1. You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Climate Change

Discussion in 'World News & Politics' started by Slugger926, Apr 12, 2012.

  1. sc5mu93

    sc5mu93 Cowboy

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Messages:
    3,626
    Location:
    Plano TX
    Okay, first fruits of my climate change research that oklahomans can USE.

    Where the eff is my grant and island?!?!
  2. PokealypseNow

    PokealypseNow Cowboy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,431
    Location:
    An Okie in Orygun
    Nah man, you got it all wrong!

    The real money to be made is to get Big Oil and other industries to sponsor you to come out against climate change. C'mon.
  3. Hokey_Pokey

    Hokey_Pokey Cowboy

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    2,644
    Location:
    Voted Sexiest OP Member by Harris Poll
  4. Slugger926

    Slugger926 Cowboy

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    9,217

    The earth is cooling, we need to burn more oil and fossil fuels to keep it warm? The sun is burning up its fuel?
  5. Jonathangpark

    Jonathangpark Wrangler

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Messages:
    449
    Here's a pretty good write up on the falsities of Global Warming. If you really research it, there is very little strong evidence and the rest is "manufactured".

    http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/03/climate-change-hoax-opinions-contributors-larry-bell.html

    As well, there are many global scientist that claim it's a hoax. You have to search them out though because they are way less publicized although they are far more numerous than the other side.
  6. rideemcowboys

    rideemcowboys Cowboy

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,246
    Location:
    Moore
    Yeah right. Next your gonna tell me that Al Gore didn't really invent the Internet.

    You guys just can't handle the inconvenient truth.
    Jonathangpark likes this.
  7. MustangPokeFan

    MustangPokeFan Cowboy

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,987
    Location:
    Mustang, Ok
    These guys should get a 20 million dollar climate change grant, the Nobel Prize for weather bravery and the Paul "Bear" Bryant Award for oustanding citizenship......
  8. naranjaynegro

    naranjaynegro Deputy

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    6,979
    Location:
    Houston area
    How do we know we are "accurately" recording the temperatures? This sounds significantly easier than it actually is.
  9. JAYBEE

    JAYBEE Wrangler

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,130
    Location:
    Oklahoma City

    I use charts in my futures trading program (IMHO a small trader couldn't effectively operate without them) and all things being equal (which they often are not) the longer the chart the more accurate. That being, a one year weekly chart is more accurate than a 3 month daily chart, a 3 month daily chart is more accurate than a daily one hour chart and so on.

    But no way one can remove risk, literally nothing ventured nothing gained, but programmed control of risk is vital.

    In climate matters a 2,000 year chart (readily available on the web) is very revealing and light years ahead of the smoke Al Gore tried to blow us our anus. Even at that though, a 2,000 year chart is nothing more than a insignificant blip on the geological radar. Charts, properly depicted and evaluated, don't lie but surely liars can chart (and easily manipulate).
  10. naranjaynegro

    naranjaynegro Deputy

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    6,979
    Location:
    Houston area
    Nah, they are too focused on ruining people's drinking water supply.
  11. PokealypseNow

    PokealypseNow Cowboy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,431
    Location:
    An Okie in Orygun
    Larry Bell? As in Dr. Larry Bell, professor of space architecture? Good thing we have a real grade-A climatologist on our hands here.

    Oh, wait...

    Here's a rebuttal of the claimed "facts" that Dr. Bell presents. Now, I know it's Think Progress and, as such, will probably be automatically discounted, but at least here the authors take time to address the claims Bell makes.

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/01/07/207304/forbes-larry-bell-and-the-climate-of-corruption/
  12. JAYBEE

    JAYBEE Wrangler

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,130
    Location:
    Oklahoma City

    Yep. An expected "attack the messenger(s)" ploy, which I've read way too much of re: this issue. Nice try, but when and only when I see equal time devoted to this highly controversial issue on such leftwing stronghold media as the green channel, HBO, Newsweek, PBS, Time, NBC, NY Times etc, will I begin to seriously consider both sides.

    The pro and con forces are almost equally divided yet mostly all we continue to see is continued leftwing indoctrination. Almost as phony as the "evolution is the the only possible way," fuzziness we see from academia today. No change in my view, i.e. the GW advocates "could" be right, but as for now I remain far from persuaded.

