Happycamper's House of Denial brought to you by ExxonMobil

Status
Not open for further replies.

Frickr

Well-Known Member
CrazyCracker said:
Frickr said:
have you ever stopped to think why every other country in the world hates america and americans?
You make it just to easy, have you ever been outside of the US? How are you telling me to open my eyes when you keep making ignorant generalizations. "hates america and americans?" I have some very good Italian friends who love this country and are very particular that they have a problem with our foreign policy over the past 8 years (imperialism). Not that they hate america or americans. :rolleyes:
have you even left california? you seem to be fighting this whole thing tooth and nail. is it to hard for you to believe that our government would lie to us? get pissed off at me all you like sir. its not gonna change whats happening around the world one bit. if i can get this out to one other person, let them know some of the things that are happening in our world today, then thats worth it to me. but it seems to me your minds already made up about this whole deal. now can we get back to the discussion? if you have any other problems with what i say, or what i think email me. we will discuss it further there. till then if you have no useful information to add to this, dont post.
 
Frickr,

CrazyCracker

Well-Known Member
Yes of course I have left California, :lol: you don't make "very good Italian friends" without doing so.

Just for the record I am very open to the idea of climate change being misrepresented by scientists with agendas. I'm sure it is happening on both sides of this debate. I also completely believe our government and every government in the history of the world has lied...

What I am fighting is the ignorant generalizations you keep making. :peace:
 
CrazyCracker,

Cr8z13

Well-Known Member
Frickr said:
CrazyCracker said:
Frickr said:
have you ever stopped to think why every other country in the world hates america and americans?
You make it just to easy, have you ever been outside of the US? How are you telling me to open my eyes when you keep making ignorant generalizations. "hates america and americans?" I have some very good Italian friends who love this country and are very particular that they have a problem with our foreign policy over the past 8 years (imperialism). Not that they hate america or americans. :rolleyes:
have you even left california? you seem to be fighting this whole thing tooth and nail. is it to hard for you to believe that our government would lie to us? get pissed off at me all you like sir. its not gonna change whats happening around the world one bit. if i can get this out to one other person, let them know some of the things that are happening in our world today, then thats worth it to me. but it seems to me your minds already made up about this whole deal. now can we get back to the discussion? if you have any other problems with what i say, or what i think email me. we will discuss it further there. till then if you have no useful information to add to this, dont post.
You seem to have a very low opinion of your fellow Americans. As for our government, yes it's far from perfect. Doesn't mean it's evil incarnate. Shit, I can legally have weed delivered to my house. I fucking love America.
 
Cr8z13,

stickstones

Vapor concierge
my brother went to europe for an exchange thing. took a class on world relations or something. they had students from all over. most of them said they hate GWB, but like America.
 
stickstones,

Frickr

Well-Known Member
Cr8z13 said:
Shit, I can legally have weed delivered to my house. I fucking love America.
not everyone has that luxury legally. i tend to look at things from the bigger picture. and frankly my generation doesnt give a shit about anything other then themselves. (yes its not true for everyone but the majority). im 21, i see the people around me. and the majority of them are clueless about the government.

i guess i see things differantly then alot of people. i see the stuff happening around me, i see how people interact around me. most are oblivious to what goes on. maybe its just from growing up in a small town, but i hate the way people interact in a city. people have lost something over the years. it is a step back when you come out to this part of the country, we arent as fast moving as other places. but one thing we do have here, is a larger sence of community.

little social experiment for you to show you how self centered people can be. go out to a public place, and say hello to the people you come in contact with. the majority will walk away from you without even glancing at you. others may say hello back. even this simple gesture of kindness, most wont even have the decency to say hello back to you.

this is where i draw my opinion on our country. my little corner of the country the community is the major goal. if someone needs help they get it wheather they asked for it or not. people are willing to help out. other places this doesnt happen near as much as it should. for instance someone with a flattire along side the highway. here people stop to lend a helping hand. elsewhere people go by and dont even notice because they have their own problems to take care of first.

