Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous 8 years | Best. Roman. Candle. Next »
“Global Warming is a myth,” you said! “The Earth is actually cooling right now,” you said! Oh, just shut up and push Laura!
What’s happening in this picture? Tell us in the Comments
picture: dunno source, via our lolcat builder. lol caption:
 | MrsQ of Philadelphia on Time to Get FLOTUS Fit |
 | Geary on Time to Get FLOTUS Fit |
| Geary on The Running Man |
| MrsQ of Philadelphia on Time to Get FLOTUS Fit |
 | Wahoo on Cool Front Moving In |
| MrsQ of Philadelphia on Time to Get FLOTUS Fit |
| Geary on The Running Man |
 | waggle237 on The Running Man |
| MrsQ of Philadelphia on The Running Man |
| Geary on The Running Man |
Cheezburger Company Blog
I Can Has Cheezburger? Home - Lolcats n Funny Pictures 
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies 
Just Capshunz - All of the Internet. Captioned
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode. 
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz 
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
first.
First to be an ass hat.
I don’t think just saying “first” wins anything, fella. We’re supposed to say something relevant and, one would hope, clever.
*sigh* and we went nearly an hour without commenting the firstie. You know, that’s the only way they’ll learn – ignore them completely, unless they’re saying something relevant.
Global warming is no myth – I simply don’t think we have as much impact as we think we do (should). So full of ourselves.
Global Warming is merely misnamed. It should be renamed Solar Warming, as the entire solar system is warming, since the Sun is getting warmer.
I thought the pic was funny though.
Yeah. I’ll give ‘em that.
Eh? Entire solar system? I think you are wrong. Certain planets like Jupiter are getting warmer, but that is explained by increased mixing in the atmosphere bringing heat up from below. Caused by Shoemaker-Levy and the new storm system, not the sun.
Scientists aren’t stupid, they do measure the amount that the sun varies in output, very accurately. And the amount it is changing by doesn’t match the amount the planet is changing by.
Basically, when you see one of these myths, you should check out a reputable sit like http://realclimate.org/. You will find that all these silly anti-global warming myths have been thoroughly debunked.
But I know you warming deniers simply don’t want to accept the consequences of your actions are screwing up the planet, because that would require change. So you pick and choose your facts, and simply ignore any source of evidence that doesn’t fit what you want to believe is true. And you ignore it when we counter your ridiculous and discredited arguments, again and again. Its almost as if you think that by repeating a lie often enough, it will become true.
Reputable? Any site (or person) that only reports one side of the issue cannot be considered reputable. You accuse me of picking and choosing my facts, yet you are guilty of the same. If you want to discuss some facts, look at both sides, like the fact that there has yet to be any conclusive link between CO2 emissions and the Earths temperate recognized by the scientific community as a whole (there are as many of these “not stupid” scientists who disagree with that theory as agree with it). Or the fact that a lot of the older temperature and CO2 data is questionable at best, and modeled at worst (climate issues are among the most difficult to accurately model with a computer). It is a fact that PARTS of the Earth are getting hotter. Parts of it are also getting cooler. Climate is non-static and cyclical, meaning it CHANGES. Are we helping it? NO. Are we causing the end of all life on Earth? Most likely not. Should we try to be more environmentally responsible? Yes.
And where is your Risk Management skills in all of this? Economic societies, insurance groups, government agencies (Pentagon included!) All call for IMMEDIATE action on Global Climate Destabilization. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of Risk Management, please check out http://www.manpollo.org/ and do the numbers for yourself.
Environmental responsibility is necessary for us as a growing race on the face of the planet. It will affect the world around us in a positive manner, and preserve it for future generations. It’s too bad it’s taken ‘theories’ (because theories aren’t proven) such as Global Warming to get us to recognise the beauty in the world around us.
But… the earth is still here for us to use. The whole concept is really finding a balance that is acceptable between the planet and ourselves. The world will far outlive the human race – that is not a question. What’s to question is, how beneficial of a symbiotic relationship can we have with her?
Nicely put. Except for one small point. The word ‘theory’ when used in a scientific context means something very different than when you or I say, “I have this theory about so and so…” The word that a scientist would use in that situation is hypothesis. A theory, in science, is a fairly certain thing. It is one step below a ‘law.’ And laws can’t be proven either.
Nothing in science is EVER proven. Nothing. Science says nothing about how the universe actually works. A theory is something that makes useful predictions about the universe. It doesn’t matter if it describes the way the universe really works, as long as it makes correct predictions.