    I did note a 10 year, highly dramatized chart to "prove" the sea temp is rising at a rapid pace. Shame, shame.
  13. panhandler62

    panhandler62 Cowboy

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Messages:
    7,666
    Location:
    Martinsburg, WV
    So, if a 7 year old girl used the "pink Barbie" theory to predict stock futures we would be "attacking the messenger" if we brushed her comments aside?

    Far too many non-experts rendering expert testimony on climate these days.
  14. naranjaynegro

    naranjaynegro Deputy

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    6,979
    Location:
    Houston area
    Dr. Neil Frank isn't buying into any of this climate change stuff.......or at least how the data is being presented.





    Climategate: You should be steamed

    NEIL FRANK
    HOUSTON CHRONICLE




    now that Copenhagen is past history, what is the next step in the man-made global warming controversy? Without question, there should be an immediate and thorough investigation of the scientific debauchery revealed by “Climategate.”
    If you have not heard, hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU, of the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. CRU is one of the top climate research centers in the world. Many of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate scientists in Britain and the U.S. who are closely associated with the authoritative (albeit controversial) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing the perception that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases.
    Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic. The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.
    Climate alarmists would like you to believe the science has been settled and all respectable atmospheric scientists support their position. The believers also would like you to believe the skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil and that they are few in number with minimal qualifications.
    But who are the skeptics? A few examples reveal that they are numerous and well-qualified. Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people's endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel's report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to “strongly reconsider” her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS' true position.

    What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.
    Second, skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. Numerous field experiments have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas. More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it must involve water vapor.
    Third, and most important, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly overpredicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide. We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an economic disaster on the U.S. and the world.
    The revelation of Climategate occurs at a time when the accuracy of the climate models is being seriously questioned. Over the last decade Earth's temperature has not warmed, yet every model (there are many) predicted a significant increase in global temperatures for that time period. If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?
    Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate.
    Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.
  15. PokesFanatic

    PokesFanatic Cowboy

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,491
    Location:
    Springfield, MO
    Temperature measurements using the 76mm Hg method are very accurate and were/are easy to calibrate since the thermodynamics of water and mercury were/are well known. Furthermore, back then (140 years ago) there was no air conditioning, no pavement on roads, and far less of things like urban deforestation to skew results.

    On another note, % ionization of air bubbles in ice has been regarded as an accurate means of determining temperature. The method goes back a hundred years or so and allows scientists to look hundreds of thousands of years into the past by examining ice core samples.

    We have quite a vivid picture of what the temperatures were like going back quite a long time ago.
  16. PokesFanatic

    PokesFanatic Cowboy

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,491
    Location:
    Springfield, MO
    As I understand them, meteorological models and climate models are not the same One forecasts a few days, the other for many years (and with many, many more factors). Here is an explanation of the difference from someone who identifies as a climate expert--and who doesn't use the language of the alarmists.
  17. Jonathangpark

    Jonathangpark Wrangler

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Messages:
    449
    Okay, thinkprogress.org? Mine was at least from Forbes magazine. You might as well have pulled that off of Al Gore's website. Of course they are going to rebut what all "Global Warming Deniers" say. Second, there is nothing of fact said in that entire article. No citations, no actual studies, scientists names, events proving global warming, etc... The whole article can be summed up in-- Don't read Bell's books, trust us we are thinkprogress.org, global warming is real.

    Come on now...
  18. PokealypseNow

    PokealypseNow Cowboy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,431
    Location:
    An Okie in Orygun
    WTF are you talking about? The whole article was full of citations. Clearly you didn't bother reading it past a cursory glance and automatically dismissed it because it's TP.org.

    Goddamn, I must be psychic.

    And nice appeal to authority. Where this an economic issue, I might give your argument about an opinion column in Forbes a bit more weight, but as it stands, neither Forbes nor Think Progress (whom I don't care for on the whole as well) are scientific journals nor dedicated climate change/denier outlets.

    So, we're left with the articles themselves.
  19. Jonathangpark

    Jonathangpark Wrangler

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Messages:
    449
    Of course I dismissed it because it was thinkprogress.org. It might as well been written on a cocktail napkin... That sites a joke.
  20. PokealypseNow

    PokealypseNow Cowboy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,431
    Location:
    An Okie in Orygun
    Wow. Talk about confirmation bias.

Share This Page