as ive said time and time again, not EVERYONE is like this, but the majority is. the majority takes CNN news as truth. if they didnt, cnn would either change what it shows and how they show it, or else would be shut down. the majority of americans are not active in their local government. the majority of americans are distracted from the real picture by these media giants manipulating their storys to conform to a centeralized idea.

if these people involved with this whole scandel have nothing to hide. then they should have all of their data released to the public for review. if climate change is as big of a deal as they say it is, i want to be able to have access to all of their data. to many people are making to much money off of this, something in the system needs to change.

first and formost i feel that our government needs to rethink its place in the world. our civilization isnt ready for one world government there is to much corruption with the government we already have. this will only make things worse.

i can go on all day about the problems in our country. we have more of them then people choose to believe. right now theres thousands of people that are starving to death in our own country. we need to fix out own social problems before we try fixing the worlds problems.

now i do agree we do need to look at how we use our energy. we need to develope a plan to concerve as much energy as possible. the way they are trying to do this now isnt the right corse of action. the action right now is for a political agenda it has nothing to do with our enviroment.

how long are we going to let these transperant agancies run our country? i feel that positions in government should be on a vollenteer basis. no money should be made. money corrupts people. there is a better way to go about things then we are right now. and i predict within the next 50 years, there will be mass civil unrest in our country. now how important will your ipod be then?

see my point im making?
 
Frickr,

Cr8z13

Well-Known Member
Again, I see you don't don't think very highly of most Americans. I also happen to believe that there is much more nuance in this world than absolutes. You'll learn that as you get older.
 
Cr8z13,

reece

Well-Known Member
reece said:
Frickr said:
Reece im sorry but the links you found are reported to of deleted alot of the actual data as to block this from coming out.
Do you mean reported to "have?"

If so, deleted by whom?

And, this seems to be a convenient way to ignore anything that doesn't back up what you already believe?
I'm sorry. I meant reported by whom, instead of deleted. And the links only provide refutation of your claim that there is some conspiracy to perpetuate a climate change hoax. There is no data to be deleted.


And tell me, have the following links also been reported to "of" deleted data?


http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN23263425

For one thing, the researchers involved were only a handful out of thousands across the world that have contributed to a vast convergence of data that shows the world has warmed.

"Whilst some of the e-mails show scientists to be all too human, nothing I have read makes me doubt the veracity of the peer review process or the general warming trend in the global temperature recorded," said Piers Forster, an environment professor at the University of Leeds.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/climate-hack/

But Trenberth, who acknowledged the e-mail is genuine, says bloggers are missing the point hes making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it.

That article An Imperative for Climate Change Planning (.pdf) (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/11/energydiagnostics09final.pdf ) actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise.

It says we dont have an observing system adequate to track it, but there are all other kinds of signs aside from global mean temperatures including melting of Arctic sea ice and rising sea levels and a lot of other indicators that global warming is continuing, he says.

Gavin Schmidt, a research scientist with NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the e-mails offer no damning indictment of climate researchers, and that bloggers are reading information in them out of context.

Theres nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax, he told Threat Level. Theres no funding by nefarious groups. Theres no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. Theres nothing hidden, no manipulation.

Its just scientists talking about science, and theyre talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way.

Trenberth agrees.

If you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists, he says. The unfortunate thing about this is that people can cherry pick and take things out of context.
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/hacked-climate-e-mails-0306.html

"We should keep in mind that our understanding of climate science is based not on private correspondence, but on the rigorous accumulation, testing and synthesis of knowledge often represented in the dry and factual prose of peer-reviewed literature. The scientific community is united in calling on U.S. policymakers to recognize that emissions of heat-trapping gases must be dramatically reduced if we are to avoid the worst consequences of human-induced climate change.
So, if you really believe this is some large scam please refute the refutations. Because your first reply was a cop out.
 
