Magic-League.com Forum Index Magic-League.com
Forums of Magic-League: Free Online tcg playing; casual or tournament play.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Global Warming: A BIG LIE


Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Non-Magic

Did the article change your opinnion about global warming?
Yes
10%
 10%  [ 2 ]
No
90%
 90%  [ 18 ]
Total Votes : 20

Author Message
Laplie



Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 561

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:20 am    Post subject: Global Warming: A BIG LIE Reply with quote

Apologies for the sensationalist title. But http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml . For those of you too lazy to read the article, the graph in the middle of the page says a lot.

The top graph is the one the UN likes to show off with temperatures drastically increasing in recent times. The bottom graph shows that in the middle ages, temperatures were much warmer (by like 3C).

If you read the article, much of the UN predictions are riddled with faulty assumptions. The UN reports incorrectly round up and/or push the limit of safe estimates for values. This leads to temperature approximations and predictions off the mark by 300%-600%, as well as not correctly attributing much of the tempurature increase to the most likely cause: the sun.

Read the article for yourself and be enlightened.


Last edited by Laplie on Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:39 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
Colossus



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 396

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess the lesson to be learned is that if the earth gets to hot...well, we're gonna have to blow up the sun.
Back to top
piet



Joined: 21 Oct 2004
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lol it is bullshit.
This is the true story: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
Back to top
raging_hobo



Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 80

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So sick of hearing about all this "evidence" against global warming. I can only assume that people believe it because they don't know a damn thing about the rest of the evidence.
The bottom line is that, no, this is certainly not anywhere near the highest temperatures have ever been. That is not where the problem lies though. The real problem is that this IS the highest CO2 levels have ever been and that the rate of increase for both that and the temperature is unprecedented.
Now I'm certainly not advocating we all run about screaming about the end of the world but I do think it would be good to make some changes. Now really, is it going to hurt you to find a fuel source that doesn't pollute quite so damn much?
Back to top
Rawrer



Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:08 am    Post subject: Re: Global Warming: A BIG LIE Reply with quote

Laplie wrote:
The top graph is the one the UN likes to show off with temperatures drastically increasing in recent times. The bottom graph shows that in the middle ages, temperatures were much warmer (by like 3C).


I have two things to say about this.

1. It's not only about the temperatures rising. It's also about the CO2 levels, like raging_hobo mentions.

2. I don't give a fuck about the fact that the temperatures were higher in the middle ages. I live in Holland, so it's quite simple for me: if the temperature keeps rising, the water level will keep rising as well, and then it won't be long until there's a flood here.
Back to top
Spyx



Joined: 31 Oct 2004
Posts: 1188

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

piet wrote:
lol it is bullshit.
This is the true story: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/


Laughing Razz Laughing
Back to top
nasa



Joined: 09 Sep 2004
Posts: 196

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

know where i like to go for facts
m-l forums.
Back to top
Taoofss



Joined: 22 Dec 2004
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CO2 levels during the industrialization of Europe and the Americas were a lot higher than they are today. Dont believe me go look it up.
Back to top
Swissfan



Joined: 02 Nov 2005
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah well i'm sure you can find tons of evidence that says global warming isn't happening. That doesn't mean its all true... What I personally believe is that global warming does exist and we should seriously reduce our CO2 emissions.
Why do I believe this? Because everyone except the bloody Americans agree that Global warming is a problem. Everyone except the united sofa signed the Kyoto Protocol. Why are the bloody Americans contradicting the rest of the world? Because they don't want to waste their precious bucks on fixing the problem, they'd rather let everyone else do it.
Back to top
Laplie



Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 561

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:24 am    Post subject: Re: Global Warming: A BIG LIE Reply with quote

Rawrer wrote:

2. I don't give a fuck about the fact that the temperatures were higher in the middle ages. I live in Holland, so it's quite simple for me: if the temperature keeps rising, the water level will keep rising as well, and then it won't be long until there's a flood here.


From the article:

Quote:
Deep-ocean temperature hasn't changed at all, it's barely above freezing. The models tend to over-predict the warming of the climate-relevant surface layer up to threefold. A recent paper by John Lyman, of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, reports that the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years. The computers didn't predict this. Sea level is scarcely rising faster today than a century ago: an inch every 15 years.