For example, Einstein proved Newton’s theory of gravity is wrong. Yet Newton’s theory makes the correct predictions in all situations not involving relativistic velocities. And so engineers continue to use Newton’s theory, because it is much simpler to compute accurate predictions using it than with Einstein’s theory, in 99.99% of cases.
Someday, we may find that Einstein’s theory of gravity is wrong, too. But it will still make the same predictions, and those predictions will still be right in all the same cases where they are right now.
Remember, Global Warming is a ‘theory’ in the same way that gravity or relativity are theories.
You are oversimplifying here just a wee bit. You see, you are skipping the fact that there are alternate “theories” about climate change that some scientists see as either equally valid, or refuting the global warming “theory”. By your liogic, those theories have as much chance of being true as any other. Not to mention the GROSS exaggeration of likening the theory of Global Waming to Gravity or Relativity. Any Scientist will tell you that all theories are NOT equally valid or strong. I know, I am married to one.
There are alternate hypotheses. We have seen similar climate shifts in the past; however, they weren’t as accelerated as this one. Humans contribute, but I doubt they are the sole cause of climate destabilization.
And anyway, Global Warming is still a misnomer, because it addresses drastic global change in both directions. A more suitable name would be Global Climate Change; but that doesn’t sound as catchy, I suppose.
“Global Warming is a ‘theory’ in the same way that gravity or relativity are theories.”
Except that the theories of relativity and gravity have produced testable predictions that were confirmed by experiment. The ‘theory’ of global warming has not produced any succesful predictions.
“Any site (or person) that only reports one side of the issue cannot be considered reputable.”
Does that go for the theory of gravity as well?
Actually, it kinda does, since the current theory of Gravity does NOT properly predict behavior in all situations.
Are we talking about Newtonian or Einsteinian physics? Because we already know that Newton was wrong, at least about the bigger picture. Newton’s gravity is only for very specific situations, but does apply to a lot of common situations.
There is a great youtube video showing the implications of Newtonian or Einsteinian physics on the event that the sun suddenly disappears. I can’t find it right now because I’m at work, but it shows why Newton was wrong, which is that Newton predicted that the planets would instantaneously begin to change direction, whereas Einstein knew that nothing travels faster than the speed of light. Thus, the earth would still feel the gravitation pull from the Sun for another eight minutes until the change in the gravitational field could travel to Earth.
OK, point taken. What you are trying to say is that there are some – by and large marginal – points about man made climate change that are to be discussed, but that by and large for all that matters to most human beings we can take it as a fact.
I suppose this is your first time seeing Seth, then.
Seth, hergieburbur. Hergiburbur, douchenozzle.
indeed it is.
Is that anything like a crotchwoffle? You guys come up with the best insults.
Douchenozzle is so much better than douchebag, because the bag doesn’t go anywhere interesting, amiright?
Its nice to see that when you have nothing of substance to add to a debate, you aren’t above a little mud slinging. Makes it ever so much more fun, doesn’t it? You don’t have to pretend you are stuffy and proper and polite and educated, you can just throw around words like douchenozzle like the rest of us.
lol… You are correct, I don’t have anything productive to add to this argument. I was just letting hergieburbur here know that you are one of the most irate people here. You seem to have gotten a little better than when I first saw you, which I applaud. No big deal. If hergieburbur wants a citation for how big of a douche you are, he/she can certainly ask me at any time. Would you prefer me to cite your douche*-ness everytime I use it?
*Citations here: http://punditkitchen.com/2008/06/25/political-pictures-george-bush-bill-clinton-women/
and here: http://punditkitchen.com/2008/07/02/political-pictures-press-ask-soldiers-camp-justice/
For good measure, I’m going to go ahead and post this again, just in case:
lol… You are correct, I don’t have anything productive to add to this argument. I was just letting hergieburbur here know that you are one of the most irate people here. You seem to have gotten a little better than when I first saw you, which I applaud. No big deal. If hergieburbur wants a citation for how big of a douche you are, he/she can certainly ask me at any time. Would you prefer me to cite your douche*-ness everytime I use it?
*Citations here: http://punditkitchen.com/2008/06/25/political-pictures-george-bush-bill-clinton-women/
and here: http://punditkitchen.com/2008/07/02/political-pictures-press-ask-soldiers-camp-justice/
lol pwnage…and douchenozzle and crotchwaffle are my alltime favorite insults, saved for special ppl.