reece,

Frickr

Well-Known Member
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?page=1&pp=25&kw=travesty the actual email itself. no out of context here.

how can data showing its cooling be wrong?

link to all the emails and documents, read for yourself, make your own decisions. i just found the link to all the emails so i myself have alot of reading ahead of me.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
 
Frickr,

Frickr

Well-Known Member
From: "Jonathan Overpeck" <jto@u.arizona.edu>
>To: "Ricardo Villalba" <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Cc: "Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>;
>"Eystein Jansen" <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 5:55 PM
>Subject: Re: the regional section and MWP Figure
>
>
>Hi SH gang - Thanks for keeping things moving
>Ricardo. Eystein and I just discussed this fig on
>the phone and would like to suggest the following:
>
>1) should we include instrumental data? If not, it could lessen the impact.
>2) we need to include the two borehole (see previous email from me and Ed)
>3) we would like to ask Keith and Tim (pretty
>please...) to draft the final figure so that it
>matches the other in the section and MWP box. Is
>this ok, and do you have the data to do the job.
>If not, we trust your kind colleagues can send
>upon request?
 
Frickr,

The_Other_Shoe

What's Going On?
stickstones said:
it is a scare tactic to make peopple rich. all the regulations that are put into place, because of how dire they say the situation is, make someone money, and that's all it is about.
It's funny you say that, I went back to look at a paper I had written based off an article in the newspaper, and my wording is different than yours but in complete agreement.

The "green" companies stand to gain just as much and even more with government support that the major oil companies and so forth would stand to lose with all the imposed regulations. On top of that, companies with green technology get several benefits.

Back to my first post, I must have been a little :o when I made the post about it being for the environment, I think my point was to say, "I wish it were for the environment" or something along those lines.
 
The_Other_Shoe,

Frickr

Well-Known Member
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=459&filename=1104893567.txt
In addition, some of the comments are probably wrong - the warm-season bias (p.12) should
if anything produce less variability, since warm seasons (at least in GCMs) feature smaller
climate changes than cold seasons. The discussion of uncertainties in tree ring
reconstructions should be direct, not referred to other references - it's important for
this document. How the long-term growth is factored in/out should be mentioned as a prime
problem. The lack of tropical data - a few corals prior to 1700 - has got to be discussed.
The primary criticism of McIntyre and McKitrick, which has gotten a lot of play on the
Internet, is that Mann et al. transformed each tree ring prior to calculating PCs by
subtracting the 1902-1980 mean, rather than using the length of the full time series (e.g.,
1400-1980), as is generally done. M&M claim that when they used that procedure with a red
noise spectrum, it always resulted in a 'hockey stick'. Is this true? If so, it constitutes
a devastating criticism of the approach; if not, it should be refuted. While IPCC cannot be
expected to respond to every criticism a priori, this one has gotten such publicity it
would be foolhardy to avoid it.
the "hockey stick" graphs which have been proven to be made up explained right here. every email i click on i find this stuff. start reading people, this stuff is unbelieveable.

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/13830/page2/ link to an artical about the hockey stick graphs.
 
Frickr,

Frickr

Well-Known Member
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=462
Neil
There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC
AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change
of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than
before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global
warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years
of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which
will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface
temperature.
Regards
David
:uhoh:
 
Frickr,

CrazyCracker

Well-Known Member
The_Other_Shoe said:
The "green" companies stand to gain just as much and even more with government support that the major oil companies and so forth would stand to lose with all the imposed regulations. On top of that, companies with green technology get several benefits.
You deserve post of the thread award. Reasonable language is awesome.
 
CrazyCracker,

nicelytoasted

Vaked Chemist
Ive worked for the government as a scientist in the environmental field for many years, particularly in the air monitoring and analysis aspect.

We do continuous air monitoring for such things as ozone, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, reduced sulfur compounds and particulate of various sizes.
Although we allow for the invariable cycling through the seasons and years, we do see that in general, these numbers are slowly rising. This data has the tightest QA/QC validation, and I see the real, raw data before it is released to the public.

