global warming hoax

[bl3ujay07]

Was working on friday and a co-worker of mines rushed into the break room with a news article he printed out on yahoo news about how there is no such global warming. It talks about how pictures Al Gore used in his recent book (or something like that) was photo shoped. Hurricanes going in wrong directions and such. Cant find the exact article, but it was similair to this one:
tehran times : The day global warming stood still (http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=208569)

Cant find it on yahoo anymore so i dont know how credible this one. They have aa bunch of other articles about hacking into British University global warming research emails and such on google and yahoo news articles also.

What do you think?

[deolio]

hurricanes can spin both directions. i wouldn't consider the tehran times a credible source due to heavy government influence. highly doubt millions of scientists would lie about such a thing...

and it's not global warming, it's climate shift.

[bl3ujay07]

hurricanes can not spin in both directions. Please do some research before you speak out. The Coriolis effect if you dont know.

[bl3ujay07]

article on the hacked email, google news
The Associated Press: Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9MrjlmXzORMlHNvYfE9yAlgtiBwD9C4OSH03)

[deolio]

i didn't read the first article where it stated the location of the hurricane. what i should have said was clockwise in the southern hemisphere, counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere. however, clockwise TORNADOES have been observed in the northern hemisphere. Tornado Spinning (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/general/GEN016.HTM) (after a quick search) so what if al gore photoshoped the picture as long as he didn't say it was real. i'd like to see in what context it was used.

that article states that quotes were taken out of context. hell, you can make anyone look like a liar/asshole if you take their quotes out of context. it doesn't even state any specifics about what was actually said in the emails.

anyway, it doesn't take a whole lot to realize that carbon levels are directly related to the earth's temperature and the major source of carbon are man-made.

[bl3ujay07]

Are you serious about the photos being photoshoped? We are talking hurricanes here not tornados.

Plus, it sounds like you didnt even read the article. I do believe their is some climate change but im just saying the article is interesting.

[deolio]

yeah, my bad, i just knew that tornadoes could spin both ways, so i figured it would be the same with hurricanes.

i did read the article and found it thoroughly unconvincing.

the fact that they're photoshopped really seems like a minor issue to me. it's just like seeing a picture of the food you're going to order when you go through a drive-thru. i'm not going to be pissed and call the manager a liar if my burger doesn't look exactly like the picture. the picture is merely to give you an idea of what you're ordering. if al gore showed the photoshopped picture to the public saying "this happened because of global warming" then i would be outraged, but if he showed it to the public and said, "this is what will happen because of global warming", then that would be completely different. out of context, there really is no bearing on whether it is a big deal or not.

global warming, no. climate change, yes. the earth does naturally go through cycles of warming and cooling, but they are often much more gradual compared to the one that we are going through right now. the only logical explanation for the rapid change is the global industrialization that has occurred in the last 200 years.

p.s. i hate al gore and think he is a tool out to make a profit off the green revolution, but shit, it's not like living cleaner is going to have any negative consequences

[Walperstyle]

YouTube - George Carlin - Saving the Planet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c&feature=related)

[Agamemnon]

the only logical explanation for the rapid change is the global industrialization that has occurred in the last 200 years.
You, like most people of society, are jumping to conclusions that have zero facts.

The earth has been in a state of cool down. So if carbon is the reason for the supposed rise in global climate temps, then how come 1998 was the highest recorded year in the last 11 years? If carbon is on the increase, then your logic would then indicate that temps will follow. But they aren't.

[I LUV MY S13]

its the pole shift our planet have

[deolio]

You are, like most idiots of society, are jumping to conclusions that have zero facts.

The earth has been in a state of cool down. So if carbon is the reason for the supposed rise in global climate temps, then how come 1998 was the highest recorded year in the last 11 years? If carbon is on the increase, then your logic would then indicate that temps will follow. But they aren't.

this is info collected by a researcher at stanford
http://pangea.stanford.edu/~jshragge/OilWar/Jen_files/image007.gif

as you can see, the temp rise isn't linear, which explains how 1998 could be the highest (btw highest what? temp or carbon?)

here's another graph of carbon levels from michigan taken from ice cores
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/section3group3/files/icecores.jpg

not sure where this one is from, but it basically says the same thing...
http://www.manchesterismyplanet.com/pictures/global%20temperature%20and%20co2%20levels_400x1000 0(1).jpg

no need for your name calling. there are a couple of my sources after doing a quick search of my files. now lets see yours, bro

edit: found another pretty graph from one of my books. *note the graph ends at 1950 and our current carbon level is around 380ppt*
http://www.shrani.si/pics/slika3yvv68.jpg

[Agamemnon]

http://www.manchesterismyplanet.com/pictures/global%20temperature%20and%20co2%20levels_400x1000 0(1).jpg]

I'm curious to know bro, why there's a significant drop in temps from from 1945 to 1977, yet carbon levels still rise? According to you, this graph is inaccurate.

