Britain is an ice cube

[Hotcod]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47061000/jpg/_47061196_greatbritainjpg.jpg

Not a photoshop

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/8447023.stm

You can pick out the major cities as patches of grey, it's astounding.

[Disgustipated]

zomg Global Colding@!

[Hotcod]

The funny thing is that the only reason Britain dons't look like this all the time is the gulf stream and if warming carries on and dumps a load of cold melted ice water in to the seas the stream could be disrupted meaning that Britain will cool much more drastically than it will warm with global warming. And the reason for the snow at all is the fact global warming will introduce more extreme weather as it messes with things....

Can you tell i've had a fun week messing with idiots who don't understand what the whole global warming thing at all? it's been amusing

[diablopath]

That's a pretty cool image. But fuck you, it's cold here, too.

[ClannerDelta]

The funny thing is that the only reason Britain dons't look like this all the time is the gulf stream and if warming carries on and dumps a load of cold melted ice water in to the seas the stream could be disrupted meaning that Britain will cool much more drastically than it will warm with global warming. And the reason for the snow at all is the fact global warming will introduce more extreme weather as it messes with things....

Can you tell i've had a fun week messing with idiots who don't understand what the whole global warming thing at all? it's been amusing

We can sell you some awesome Parkas. Some Huskies too, but don't eat snow where the Huskies go.

[Badger]

That is a badass picture. I've been pretty much house-bound all year so far, my car isn't built for 8 inches of ice / snow. In fact it's barely built for English weather at all, my driver-side window has started to open itself whenever it feels like (usually when I've parked up and left it) presumably due to moisture corroding the switches again. So I can't make it into work tomorrow either... ;)

I notice Ireland is still a lovely shade of green, no snowmen in your neck of the woods, Squid?

[Gwinny]

I feel bad for you guys! I mean, it's been winter here and that's unpleasant, but at least it's a grim inevitability and not a freak occurrence. Be safe!

[TheFlyingOrc]

The funny thing is that the only reason Britain dons't look like this all the time is the gulf stream and if warming carries on and dumps a load of cold melted ice water in to the seas the stream could be disrupted meaning that Britain will cool much more drastically than it will warm with global warming. And the reason for the snow at all is the fact global warming will introduce more extreme weather as it messes with things....

The "more extreme weather" nonsense is the least proven and most tarnished by confirmation bias of everything having to do with global warming. Define more extreme weather, and explain why increased average global temperature would cause it.

[Lance Uppercut]

The "more extreme weather" nonsense is the least proven and most tarnished by confirmation bias of everything having to do with global warming. Define more extreme weather, and explain why increased average global temperature would cause it.

What Hotcod is saying is pretty much what it is. The Gulf Stream is what keeps Western Europe relatively warmer than it should be for its latitude. With the change in ocean levels from melting ice caps, the Gulf Stream shifted a little closer towards Greenland, causing the rather radical change in weather patterns. Or so the theory goes.

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/9144/bestproduct200912302191.png

[Hotcod]

The "more extreme weather" nonsense is the least proven and most tarnished by confirmation bias of everything having to do with global warming. Define more extreme weather, and explain why increased average global temperature would cause it.

More extreme weather? hotter summers colder winters that comes from how a rise will likely disrupt established systems and pattens. A less extreme example of this is the El nino-Southern Oscillation where a change from cold to warm waters ever 5 year or so causes these kind of extreme weather pattens. Don't ask me to explain why because I don't know, i'm not a climate scientist but as it's been explained to me given that an established system of localised temperature change can cause uncharacteristic weather effects in "extremes" a global change is likely to do the same only on a much lager much more disruptive scale.

So no "more extreme weather" is not simply just bullshit. I don't know if it's true but it makes sense to me. I mean if you have a problem with the idea that global warming is real, or that it's man made that fine but as I understand it if the world is warming then it only makes sense that we will see changes in weather pattens the like of which is known to cause extreme weather at lest during the change.

Does that mean the long cold winter in the UK is down to global warming? hell if I know but the point I was trying to make is that this view that global warming must be crap because we are having, on average, colder winters is idiotic given any number of reasons why global warming could account for it being colder.

[Savok]

But, but, there was a consensus that there wouldn't be as much snow (http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/this_is_not_happening/)!!1

I think we're hitting the limit on how many times you can get it wrong before people stop believing you.

[Hawkzombie]

But, but, there was a consensus that there wouldn't be as much snow (http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/this_is_not_happening/)!!1

I think we're hitting the limit on how many times you can get it wrong before people stop believing you.

The more 'experts' open their mouths, honestly, the harder I end up laughing over it all. Yes Global 'warming' causes cooling as well in theory, but their predictions are starting to get ridiculous.