<>
This site explains the fallacies in arguments used by corporations and politicians who wish to dismiss global warming and humanity’s part in it because if they fail to do so, they must take responsibility. The bias is not in the debunking, but in the reasons these groups create the myths to begin with. What failures we have had in modeling data have all too often been us _under_estimating, not overestimating, the extent to which global warming is progressing. The fact that oil companies can hire someone with a science degree and pay them six figures annually if they come up with arguments that can distort the truth does _not_ mean that there is any credible doubt about the facts. Global warming _is_ happening: statistical variance is expected in any natural progression, and does not invalidate an obvious trend. And carefully researched models to define the reasons for global warming without human activity _fail_ to explain the increase since the 1970′s, whereas those which take human involvement into account _match_ the real world data. so, we _are_ causing it. And we may not kill off all life on Earth, but unless we take drastic measures to reverse the process, what will be left won’t be any more like us than we are like the dinosaurs.
Actually, climate modeling goes through a rigorous testing process. It has to (obviously) follow all the laws of physics and if you put in raw data from the past it should predict past climate events accurately- one model if i remember correctly predicted the effects of a volcano eruption almost perfectly.
also, “climate change” is the real problem here. and it can imply different effects in different parts of the earth. there are some glaciers in new zealand that are actually growing right now because of their weird locatin/ something like that.
the reason why it’s called “global warming” is because the effects of putting a lot of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere causes a rise in average global temperatures over time
Yes, oh well-educated scientist with a PhD in atmospheric chemistry and astrophysics!
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm
Isn’t that the same report that a large number of scientists sued the UN to have their name removed from because it mis-represented their findings to make Global Warming appear to be more of a threat? I can also show this: “Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.” I have also seen reports that the majority of the Southern Hemisphere is actually getting COOLER.
My whole point is that the Global Warming Doomsayers have no real proof.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) absorbs infra-red radiation much more readily than either Oxygen (O2) or Nitrogen (N2).
Burning hydrocarbon fuels (oil, coal etc) releases CO2 into the atmosphere.
These are empirically demonstrable facts; i.e. they can be demonstrated by experiments that any reasonably competent undergraduate science student can repeat anywhere in the world, given an appropriately equipped laboratory.
“Burning hydrocarbon fuels (oil, coal etc) releases CO2 into the atmosphere.”
So does breathing…
And you think almost 7 Billion people exhaling has less of an affect than around 4.25 Billion people exhaling (as of th1e 1970s)?
The thing with that is that the C that you are breathing out today was fixed into plant matter just a few days (for vegetables) or months (for meat) ago. See, plants take in CO2 and give off O2.
When we burn oil or coal, we are releasing CO2 that was fixed millions of years ago.
So, the “breathing argument” is silly.
The point being that, irrespective of the raging debate on the *immediacy* of the ecological threat posed by industrial / domestic CO2 emissions, the *exiistance* of the threat is a mathematical certainty, not a matter of conjecture.
Oops! Too many ‘i’s and a ‘a’ in ‘existence’ there – sorry, it went off the edge of the text-box
No. I don’t.
You know what else releases CO2????? All living things when they exhale. Do you suppose then maybe if we all held our breath, the environment would be saved?
It is a process of life and has been for nearly the whole 4 billion years that the earth has existed. The fact of the matter is that the planetary temperatures are returning to the levels before the ice ages. Man doesn’t impact it and can’t stop it.
That is a plain fact that any elementary school student can understand without a lab, a undergrad or a laboratory.
Oh noes… here we go again…
where?
there.
The Real Truth about Global Warming…. In the 1960s we had the Iceage is coming announcments. I remember being frightened thinking about a mile high moving wall of ice coming at us… The following link is a long read but well worth the time.
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html
Finally…someone not duped by the Media hype!
A fringe group of whackos in the 60s thought that we might have an ice age. No serious climate scientists did. Your anecdote proves nothing but your own ignorance and your ability to cherry pick evidence that supports what you’ve already decided must be true,
Unlike you who are so very open minded, eh? I remember the ‘ice age’ warnings – and they had as much push as the global warning does. “Scientists” said it, so it MUST be true.
Just as many reputable scientists debunk global warming as defend it. Evolution is taught a near fact in our schools – yet reputable scientists have now scientifically shown it is probably false.
The sun is actually getting warmer. Volcanoes push more CO2 into China pollutes the earth more than any other country. But you don’t see Al Gore (or anyone else for that matter) going after China, do you? And just who made Al Gore an expert, anyway??
Remember the depletion of the ozone layer?? AT the same time that OZONE warnings (too MUCH) are issued every hot muggy summer day?
I don’t get it.
“Waterworld” made it to the top of someone’s NetFlix queue, I guess.
Hah! I don’t really remember that movie too well. Was the premise in it that ‘global warming’ caused the world to be covered in water? I wonder if that is where Gore got the idea that icecaps would cause the water levels to rise….
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114898/
Instant Knowledge.
Tada!
no, that’s only one theory of the movie… what about the other views?
No, I was just saying, you can look here for a synopsis of what the movie was about, as that seemed to be what they were asking for.
I hold no theories (or care, even) about this movie.
It saddens me when people don’t get it…..
Melting of the ice at the north pole will not make the water level rise for the same reason that ice melting in a glass of water won’t. The ice is already displacing its weight in water. But reduced ice pack will let glaciers flow into the ocean faster, causing rising sea levels.
And ice melting at the south pole is sitting on land, so it definitely will make sea levels rise.
The worst part is that fresh water is less dense than salt water, and may gum up the ocean heat transport system, causing norther regions to become colder at the same time that the tropics are getting much, much hotter since the heat won’t be carried away.
Now explain how increased CO2 has always followed global warming trends and not visa versa and yet even with proof of this there is a “consensus” that it is the cause.
Historically, most global warming phases have been triggered by sudden releases of large quantities of methane from partially submerged decaying organic matter (swamps). Methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
As the temperature rises, the carbon balance of the ecosystem as a whole swings away from photosynthesis and towards metabolism, raising atmospheric CO2 concentration.
The above response was written in haste; if I might be allowed to correct a few details:
i) The principal source of sudden rises in atmospheric methane concentration leading to past global warming phases has been fossil carbon via mud-volcanoes.
ii) Methane, though more absorbent of infra-red radiation than CO2, is less stable and so remains in the atmosphere for a much shorter period.
iii) Another reason for the increase in CO2 following these events is that methane itself combines with oxygen to form CO2 and water.
But that, essentially, is how increased CO2 has always followed (non-anthropogenic) global warming trends and not vice versa. And that’s why the consensus.
and your sources would be???????
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23991257-25717,00.html
Click on my name for an interesting article on the effect of the debate.
first!
See the first string at the top of the comments, please.
I don’t know much about global warming. If it’s true, though, I want to know why I’m sitting through the coldest summer I’ve ever experienced
That is because your backyard isn’t the rest of the world… if you look at the global mean average, it has warmed considerably… “Climate tells you what clothes to buy. Weather tells you what clothes to wear.”
the global mean average – redundancy FAIL
When talking to ill informed individuals its important to explain things using smaller words… redundancy WIN
… But… but average is BIGGER than mean. :O
… Get it? 7 letters vs. 4 letters? Huh? Huh? Huh? ??!
I give up (on myself, that is). *sigh*
Sorry. Those two words should have been in quotation marks. :S
But, looking at the global mean temperature it has been dropping for the last 10 years… how is that global warming?
Really? Who’s your source on this?… I would disagree with you. We’re at some of the highest CO2 levels in history, 350 parts per million is needed to sustain life, we’re currently at 387 and rising by 2 ppm per year. I work under a Nobel laureate and with some of the greatest climate scientists in the world… you’re telling me your arm-chair science trumps everything that has been studied since the 1850′s till now?
“Rising by 2ppm per year” isn’t even the whole story. The rate of increase itself is rising roughly in proportion to global human population, which in turn is rising exponentially, albeit with a fairly long half-life. So we need not only to cut fossil fuel consumption radically, but to go on reducing it more and more, basically to zero as quickly as possible.
The United Nations (http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm)
I would add this to your post. Carbon Dioxide and that is what we are talking baout when we say CO2, is a byproduct of life and has been present in our atmosphere for the better part of 4billion years.
Plus you say 387 parts per million. That comes to less that four-tenths of one percent of the atmoshpere. I would say that was the very definition of a trace element.
If carbon dioxide was the cause of ‘global warming’ then the planet would have been inhospitable millions of years ago.
Maybe you should be asked to cite your sources of paranoia and un- alarmism
oh wow, monsoon flooding! it’s happened ever year for the past brazilion years. IT’S GLOBAL WARMING!!!
it’s not bad…funny because there IS relevancy. Not relevant in the sense that “OMG this pic proves global warming!” But in the sense that this is the scenario they paint if the phenomenon is indeed real…using ones favorite foil, Bush, is not out of bounds by any stretch. 4/5
I didn’t even think about this being Bush and Laura until you mentioned it. I wonder if the creator of this picture chose Laura intentionally or it was just the first convenient female name that he thought of….
Well bush has come out as a global warming believer so it really wouldn’t make sense to use him. You really can’t blame EVERYTHING on bush.
DRYLAND IS A MYTH!