Here's another graph for you. It clearly shows the impact of man-made(Anthropogenic) CO2 levels has on the global climate.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif
As you can see, only 0.117% is man-made CO2. That percentage is nowhere near the amount of CO2 needed to increase global tempetures the way you describe.

The reason why people think that CO2 acounts for 72.369% of all greenhouse gases is because the Department of Energy doesn't include water vapor(99.99% of which is naturally forming), which makes up for 95% of all greenhouse gases.

[bl3ujay07]

^^^Exact summary of some articles i've been reading.

[deolio]

I'm curious to know bro, why there's a significant drop in temps from from 1945 to 1977, yet carbon levels still rise? According to you, this graph is inaccurate.

Here's another graph for you. It clearly shows the impact of man-made(Anthropogenic) CO2 levels has on the global climate.

As you can see, only 0.117% is man-made CO2. That percentage is nowhere near the amount of CO2 needed to increase global tempetures the way you describe.

The reason why people think that CO2 acounts for 72.369% of all greenhouse gases is because the Department of Energy doesn't include water vapor(99.99% of which is naturally forming), which makes up for 95% of all greenhouse gases.

in the 50's, they (scientists) though we were headed for an ice age. this isn't according to me, that is according to my information. people get their numbers from different sources, but they all pretty much suggest the same thing.

i'm not sure if water molecules refract light the same way carbon molecules... might be something to look into...

i don't really understand what that graph is actually representing... probably because i've been up for 28 hours writing a paper and studying, but the bottom line is carbon is something we don't need any more of in our atmosphere. i'm sick of people arguing this shit to death as if being more environmentally conscious is a bad thing.

my personal oppinion is that it's a natural cycle that has most likely been aided by man. i just haven't found any sound evidence for any other reason why temps and carbon levels are rising to sway my opinion any other way. i don't think it's going to be a dooms day scenario like some people say. new weather patterns are all that's really changing.

[Agamemnon]

in the 50's, they (scientists) though we were headed for an ice age. this isn't according to me, that is according to my information. people get their numbers from different sources, but they all pretty much suggest the same thing.

i'm not sure if water molecules refract light the same way carbon molecules... might be something to look into...

i don't really understand what that graph is actually representing... probably because i've been up for 28 hours writing a paper and studying, but the bottom line is carbon is something we don't need any more of in our atmosphere. i'm sick of people arguing this shit to death as if being more environmentally conscious is a bad thing.

my personal oppinion is that it's a natural cycle that has most likely been aided by man. i just haven't found any sound evidence for any other reason why temps and carbon levels are rising to sway my opinion any other way. i don't think it's going to be a dooms day scenario like some people say. new weather patterns are all that's really changing.I agee with you on all counts, except when it comes to man-made CO2 emissions as the sole reason for any kind of upshift in earth's global temps. There is much evidence to show that there isnt a direct correlation between CO2 and the sudden rise in temps.

With that being said, I agree that being more environmentally conscious is a great thing.

[redline racer510]

global warming/climate shifting what ever you want to call it is old news. Global warming and cooling occured periodically throughout the earths history. The cause of rising(ppm) greenhouse gases is the product of the rising temperature of the earth not vice versa like most people thing. The carbon footprint required to cause the earth to warm up .001 degree is phenominal. We would have a much better chance at finally having world peace than warming up the planet significant enough to cause any type of harm to our enviroment.

[drift_limo]

to be honest I think its all a hoax.
Seriously think about its just nature.
Sh*t happends.

http://tehresistance.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/manbearpig.jpg



IM CEREALS!!!!!!!

[mteehee]

do not drink the kool aid.

[SUPERSTAR]

I think we are all fucked. Sea lever rising and I got the flu twice this year. <<<< that is enough proof right there.

[brndck]

i think its just a hoax so they can implement programs like "cap and trade". you've gotta look at who stands to profit from programs like these, and then realize that they're usually the ones promoting all this "science".