Also:
Quote:

In 1988, James Hansen, a climatologist, told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C), and that sea level would rise several feet (no, one inch). The UN set up a transnational bureaucracy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).


And again:
Quote:
The Antarctic, which holds 90 per cent of the world's ice and nearly all its 160,000 glaciers, has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, reversing a 6,000-year melting trend


You don't have to worry. The UN predictions have been WRONG. If they were right, you would be under water by now. The fact that you're not underwater is proof against global warming.

dre4m wrote:
Tell me the exact temperature on June 21st, 1468, and I might give this 'article' more consideration than the lining on my birdcage.


If you read the article, they mention a few ways they figured out pre-thermometer temperatures. It also said that the UN measurements gave on error-prone way of measuring almost 400 times more weight than other ways of measuring.

dre4m wrote:
a shaky treatise on a hotter sun is not about to convince me otherwise


He's not saying that the sun definitely caused it, but that the sun could have caused it:

Quote:
The entire 20th-century warming from all sources was below 2 watts. The sun could have caused just about all of it.


The UN paper says that the sun only could have cause 0.3 watts... How do they get it so wrong? The UN ignores the climate-feedback effect and changes fundemental constants:

Quote:
The bigger the value of lambda, the bigger the temperature increase the UN could predict. Using poor Ludwig Boltzmann's law, lambda's true value is just 0.22-0.3C per watt. In 2001, the UN effectively repealed the law, doubling lambda to 0.5C per watt. A recent paper by James Hansen says lambda should be 0.67, 0.75 or 1C


And we KNOW their value of lambda is wrong because:

Quote:
But using Stern's 1.9C per watt gives 3.8C. Where did 85 per cent of his imagined 20th-century warming go? As Professor Dick Lindzen of MIT pointed out in The Sunday Telegraph last week, the UK's Hadley Centre had the same problem, and solved it by dividing its modelled output by three to "predict" 20th-century temperature correctly


When we divide to get the correct lambda, the computer predicts the correct present day temperatures.

I hate to quote so much, but apparently no one is reading the article.


Last edited by Laplie on Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:40 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
VRX|Noodles



Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Swissfan wrote:
Yeah well i'm sure you can find tons of evidence that says global warming isn't happening. That doesn't mean its all true...


Lol? what?

So there's evidence, but it doesn't matter because its not "true"?

Global warming is a crock of shit, just because scientists "predict" melting of the ice caps, doesnt mean its gonna fucking happen.

Look at meteorlogists, how often are they wrong in predicting the weather?

And about your CO2 emissions comment, more babies being born = more people on the earth = more carbon dioxide!!

So we should stop having kids? That'll fix it i reckon.

OF COURSE we have rising levels of CO2, the fucking population of the Earth grows bigger every day.
Back to top
Laplie



Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 561

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Swissfan wrote:
Everyone except the united sofa signed the Kyoto Protocol. Why are the bloody Americans contradicting the rest of the world? Because they don't want to waste their precious bucks on fixing the problem, they'd rather let everyone else do it.


The Kyoto protocol is a flawed treaty. The seperation of "Annex 1" countries and "non-Annex 1" countries means it won't be effective at doing much. China, the world second largest producer of carbons is EXEMPT. India, one of the major producers of greenhouse gases is also EXEMPT. Germany signed and "ratified" the treaty, but declared their coal industry, Germany's largest producer of greenhouse gases EXEMPT (though there is nothing in the treaty allowing them to do this).

Australia, which has the GREATEST per capita rate of emmissions was allowed to INCREASE emissions by 8% (seemingly because they are such a small country).

Not signing a flawed treaty is a good thing... Though the United States DID sign the Kyoto Protocol. We just didn't ratify it.
Back to top
hawkeye1542



Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Antarctic, which holds 90 per cent of the world's ice and nearly all its 160,000 glaciers, has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, reversing a 6,000-year melting trend

even if that's true, which i have not heard is the case from any source other than this one, how would u like to explain the fact that the north polar ice cap is disintegrating? and glaciers all around the world are receding at unprecedented rates? the historical average rate of movement for a glacier is something like 1ft/year.....there are 6 mile long glaciers in south america that have vanished since the 1950's.

Look...even if u want to believe that this is simply a natural geological cycle there is no denying that the warming trend exists, at least stop trying to be an idiot and argue against the existence of this warming trend.

P.S.- interesting sidenote; polar bears are going extinct because the ice flows are drifting so rapidly apart in the arctic that they drown trying to swim from one to the next.
Back to top
Laplie



Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 561

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hawkeye1542 wrote:
even if that's true, which i have not heard is the case from any source other than this one, how would u like to explain the fact that the north polar ice cap is disintegrating? and glaciers all around the world are receding at unprecedented rates?


If you click on the link which has the references for the article (which I doubt because few people are even reading it), you will notice exactly where he gets the data from. While a portion of glaciers have been melting, most have never been visited by mankind, and are in fact GROWING!!

Quote:
The snows of Kilimanjaro have been receding. So have the glaciers in Glacier National Park, Washington State, and many other (though not all) mountain glaciers in temperate or equatorial latitudes. However, very nearly all of the world’s 160,000+ glaciers (this surprisingly large figure is from the UN’s 2001 report) have never been visited by humankind or measured in detail. They are on the high, central plateaux Antarctica and Greenland. The great majority are not melting. They are growing.


Quote:
There has been local warming in the Antarctic Peninsula, which accounts for a small fraction of the Antarctic land area, but much of the interior has cooled. Though ice-shelves at the continental periphery have retreated, sea ice has increased (Thompson et al., 2002; Liu et al., 2004), and the trend is increasing (Vyas et al., 2003). The Antarctic sea-ice season is three weeks longer today than in 1979. Between 1986 and 2000 the valleys of the central Antarctic cooled at a rate of 0.7C per decade, with serious ecosystem damage from cold (Doran et al., 2004).


Also:
Quote:
“Since 1940, … data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend … The Greenland ice sheet and coastal regions are not following the current global warming trend” (Chylek et al. 2004). See also Johannesen et al. (2005). In Iceland, as in Greenland, the first half of the 20th century was warmer than the second half. Most of the Icelandic glaciers receded after 1930 because the summers had warmed, but since 1970 the glaciers have been steadily advancing.
Back to top
Rawrer



Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Global Warming: A BIG LIE Reply with quote

[quote="Laplie"]From the article:

Quote:
Deep-ocean temperature hasn't changed at all, it's barely above freezing. The models tend to over-predict the warming of the climate-relevant surface layer up to threefold. A recent paper by John Lyman, of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, reports that the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years. The computers didn't predict this. Sea level is scarcely rising faster today than a century ago: an inch every 15 years.


Look. This Lyman is of the "US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association", And I wouldn't be surprised if the guy is extremely biased. Therefore source not accepted.

Quote:

Also:
Quote:

In 1988, James Hansen, a climatologist, told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C), and that sea level would rise several feet (no, one inch). The UN set up a transnational bureaucracy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).



This is what I get from wikipedia about this Hansen guy:
Quote:

James Hansen has also appeared on 60 Minutes claiming that the White House has been editing climate related press releases reported by federal agencies to make global warming seem less threatening. He is unable to speak "freely", without the backlash of other government officials. "In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public," he says.

He makes claims that the tipping point (also known as the runaway effect) is upon us, and that if in 10 years the human population is unable to reduce greenhouse gases, that the oceans might rise as much as 10 feet by 2100.


Highlighted text says enough.

Quote:

And again:
Quote:
The Antarctic, which holds 90 per cent of the world's ice and nearly all its 160,000 glaciers, has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, reversing a 6,000-year melting trend



I don't know where you got this bullshit from, but it's completely false.

This link should tell you enough about it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4228411.stm

Quote:

You don't have to worry. The UN predictions have been WRONG. If they were right, you would be under water by now. The fact that you're not underwater is proof against global warming.


What is interesting about this article, is that the person who wrote it is completely subjective, contrary to scientists.
Figure for yourself, I'm not listening to biased ranting.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Non-Magic All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

All content on this page may not be reproduced without consent of Magic-League Directors.
Magic the Gathering is TM and copyright Wizards of the Coast, Inc, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. All rights reserved.


About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy