Discussion in 'The Vapor Lounge' started by Bob Loblaw, Aug 14, 2013.
by: Jim Mulvaney — with Daniele Graziani
stolen from Vicki
wtf? please say no... as ndt says.. science is true, whether or not you believe it.
97% of climate scientists agree. the goddamn north pole has been a lake for the last 10 yrs
A sophomoric treatment of the issue with a patsy at best, we all know the whole solar system is warming together. He never proved the "man made" part of it which is what I take exception to because the data has been corrupted. AGW has never been proven, in fact, if you look at the math, our contribution is statistically insignificant. Once you understand that the #1 global warming gas in the atmosphere is water vapor, and see the math, it changes things. Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity? It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
once again, this page is for science, 97% of climate scientists agree that it is man made and even if it isn't it is semantic at best to quibble over depths of causality. the effect is the same.
Oh sorry Bob, I guess math isn't science any more unless it furthers a political agenda or redistributes my wealth.
how exactly am i doing either of those, provably, not arguably?
actually, you aren't and no agenda by the weather underground, and how is it that the same agencies reported the same results back when bush was in office.
who the hell is geocraft? and what makes their data better than the 97% of the rest. that is math that you are ignoring.
and i am sure that your are in that top 1% (more likely the top 30%, if that, who are in true denial as to wealth inequality) who are so scared of losing the little you have, keep justifying the literal poisoning of the earth with a dwindling resource by the largest and most powerful nation on earth and all those behind it.
you are welcome to share reliable data. but i would no more accept that post and link vs. all the other data any more than i would accept ron paul's arguments on the validity of racial equality.
and when i went to research your "math" i found this
That would depend on what you call reliable if you strip back some of the layers you get this
Note the name at the bottom "Monte Hieb" as far as I could find he works in the mining industry
An industry also set to have a large loss if CO2 regulation is passed, now a real skeptic would ask themselves why is it that these denier experts are linked to industrial groups like oil, energy and mining. The Australian Geologist that deniers also like to quote "Ian Plimer" is often referred to as a geologist but again his work is related to mining and he sits on the boards of at least three mining companies.
So to answer your question no geocraft is not reliable stick to actual science related sites try this http://www.agu.org/
Bob, the people who want to control us with this climate change bs have been exposed, its a natural process that we have very little effect on. I can point you in the right direction but you have to do the reading and thinking. The Geocraft article is MATH based on common data, not the "hockey stick" graph that we all know was faked with FAKE data.
I tend to agree climate change is just the natural order and a cycle and has happened throughout the ages .
You have to have warming before cooling (ain't that kinda a part of one of them there laws of science) .
I think the Earth will cleanse itself every X amount of years to deal with parasites like mankind .
With the advent of scientific dogma most of which is pure theory . We (people) seem to forget all this monitoring of weather and climate has only been happening for a couple of generations .
Geological EVIDENCE proves its happened before man walked upright ,Seems Only in some science circles you can have it both ways .
EDIT : Just watched someone on tv talking about how climate change brought about By mankind
is the reason the Mississippi river is flooding citys like Nashville . But if you didn't build in a floodplain that is tens of thousands of years old it just may not happen .
actually IT ISN'T. did you read anything i posted? nope
i read and discredited yours.
that geocraft article is FAKE and proven so. real scientists don't post crap on business sites. they do it in peer reviewed articles for shit's sake.
you refuse to acknowledge that no matter what party involved, the science remains the same. your "evidence" is anectdotal at best. and horribly misleading at worst.
there is no argument that we are on an upswing. there is also no argument that humans are exacerbating it.
i agree w/ the parasitic cleansing.
and i've already stated my thoughts on scientific dogma.
again, no one but climate change deniers argue that it's not man made or that anyone else is making the opposing argument. NO ONE SAYS IT"S NOT CYCLICAL. NO ONE SAYS WE AREN'T on an upswing. only 3% say man has nothing to do with it.
is this clear enough?
however, you can't get 97% of scientists to agree on much more than gravity, and that still isn't provable, measurable, but it's cause is still not provable.
No, Geocraft is absolutely terrible. I've found completely inaccurate information on that website several times. For example, people have claimed that water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect, I ask them where they heard that, and they respond that they read it online at Geocraft. The statement is completely wrong - water vapor plus clouds are responsible for more like 75% of the greenhouse effect, and water vapor alone less than 50%.
NASA GISS has a lot of useful (accurate) information.
Another person mentioned Skeptical Science, which is a very accurate site that makes the science understandable to the public.
This article might help you:
and i gotta say this should end now as this isn't the point of this fucking thread
and seriously, i am kinda disappointed. but feel free to continue to post the same data by the same people who ALREADY PROFIT off of the current order.
once again. remember when we changed the world for nothing?
I know you want an uplifting thread Bob and I can tell your dedicated to your beliefs as much as anyone who has taken religious vows .
I do believe that the carry over of the old ecology movement in the late '60s early '70s created all this modern "science" and I do think there is an agenda. I do believe a cleaner less polluted world where all people have access to clean water and air plus abundant food is only right .
.......................Me no know what Geocraft is I still read books .
I didn't say we had nothing to do with it Bob, I said our contribution is insignificant. The flea cannot wag the dog. And the science coming out actually says there has been no warming for 16 years so . . . even your own people admit it! Talk about not reading things, I read both sides Bob, have been for a long time and see truth in both. YOU on the other hand are in the tank for one side only.
1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
So, in my personal spiritual journey, I've developed a hypothesis that angels, spirits, faeries, gods, goddesses, guides, and other "fantasy" and spiritual "beings" are actually thought-forms, brought into being, and kept alive and active, by the energetic creation of being believed in.
I believe that our Universe is a sentient thing, whose goal and purpose is what we see everywhere - expansion, procreation, ascension, evolution. The one thread that runs through everything, whether it is the Dark Matter, or the very energy of Quarks, is Love.
While at its core, the Universe is sentient and purposeful, it is larger, and more blind in its purpose... but, there an energy there that may be tapped by intense emotional/spiritual intent. This is where stories of miracles come from, and of helpful beings. It is true, though not as "religious" as many believe. I believe that religions were invented to provide a framework for accessing this power of the Universe. In fact, all the great myths are founded on a Truth that none of them can accurately describe.
It's also entirely possible that this universe exists within the singularity point of a black hole.
A theory I thought of back in the day when I was like 10 and didn't know how to Internet was that the Big Bang was a result of a black hole filling up and exploding in a different dimension. Years later, I find out white holes are a real thing and could possibly explain it.
i definitely believe in the power of human will and what can be achieved when it is focused. the more people, the more it is amplified. one of the reasons i enjoy concerts so much.
i agree that love and lack thereof are the binding and destructive forces inherent within the physical ones. it is why i have used them as my 'occam's razor' of sorts when defining morality and motivation. when people are reacting/rationalizing out of fear/anger then their perspective becomes diminished and their actions are usually condemn-able. it's an easy barometer, however seeing that line thru our own lens takes years of practice to hardwire the pathways so that we process thru objectivity (or as close as is possible within this system) while maintaining empathy.
it's funny that you say that, there are more and more physicists coming to that idea as well. there is a huge black hole at the dead center of this universe. it's amazing how much clarity of thought comes before the dogma starts setting in. i have a picture of how the multiverse flows from micro-macrocosm that could only be render by a cg artist. i am hoping i find one, or that another visionary makes it first.
@Bob Loblaw hair is enough of a scientific/spiritual mystery for me.
On that note, I like to think of life and our connections with one another, as fabric. When one of us dies, there is a hole in that fabric that grows over with another life. As a result, we are all connected.
For example, if I tickle my foot, Bob should notice an itchy nose.
I really love things like this!
Jupiter and its Galilean moons this morning from NW Indiana.
heart to heart tattoos
Alex Grey work in progress Dance of the Cannabia
Bob, regarding the black hole at the centre of the universe...
My understanding of the Big Bang theory and such tells me that everywhere is the "centre".
All space emerged from a single point, and essentially, that means that relative to you, the centre of the universe is exactly wherever you are. (Kinda extrapolating an paraphrasing there - would love to be corrected if I'm wrong )
Combine that with the fact that the observable universe is far smaller than the actual "limits" of the entire universe,
AND we don't know the geometric shape of the universe, hell, we don't even know whether its bound or unbound as far as I'm aware.
All those factors lead me to think that you may be miss-speaking when you talk of a black hole at the centre of the universe.
Are you maybe referring to the super massive black hole that resides at the centre of our galaxy? (And every other galaxy also has a similar SMBH at their respective centre)
Now just for some more rambling on the subject because I love astronomy
If we overlook the above factors, and assume that there was indeed a single spot that was the centre of the universe, AND that we could observe it, then I would guess that it would end up in intergalactic space, since my understanding Is that a significant majority of the universe is intergalactic space.
I'm not aware of any inter-galactic black holes, though I can't think of any reason that they'd be impossible.
I'd think that an intergalactic black hole would be particularly hard to observe, unless it had a massive accretion disk essentially making it a quasar, though I'm not sure how it would generate that accretion disk.
Now that I think about it, I might be remembering that inter galactic space is still full of very diffuse hydrogen gas, not sure about that one.
I've had many a night getting blazed and contemplating black holes, relativity, and all that fun brain melting stuff
With regard to the global warming stuff, I really haven't looked into it enough, but my understanding is that the scientific consensus is that we need to clean up our act or shit is gonna go downhill.
I also want to throw out there that if you ever see a chart of average temperatures, which shows a relatively flat line, and it starts in 1996, it's probably horse-shit.
1996 was one of the hottest years ever recorded or something, so it's a deceitful way of messing with the data.
(Wow, this ended up being a pretty long post )
The universe doesn't have limits per se...it is only limited by what we are able to see at the present time. Also, the universe itself is expanding outward into the "blackness", rather than being contained in a box with limited space...so far as we understand it.
Separate names with a comma.