Even with a good data set, proper interpretation and prediction can be difficult. Global warming is such a large scale and so complex, it may be nearly impossible. Our planet is so amazing in maintaining overall balance and adapting for variations, despite the despicable things that we humans are doing to it. Measuring the global temperature is just a snapshot in a much bigger picture, imo.

Keep in mind that while greenhouse gases will contribute to increased overall temperatures, the mega tons of particulates that are also being released into the atmosphere are also contributing to a decrease in overall temperature, acting as a kind of buffer. Without it, we may see a larger overall temperature increase, but it is acting as a double edge sword, imo.

We must find a way of decreasing/eliminating fossil fuels and poisoning our beloved planet in general.

Fuck combustion
 
nicelytoasted,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
Why is there a delay in finding alternate fuels? The 'delay' is making a select group of people super rich, and will continue to until the day oil dries up. Maybe thats the reason for the delay?
 
Happycamper,

stuartambient

Well-Known Member
Frickr said:
Shit, I can legally have weed delivered to my house. I fucking love America.
sorry, but big deal . Basing how the government runs on whether you can have your medicine delivered is shallow . First they demonized a plant , for the most part, for greed. I guess the current movement has made some great strides with mmj, but it's ridiculous and unconstitutional from the beginning to tell me what I can or can not intake into my system .
Now you are, for whatever it's worth or use, databased and profiled in a computer system that is state run and shared with other agencies. I'm not paranoid though, I have worked with databases and having 300 million records in a database(s) is no big effort.
Sorry, all I'm really saying is you are now part of the system that you have some agreement with , an understanding that they are allowing you to do this.

They can also take it away.
 
stuartambient,

Cr8z13

Well-Known Member
stuartambient said:
Frickr said:
Shit, I can legally have weed delivered to my house. I fucking love America.
sorry, but big deal . Basing how the government runs on whether you can have your medicine delivered is shallow . First they demonized a plant , for the most part, for greed. I guess the current movement has made some great strides with mmj, but it's ridiculous and unconstitutional from the beginning to tell me what I can or can not intake into my system .
Now you are, for whatever it's worth or use, databased and profiled in a computer system that is state run and shared with other agencies. I'm not paranoid though, I have worked with databases and having 300 million records in a database(s) is no big effort.
Sorry, all I'm really saying is you are now part of the system that you have some agreement with , an understanding that they are allowing you to do this.

They can also take it away.
First of all, I'm the one that made that statement, not Frickr. Secondly, I'm not on any state database. Registering with the department of health is optional, not mandatory. Lastly, that comment was not the basis for my entire ideology, merely a light-hearted example that sometimes the system gets it right. It's up to us as citizens to perfect our democracy. Pissing and moaning about everything accomplishes nothing. We need to stay vigilant, and not just when our guy is in the White House, be they liberal or conservative.
 
Cr8z13,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
Im trying to find a documentary that was shown on UK TV about 2/3 years ago. It completely rips apart the global warming is manmade argument at every level.

I remember when i saw the trailer i thought how on earth could anyone not see what (manmade) global warming is doing, and it made me angry at the time. However, by the end of the film I could see the other point of view very clearly, and it made me realise how blinkered my point of view was that global warming had to be manmade.

Did anyone else ever see this? If i could remember the title it's probably on Youtube somewhere
 
Happycamper,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
Ah found it
This is first link, there are a few parts as it's a full documentary. Very interesting imo.

pt 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcIBOsViKCc
pt 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw8D2ZCyy7k
pt 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-w1SX8tH68
pt 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkRyEAf9T-o
pt 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgl9d6R5ZC4
pt 6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSTm5LGxt-c
pt 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqniRtFdShM
pt 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZqfCEEqsG4


Just watched the whole thing again....i think i'm speechless.

The developing world (due to climate change) is under intense pressure not to develop. Hmmmm, no one has brought this up yet in this discussion. Discuss?

Greenland was much warmer than it is today 1000 years ago. 1000 years ago, somehow we pulled through that 'catastophy' that the media would cause you to believe is going to happen if the temperature rises. There are cool and warm periods, always have been, always will be.

I think we can all recall terrifying images shown on the television of ice sheets breaking up and melting..... This happens seasonally, like leaves falling off a tree. The ice sheets grow and retract normally with the seasons.

The media forget to mention that they are filming something that is a natural process....(Propaganda)
 
Happycamper,

Frickr

Well-Known Member
great video happycamper, i had no idea that the eviromentalists were blocking the use of any of their natural resources in africa. this is something that could really help out the poor, and they are being told no? i guess keep them away from their resources then go rape and pillage their whole continent when everywhere else runs out of them.

im all for sustainable energy sources. and wind and solar power technologies need to develope alot further. wind power is so "dirty" as in if you were to take an oscilloscope and measure the power being produced from them, you will see that the sine waves produced are very uneven. when there is that much distortion in the power, other things come into play and cause it to be even less efficiant, and making it nearly impossible to send long distances. To actually make this stuff work, huge batteries will need to be constructed near these windfarms to store soem of the energy else what will you do about power if the wind isnt blowing today?

one thing you dont hear any of the green agenda people discussing is geothermal electricity. theres enough energy produced in one year from geothermal that could power all of the earths power needs for thousands of years. but theres no money to be made in this. the big batterys and the millions of wind turbines that need to be produced, and still need a fossil fuel powerplant to offset the majority of the power.

their green power stands to do nothing about the pollution that is already being created, and if it was as big of a problem as it already is, they would be persuing these better sources of power then using the ones that as of right now are shit.
 
Frickr,

vape4health

Well-Known Member
I think this kinda goes along with your discussion . They are making all the power they need plus with just hot and cool water as the power sorce , and if I remember right the power station paid its self off in like 3 years . http://www.chenahotsprings.com/geothermal-power/

There is a bunch more stuff like that , using R-134 and heat , infinity turbines makes a unit that will make 1K watts just from the heat being blown out the pipes of a semi .
 
vape4health,

Frickr

Well-Known Member
yes i know geothermal is used but its still small. now if in 20 years the icecaps were really going to melt, dont you think we would of already shut down these huge powerplants and started using geothermal? and 1000w isnt hardly anything, enough to run 10 100w bulbs.

you always see them bragging about all this new technologies, yet its still the same equipment in the powerplants. the only updating they do to their plants are updates that help their costs go down.
 
Frickr,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
What I love is the whole fundemental basis for global warming ie CO2 goes up, temperature goes up, is wrong. The actual scientific studies show that it's the Sun that effects temperatures on Earth through Sun spots and solar winds and effects on clouds.

There is no correct evidence to show increased co2 increases the temperature. Most of the 'scientists' that apparently back co2 causing global warming are not actually scientists (reviewers and other government people to make up the numbers). A lot of the real scientists have asked for their name to be taken off the 'data' but are denied.

What we have been told so far is propaganda.

What i find the most disturbing is how this is presented as fact when there is actually no science to back it up. It gets spoonfed to our children at school, and i find that extremely worrying.
 
Happycamper,

Happycamper

Sweet Dreams Babycakes
nicelytoasted said:
Keep in mind that while greenhouse gases will contribute to increased overall temperatures, the mega tons of particulates that are also being released into the atmosphere are also contributing to a decrease in overall temperature, acting as a kind of buffer. Without it, we may see a larger overall temperature increase, but it is acting as a double edge sword, imo.
Can i just ask then. Why is the temperature changing just at the Earths surface. If any of this 'warming' was caused by greenhouse gasses and 'greenhouse' effect, the temperature should rise in the atmosphere in certain areas. And it's not, the change is at ground level. So why are you saying greenhouse gasses are warming the planet? Again the science does not actually back it up.
 
Happycamper,
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom