Glenn Beck Sarah Palin Rally to celebrate the Military, Patriotism, and America

Why? People like you don't have to.


Eejit said:
It's only a problem because in the US it's spent on the military and retarded ****ing wars instead of proper universal healthcare and other worthwhile programmes.
Click to expand...
 
Haha what I said was mostly an opinion, what you said was supposed to be a fact.
 
Okay, then. I believe that is bullshit. Feel better?
 
Well that's rather redundant, I assumed someone like you would think that.

Aaah, but I see your point. I should also assume than anything you say about science or climate change is ill-informed garbage. "Trust my instincts" in other words, gotcha.
 
temp2.jpg


"CO2 saturates absorbing the limited radiation available to it in about ten meters (Heinz Hug). An increase in CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature. Since scientists know this, a fake mechanism is contrived for the top of the troposphere based on thin spectrum shoulders. But again, an increase in CO2 only shortens the distance radiation travels, which does nothing significant to increase the temperature. And there is no way to get heat from the top of the troposphere, which is very cold, to ground level. And since this is also known, some climatologists revert back to the near-earth analysis. They can't figure out where it is happening, but it has to be happening, god said so.
None Dare Call It Fraud"

— Paul Driessen
 
Really now, CO2 levels do not affect ground-level temperatures? Without greenhouse gases such as CO2, the average temperature on Earth would be below freezing, so obviously it affects temperature. And what exactly is that quote supposed to prove?
 
Thread started as a thread about Palin/Beck.

Now its about volcanoes!
 
Climate change does happen, yes. But to say we are the sole cause of that is incredibly moronic. It's a massive fluxing system that has been occuring for millenia.
 
And generally takes millennia to happen, yeah. Our activities are why it's happening so much faster. Dangerously fast.
 
The climate does change naturally, hence the medieval warm period. Solar storms for example do impact the climate. However over the last 50 years there has been an unprecedented warming trend that can only be accounted for by anthropogenic causes.
 
Unprecedented since the last time it happened, you mean?

All those factories and cars in the 14th century must've been a doozy...
 
"Direct measurements?" Like the modified data in England? Or the recently discovered broken satellites that were reading incorrect temperatures?
 
The medieval warm period wasn't actually a warm period. It seems to have been a Europe only issue.

Modified data in England?

I've heard of those satellites but until its proven that those readings are used as raw data then you might have an issue. I'm sure the raw data undergoes reduction.
 
The data from the so called climate gate scandal wasn't modified and the data from the faulty satellites indicated the planet wasn't warming.

If you are just going to spurt out every untrue right-wing talking point, I'm done talking to you.
 
Don't recall the whole scandal earlier this year about them being told to throw out data that doesn't show rising global temperatures?

The faulty satellites were reading higher than actual temperatures.
 
Ridge said:
Don't recall the whole scandal earlier this year about them being told to throw out data that doesn't show rising global temperatures?

The faulty satellites were reading higher than actual temperatures.
Click to expand...

Some links would be nice. About the satellites, the raw data i'm sure wasn't sued directly. It is rare that raw data is used directly. Espceially since the people using those satellites would of spotted the incorrect temperatures and then adjusted for them.

Mr Stabby said:
The data from the so called climate gate scandal wasn't modified and the data from the faulty satellites indicated the planet wasn't warming.

If you are just going to spurt out every untrue right-wing talking point, I'm done talking to you.
Click to expand...

There was data from that climategate? I thought it was just some crappy emails been taken out of context and all reason.
 
No Limit said:
So you are only for regulation that doesn't affect your wallet? Do you believe in global warming? If you do how could you not support regulation on how much CO2 we can put out?
Click to expand...
I support the idea of a greener, cleaner Earth because there are too many people today who don't give a damn whether or not out our great great grandchildren have a clean and safe future.

The problem with regulation is the way corporations and politicians handle any ordinances to reduce Co2 emissions by simply just slapping on a high pollution tax. Clean industry costs more $, so these companies would just jack up the prices on their products/services to compensate and thus we as the consumers are the ones who suffer. I support the idea, but there has to be a better way in these shitty economic times.
 
Ridge]Like the modified data in England?[/quote] [QUOTE=Nabobalis said:
There was data from that climategate? I thought it was just some crappy emails been taken out of context and all reason.
Click to expand...

Every independent investigation, done by both the U.K. government and universities in the U.K. and the U.S. concluded on "Climate-Gate" that there was no "cover-up" or attempt to mislead the public on global warming, but rather a discussion on whether or not the scientific methods used in one particular study was still relevant. Selected soundbytes were used by skeptics worldwide as proof of a global conspiracy to the "hide the decline" of global warming.

In layman's terms, it was a bullshit non-controversy that several damaged the argument for climate change because of stupid politicians like Sarah Palin and Jim Inhofe.
 
Sparta said:
Every independent investigation, done by both the U.K. government and universities in the U.K. and the U.S. concluded on "Climate-Gate" that there was no "cover-up" or attempt to mislead the public on global warming, but rather a discussion on whether or not the scientific methods used in one particular study was still relevant. Selected soundbytes were used by skeptics worldwide as proof of a global conspiracy to the "hide the decline" of global warming.

