a noble cause. It is damaged by propaganda and half-truths. Every industrialized society needs heightened consciousness about its past, present and future effects on the biosphere. Though I am a libertarian, I am a strong supporter of vigilant scrutiny and regulation of industry by local, state and federal agencies. But there must be a balance with the equally vital need for economic development, especially in the Third World.
Here's a terrible episode from my region that made the news just last year. A bankrupt thermometer factory in Franklin Township, N.J., vacated its building in 1994 but ignored a directive to clean the premises of residual mercury toxins. There was a total failure of oversight and follow-through at the state and local levels. The result: In 2004, a daycare center opened in the renovated building and for two years subjected children and pregnant women to a dangerously high level of mercury vapors from the contaminated site.
The degree of permanent health effects on those children is still unknown. This kind of outrageous negligence should not be tolerated in a civilized nation. |
Leading Feminist Camille Paglia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JeJuJitsu wrote: |
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2007/04/11/global_warming/?source=whitelist
Real inconvenient truths--Top Feminist Camille Paglia spews.
Leading Feminist Camille Paglia. |
Just op-ed, and it's clear that she doesn't actually know anything about the science involved. Well, except that she took a geology paper in college, 40 or so years ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| She may know something, but she did not state it here in any way. She related GW to religious pandering, which is offensive and stupid, but that's about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