Global Warming.. The Democrat version of the Republican WMDs. Amazing how Al Gore makes millions off of it and these celebrities can roll around in their private jets just as long as they pay for “carbon offsets”. Who’s pocket does that go into? The whole thing is a money making scam and of course a politician is at the top of this whole thing.
Besides, who really cared about Global Warming 10 years ago?
that’s a pretty good comparison. we’re only worried about it because the media needs an alarmist topic every few years. remember the killerbees? how bout the syringes everywhere with aids on them?
(After reading most of the comments…)
*holds head* oww ow ow ow ow…….
Yes, agreed to the fullest.
[i]Hilarious! But… Who’s Laura?[/i]
Why push Laura? Pushing is not very nice.
I noticed that too. It’s a comma fail.
Laymen from both sides of the global warming debate pick and choose their data. Global climate change is complex enough that it would take rigorous education on the subject to begin to understand it.
Has anybody here tried reading a peer reviewed journal article from some type of geographic periodical? I have, and I understood nothing in it. Reading some book (or website) critiqueing the other side does not make one an expert.
EVERYONE picks and chooses their data. if they don’t choose it, it’s not valid. even peer reviewed articles are reviewed and approved by those who actually agree with the persons logic.
That is not true… go back to high school and learn what the word “science” means.
Laymen can understand Risk Management correct? … do you buy car insurance knowing you are going to get into a car accident? … My director is a Nobel Laureate (physics), I work with top Climate Scientists, you think these people are “picking and choosing” for some weird reason? They are extremely well educated and the top of their fields, they see a problem, those steps are reproducible and confirmed to be “true”, just as much as the laws of gravity… We are faced with a grim reality that we humans are creating a Global Climate Destabilization. 350 parts per million of CO2 is needed to support life, we’re at 387 and growing 2 ppm every year. How long will you ignore the hard numbers and facts?… the question must be changed from “Is it going to happen?” (Which we can’t know) … TO: “Can we afford to ignore the possibility?” (Which we must know).
Best opinion I’ve read on this subject, anywhere, ever.
You don’t read enough then.
I think you top Nobel Laureate and the climatologists have bills to pay like everyone else and will say what is popular to continue to recieve research funding.
As to a earlier question you asked about sources on global cooling I cite the UN
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm
To the climatologists you cite, I ask you to explain this
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html
Plus let us examint the PPM you seem to love to repeat over and over. That big number you cite comes to four-tenths of ONE percent of the atmosphere.
All based on less than 150 years of ‘data’ – and much of the earliest data is purely guesswork. There is plenty of evidence that the warming of the UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE is a normal cycle.
Darwin himself said that if his ‘theory’ was correct, he would expect it to show in the fossil record. Despite the fact that there has been NOT ONE actual transitional ‘evolution’ in the fossil record the ‘theory’ is still held fast to by most scientists.
Scientists are usually brilliant. Science has denied unpopular truth and supported popular error consistently. They are also notoriously opinionated. And they can be very, very wrong.
Until men actually went into space, Science was sure that if you passed through the Van Allen belt, it would damage you (at best) or kill you (at worst) – as witness the origins of the Fantastic 4.
“Stop acting like you care for anyone but your own species survival. ”
Well that’s just the point, isn’t it? Climate change or not, the earth will be fine. Humans, on the other hand…
OMG!!! THEY’RE PUSHING A TOASTER!!
By “Toaster”, I mean the rare Mitsubishi minivan, of which I drive a 1987 model. It’s an awesome car that is no longer manufactured in the US. They still make them in Australia, though (under the name “L300″), and maaayybe in Japan; I’m not sure.
But, “They” do understand! They know everything there is to know about everything! You’re the idiot for embracing common sense, and not buying into the fact that, even though we’ve only been keeping meteorological records for about 125 years, “experts” and environmentalists know everything about this planet and the weather! If we all don’t stop driving cars tomorrow and eating organic foods that we all grew in our backyards, the planet is gonna blow up!
Geesh!
lol.
So… A major flood is caused by “global warming”.
Because major floods never happened before “global warming”, apparently.
Just like wars never happened before Bush. Right?
I think you’re finally getting it! Oh, also, Obama is the only one who can fix it. He doesn’t have an actually plan yet, but, his Hope and Change can only move us forward. The right can only hold us back. Power to the people, and all that.
I guess it actually makes some sense. If the left feels that only the government can fix things then it only stands to reason (their reason) that all problems must be caused be the government. Or at the very least, it is the governments fault for not stopping things before they get to the point of being problems.
reckon so, must be cause the ‘government says so’ … and there were never record high or low temperatures before the late 90s etc