In layman's terms, it was a bullshit non-controversy that several damaged the argument for climate change because of stupid politicians like Sarah Palin and Jim Inhofe.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm aware of that but during the whole scandal, I don't ever recall hearing about data fraud/manipulation. Oh well, the whole thing is over now and people can move on.

On to the next "conspiracy" which I'm sure will pop up soon enough.
 
Nabobalis said:
Yeah, I'm aware of that but during the whole scandal, I don't ever recall hearing about data fraud/manipulation. Oh well, the whole thing is over now and people can move on.

On to the next "conspiracy" which I'm sure will pop up soon enough.
Click to expand...

Well actually for the deniers, it's not over at all and they will forever cling onto that.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
temp2.jpg
Click to expand...

The fact you deny science is really quite pathetic, I expected better from you (not sure why).

That chart looks like some really intersting evidance. But that is only the case if you totally igore the scale of that chart which spans 800,000 years.

770px-Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png


This is in only 120 years and if the predictions are correct in the next 100 years it will be much much worse.

I would just like to add how absolutely absurd the "evidance" you post is. The site you got that from has this on their main page:

Mathematical Proof Energy has been Misdefined

http://nov55.com/ener.html

Yes, Einstein and the entire scientific community contrived a huge liberal plot when they found and then proved that e=mc^2.
 
Dr.Demento said:
I support the idea of a greener, cleaner Earth because there are too many people today who don't give a damn whether or not out our great great grandchildren have a clean and safe future.

The problem with regulation is the way corporations and politicians handle any ordinances to reduce Co2 emissions by simply just slapping on a high pollution tax. Clean industry costs more $, so these companies would just jack up the prices on their products/services to compensate and thus we as the consumers are the ones who suffer. I support the idea, but there has to be a better way in these shitty economic times.
Click to expand...

The problem is nothing in this world is free. Green energy at this time does cost more. As a result if we want to use it we will have to pay more. And since we are a lazy society that wants to save as much money as possible the only way to get us to buy greener energy is to make dirty energy more expensive. Yes, it sucks for us in the short term. But if we invest serious money in to clean energy eventually it will actually be much cheaper that fossil fuel based energy.
 
On sept 11th Glenn and Sarah are hosting a beer party in Alaska where you get too meet Glenn for only $200.

What better way to restore honour than using the aniversary of 9/11 to make a lot of money. True American patriots.
 
No Limit said:
The fact you deny science is really quite pathetic, I expected better from you (not sure why).

That chart looks like some really intersting evidance. But that is only the case if you totally igore the scale of that chart which spans 800,000 years.

770px-Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png


This is in only 120 years and if the predictions are correct in the next 100 years it will be much much worse.

I would just like to add how absolutely absurd the "evidance" you post is. The site you got that from has this on their main page:

Mathematical Proof Energy has been Misdefined

http://nov55.com/ener.html

Yes, Einstein and the entire scientific community contrived a huge liberal plot when they found and then proved that e=mc^2.
Click to expand...

Your chart and Rakurai's actually jive pretty well together. The 100 in his chart is millenia. The 100 in your chart is just years. If his chart still follows suit, then over the next couple centuries, the Earth will gradually cool.
 
Not at all Ridge. Over the past 120 years, the temperature changed by 1 degree. In Rakurai's chart, a change of 1 degree took much, much longer.
 
But is it still an "anomoly" as your chart puts it, if its the norm?
 
But this isnt the norm. This temperature rate of increase is MUCH greater than it has been in 800,000 years. I'd call that an anomaly.
 
Looks to me to be about lined up with 100,000 years ago in his chart...
 
The rate of temperature change over the previous 800,000 years is orders of magnitude slower than the rate of temperature change over the previous 120. This increase also neatly follows the rate of advance of industrialisation in the world. There's not a whole lot of room for "correlation != causation" when there are multiple co-dependent correlations that are only considered to be non-causal under very specific interpretations of the data.
 
It's difficult to argue about how long it took for a 1 degree change to occur at that time due to the small size of the chart, but think of it this way. Even if that change occurred over 1/100th of the distance from 200,000 to 100,000 that is still 1,000 years, which would be 10 times slower than the rate it is today.

In my opinion, to say that the 1 degree change took less than 1,000 years would be bold.
 
Ridge said:
Your chart and Rakurai's actually jive pretty well together. The 100 in his chart is millenia. The 100 in your chart is just years. If his chart still follows suit, then over the next couple centuries, the Earth will gradually cool.
Click to expand...

Dude, the temperature has been rising significantly compared to the base line provided by samplings of ice cores from about 500,000 years ago. It's rising, and sharply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CptStern
Glenn Beck: Assasination attempt on sarah palin would "bring down the republic"
Replies
32
Views
3K
Sheepo
Sheepo
Sulkdodds
Engineering Dissent: The Rise of the Political Commentator
Replies
14
Views
2K
Absinthe
Absinthe
Back
Top