[Hotcod]

on this issue there's sadly more idiots than there really should be. The major problem is weather is a complex system to such an extent that it's hard to work out what is going on in a week or twos time with out degrees of error and now people are trying to work out what is going to happen long term in systems we don't fully understand if an unprecedented changed (in human history) in global temperature takes place...

The only thing people can seem to agree on is that if it does happen we will in some way be screwed... they just can't work out which way that screwing will in fact be if it indeed happens at all... 'cus as soon as they think they've worked something out they keep finding out something new that changes things.

Which means the whole 'credibility' of it gets attacked by people who don't understand science. sometimes you simply have to state you are wrong in the face of new evidence and move on. In terms of this kind of climate change that you can end up contradicting your self is just a result of the just how complex the systems involved are and the fact it's a mostly new area of study in this way.

All of which means until we have a good few years of a theory and predictions beings played out with out anything strange happening we can't really bank on knowing what exactly is going to happen.

fun isn't it

[Savok]

Yes it's terribly complex, so complex we have no idea what's going on. Which is exactly why we destroy our economies in order appease the Earth Goddess, and maybe a few goat to be on the safe side.

In other news, here's a fun letter fromThe Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/03/climate-change-proposed-personal-briefing/) to Kevin Rudd, our PM, who gave Monckton a broadside in one of his horrible speeches.

[Hotcod]

I skim read that since it seems to be the same all stuff. Firstly if the world is getting warmer either by something we've done, or a natural cycle, Co2 is adding to it... it only takes a small global changes to cause massive changes in climates. We are only about 2-4C warmer on a global scale than the last ice age. So even a 15ths is a important change. So anything anything we can do to that might lower the warming rate could be very important.

Now the next factor is our economies are done for in the next 100 years or so anyway. There is a limited amount of fossil fuel on the planet and the simple fact of the matter is that at some point relatively soon we will have to learn to live with out it. If we start a transition now to other energy sources we can greatly lessen the impact the lose of fossil fuels will have if we just carry on as we are.

In other words it's win win, everything we can do to help with climate change will have a tangible positive impact on our world and our economies even if man made global warming either does not exist or nothing we can do now can help. All suggestions to help limit the impact on man made global warming (real or not) will push us to establish economies and infrastructure not dependent on fossil fuels.

I just want to be clear, i'm not a tree hugger as such, I'm some of a pragmatist on the issue. Since I personally think a stop gap use of nuclear power is every ones best bet. We trade a big problem for a contained one and quickly set our selfs up with a platform for electric powered cars with out all this messing about with renuable energy or new tech. We then give our self time to switch over to this other stuff at a pace that makes sense rather than the rush we are in now that is going to lead to all kinds of problems down the line much worse than radioactive mutants... well... maybe

The only people who don't win in the long run are those who are invested in maintaining the current set up and will see a hit to profits.

[DangerousDaze]

And is the problem with the gulfstream what's broken over 1200 cold and snow records in the US in the last couple of weeks?

My favourite piece of bullshit is this article (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html) in The Independent a decade ago...

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e304/Dangerousdaze/independentuk_03202000.png (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html)

[Shieldmaiden]

I was reading that the current weather in Britain is the result of Arctic Oscillation. Apparently the air pressure is usually higher further south and lower towards the pole, so the cold weather stays put. When it flips, all the cold air gets pushed further south, so while we're freezing our nads off in blighty, there are other places who normally get down to -20 degrees C that are barely dipping below zero.

I know that I can safely say that I've seen more snow in the last couple of months than I have in the last 23 years that I've lived here and Peterborough has been comparatively okay.

[zarathstra]

And is the problem with the gulfstream what's broken over 1200 cold and snow records in the US in the last couple of weeks?

My favourite piece of bullshit is this article (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html) in The Independent a decade ago...

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e304/Dangerousdaze/independentuk_03202000.png (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html)

Is there something about AVERAGES people don't understand? Just because there's a super cold winter here and there doesn't mean, on average, temperatures aren't increasing. Besides, there's a reason they usually refer to it as "climate change" now, because warmer temperatures overall can disrupt the weather patterns we're used to and make it colder in some areas.

Also, that article? Shit happens, sometimes people are wrong. That's one article written 10 years ago, in a newspaper, not a scientific journal.

[Talanvor]

Yeah, this is normal weather. It's 20 fucking degrees, in Texas.

Also, I found my new favorite site for the weather: The Fucking Weather (http://thefuckingweather.com/)

[muddi900]

Yes it's terribly complex, so complex we have no idea what's going on. Which is exactly why we destroy our economies in order appease the Earth Goddess, and maybe a few goat to be on the safe side.

In other news, here's a fun letter fromThe Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/03/climate-change-proposed-personal-briefing/) to Kevin Rudd, our PM, who gave Monckton a broadside in one of his horrible speeches.

Talk about exaggeration. Millions of people are certainly dying in the third world due to the severe lack of sugar. