What Do We Think About Climate Change

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by Pericles, Feb 19, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Senad
    Joined: Aug 2009
    Posts: 1
    Likes: 6, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Anywhere

    Senad New Member

    I cannot stop myself from noticing the same determination on both sides of the climate change ring.

    Maybe, one distant day in the future, both sides will stop and think a little about what is the other side saying. Among the rubbish, there are some good points to consider.

    In the meantime happy fighting and eye-pulling.

    Both are essentially wrong anyway.
     
  2. Senad
    Joined: Aug 2009
    Posts: 1
    Likes: 6, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Anywhere

    Senad New Member

    Jimbo, you are getting to excited and are confusing the numbers.

    From your own governmental site, which can be found on the web if you really want to see the numbers, the total donations have reached in the last published year 2006 were 2.2% of average personal income. In real numbers, according to us government that amounts to 295 billions.

    Far short of your TRILLIONS...

    And there is more, according to your own government. The actual donations to the otside world were just 5.7 billions.

    So, in the words of your own government, you are not really charitable people at all.

    And it still goes from worse to much worse for you.

    Much of those 295 billions is collected by for-profit companies which only deliver about 10-15% of donations to those who need them.

    15% of 295 billions is44.5 billions. So in reality, this is just another business for those scavengers there who see profit in everything, and sadly even in charity donations that people give because they want to help.

    And what I find disturbing is the trend of people in the usa to give to PRIVATE organisations because usa citizens do not trust their government.

    Yet, the governmental organisations deliver 90% of received donations and private 15%.

    Not only naive, but plain crazy.

    http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/July/20060728164422berehellek0.1741602.html
     
  3. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    I said that we give away one trillion every 4 years. By you own post we 'only' give away about 250 billion each year which is...... one trillion every 4 years. It's not even true that the last year reported is 2006; that's just the last year total posted on that government website. In 2008 and 2009, the figure passed 300 billion.

    If you can bring yourself to think of something relevant to post to this thread, besides more USA bashing, feel perfectly free to do so.

    Jimbo
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. Senad
    Joined: Aug 2009
    Posts: 1
    Likes: 6, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Anywhere

    Senad New Member

    Yeah, it suddenly appears you did say "every 4 years". Pity I deleted your original post to doublecheck that.

    Allowing that you did say that from the beginning, the facts remain. I cannot feel sorry if you perceive it as usa bashing. That pain is yours and you will know why.

    he truth hurts, my data is coming from your government's own site, so I am in a very good company if I am bashing usa.

    While people may be generous, they are naive and are being taken for a very costly ride.

    And when you consider the fact that UN hascalculated that 50 billions a year for the next five years would ERADICATE the poverty in the whole world, you should sit down and start thinking about the rest of the 295 billions collected every year.

    You ARE being bashed, but not by me. By your own people and the system.

    You just cannot accept it. And that must hurt. After all we all know how bad it is over there.
     
  5. Senad
    Joined: Aug 2009
    Posts: 1
    Likes: 6, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Anywhere

    Senad New Member

    And I hope you feel better after giving me "negative" points. As if that will change my opinion.

    I will not respond in the same manner because that would be lowering myself to your level. Childlish and vindictive.

    Feel free to give me all the negative points you wish, but the facts will still be the same tomorrow.
     
  6. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    Nobody changed anything; you are just an ordinary pompous, self righteous *******, who (as usual) went off half-cocked without even reading my post carefully. If you bother to look at the bottom of ANY post on this forum, you will see a little 'subscript' that says "edited (Date) (time)" if the post has been edited after original posting. Of course, being the flaming ******* that you are, you did not realize that. Since no such sub-script appears on the post which is the subject of this 'discussion', this means that I did not change anything, but instead that you are just an *******. You did in fact save my original post when you quoted it in your post above and, again, you can see that I said it was every 4 years. Do you think that it's even possible that I went back and changed the quotation of my post in your post? Or isn't it more plausible that you are simply a self-righteous, half-cocked *******?

    Jimbo
     
  7. Marco1
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 113
    Likes: 28, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 240
    Location: Sydney

    Marco1 Senior Member

    Jimbo...why do you even bother?
    Posts 1
    Location anywhere?
     
  8. mark775

    mark775 Guest

    No Marco, that's a site problem. This guy has been doing this for a month, or more.
     
  9. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    a little more eye pulling before Im done

    gads where to even begin

    ok
    congratulations would be a good place to start
    Guillermo I want you to take a little silver star out of your desk and place it in the middle of your balding forehead

    good on you mate
    you are the one person to actually try and make a rational and polite conversation out of an otherwise hopeless mass of near religious misunderstanding and completely unnecessary and vindictive childishness
    just goes to prove
    get a key board
    and leave your mind behind

    would that be an eye gouge or an ear pull :p

    ok in order we have

    4051
    way wrong twice ( I hope my tone does not come off to harsh cause Im actually having fun with this :) once when you claim that science knows the snow ball earth event was “not” caused by co2 ( slippery that one, real slippery mate ) somehow I think you are well aware that science at no point ruled out co2 as the cause of this event, and again when you attempt to limit the theory of Rapid climate change to just warming when if fact cooling is a as much a part of the theory as anything, ( another slippery move mate, you got flies on ya )

    really G what are you up to with this kind of fluff ,lets step it up a notch if possible and leave off the wild misleadings

    Oh that last bit about glaciation when co2 is higher. You must have just forgot to mention that co2 derived from rocks is about the most inaccurate method of measuring co2 in the past, You also forgot to mention that land mass configuration and oceanic currents play crucial roles. Go look up when Pangea broke apart and then get back to me with this question, specifically look how it broke up in stages and what happened with the climate during each stage of the break up.

    4066
    on the souls of all the saints in heaven, not that charlatan J R Christy again. Have we really not exposed enough of his lies and industry ties, Sorry but if I remember this is one of the guys who moved over from the tobacco industries defense of smoking PR firm to work for the oil and gas industry PR firm on denying global warming. I see no point whatsoever in soiling our conversation with some of the most discredited names in nonsense.

    4067
    I need to read that article before I can comment on it, if you want to PM me it I’d like to give it a whirl. Funny thing is if you remember when I first reared my ugly mug on this page I was actually interested to hear some viable competing theories and found there just weren’t any. Who knows maybe you got something.

    4071
    oh please you have absolutely no observations indicating any such thing,
    and the Jovian moon TItan “may” be made out of cheese. May, might, could have, should have, would have. I actually find this kinda interesting cause we are in fact just about at solar minimum which is defined by a DROP in the amount of radiation that hits the planet. These guys are saying that its on the rise ? I need to read that G. but the premise that temps are dropping is way wrong my friend, complete bunk would better cover it actually. See graph and pictures for those who have trouble with graphs, bellow.


    4081
    same

    4082
    Nothing quite like starting out with a blatantly false statement
    sooooooo
    where is this precipitous drop in temp again

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    I appreciate your trying to be impartial but bad science on either side is hardly impartial, we are not talking about one year G please there is no “precipitous” drop in temp but instead a steady and alarming rise in temps over a multi-year period

    4102
    I have no idea what you are trying to say but you obviously are thinking you have a point, could you please restate what your trying to say and Ill give it another read when I get a chance, thanks.

    4109
    Actually these people have been dragged kicking and screaming to the table as most of them are industry sponsored politicians representing the corporate oligarchy and as such are completely on the take and in sore need of being strung up by the nads as an example to others IMHO.
    They are only pretending to do something about this because the general public is so outraged over the abuses of corporate polluters that they see there careers are on the line. A few corporate sponsored letters being made public as opposed to there more direct threats to the politicians campaign contributions are bound to leak out.



    4110
    malaria is a bad example, a better one would be the white pine beetle which due to warming is now able to invade the white bark pine tree and kill millions of acres of forest that were once cold enough to inhibit the bugs destructive power.


    4113
    Interesting take given that a few others on this page yourself included have screamed long and loud about the “urban effect”


    4117
    please
    how is it again you cant blame adding ~27% + to atmospheric co2, a known green house gas that makes up ~2/3 of all green house gasses for the observed warming, cause the rise in co2 is exactly synonymous with the rise in temp and the isotopic mass balance places the co2 squarely at the feet of mans activities

    I got real entertainment out to this next and I dearly appreciate it cause I worked my but off today :)
    ok do you really want me to look up who wrote that article and what her sources were cause I know you just hate it when I start exposing industry pr people or the fact that these folks all share a common thread, arguing pro industry positions for pay.

    ok I'm done
    have at it G
    Best of luck with that Pangea thing, and also that white bark pine beetle issue. Snow ball earth thing doesn't look to promising for anyone not wanting to believe in disastrously rapid global temp swings, and those temp graphs kinda put a dent in those wild claims about temp being on some kind of radical decline these days as well.

    The cosmic radiation thing was kinda interesting but someone forgot that we are in solar minimum and the temp graph is still way in the red so Im curious how this guy addresses that little bump in his theory, Send it to me if you would and Ill give it a go

    have fun with it
    and cheers as always
    B
     
  10. mark775

    mark775 Guest

    They're handing this to all those kids in university in CO, aren't they? I know you get Fred Ebert there. Try http://www.850koa.com/main.html while you are bending nails one time.
     
  11. souljour2000
    Joined: Aug 2009
    Posts: 481
    Likes: 15, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 195
    Location: SW Florida

    souljour2000 Senior Member

    Practically all the glaciers are melting at shocking rates heretofore unseen without a major volcanic eruption ...warming is not a theory it is happening and been happening at a rate that is great cause for concern...this is due to the rapidity and widespread occurrence of the changes...and the effects that they will bring...those who think that the increased sea levels and acute climate changes already occurring are not a result of the industrial age build-up of particulates and CO2 seem to me to be somewhat ignorant or delusional. Will we all survive..of course most of us will..is it the end of the world?..hardly...a problem for a guy and his family on an only slightly elevated hammock or seasonal river upland in Bangladesh..maybe...while I appreciate the value of many points of view and a healthy skepticsm...should we wait another 20 years to satisfy the masses of sensationalist fox news folks who exist to be a thorn in the progressive agenda? hopefully not...
     
  12. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member


    Perhaps we are warming a bit, but we've been here before, The arctic was ice free in the 1930's; the Medieval Warm Period was as warm or warmer than now. The only papers that said otherwise are the works of 'The Team', and those specific works have been irrevocably discredited. The vast majority (consensus:D ) of peer-reviewed temp reconstructions show a prominent global MWP.

    So why do you look for an anomalous cause for warming that is, in the end, not anomalous:?:

    Jimbo
     
  13. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    Boston,

    If we put all that CO2 up there, why can't we find it? The mass balance data do not support this attribution at all. You have been challenged several times to cite a mass-balance study with attribution numbers somewhere near this amount. We would even settle for the 21% the IPCC claims. The ones you've cited already did not show this at all, but rather only supported very small attribution numbers in the 3-10% range..

    Furthermore, you have yet to explain how our CO2 emissions of X Gt total could have caused an atmospheric concentration change which also happens to amount to X Gt, when it would really need to have been ~50X Gt to account for the equilibrium concentration with the ocean.

    For X Gt emissions to result in X Gt of concentration change, we need a long residence time for atmospheric CO2. But alas, we already know that the residence time is short, at least it is whenever anybody does a measurement study. You were asked to cite a measurement study which proved a long residence time, and you failed to do so up to now, so I assume that you could not find one.

    Will you deliver this time?

    Jimbo
     
  14. hwsiii
    Joined: Nov 2008
    Posts: 20
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 13
    Location: Pascagoula, MS

    hwsiii Junior Member

    In my opinion, it doesn't really matter what the IPCC claims about Global Warming. There is NO Science involved when the data that is used to prove that global warming is a FACT is hidden, and then destroyed on purpose, so it CANNOT be REPLICATED. Any so called scientist or scientists, who destroys the original underlying data used to prove a theory, KNOWS the formulas and information they used for their theory was not SCIENCE, but a means to an end. SCIENTIFIC theory can only be proven when the underlying data that was used is available and the same results are replicated by many different scientists, using qualified and quantified research and science to prove the same theory.
    Scientists who either disagree with a theory, from their own research, or who simply want to test the science involved with a theory purported by another scientist in the past have been freely given the data and at least some of the supporting information of how the answer was derived from this. And IF the information wasn't given freely, the scientific community has always had great reservations abouth the research and the conclusions that were reached from that research.
    In the case of global warming ALL that is said is that they are DENIERS of the TRUTH, that the science is settled on ANTHRPROGENIC global warming. I DO NOT believe this is true at all, until it has been proven by many different scientist in many different ways. The Hockey Stick has been proven to be wrong, yet it is still touted in many instances. NASA's numbers were also proven wrong and they admitted that it was errors on their part, so ANYBODY can and does make MAJOR errors.
    Anytime the massive amounts of money that has been parceled out for global warming research is involved, it makes me question the outcome of such research. If this theory is absolutely proven or not, it appears that what went on in Copenhagen and the possible outcome of further negotiations in this vein, is that there will be one of the largest transfers of wealth in World History. And before I spend my money I want to know the WHOLE TRUTH not just the IPCC version.
     

  15. mark775

    mark775 Guest

    Souljour, I have a home on a tidal slough, of sorts, that I have had since 1980. There is no more water here now than there was then. Analogous to GW, do rising sea levels actually cause the sea to go down? I'm just trying to learn. Thanks - Mark
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.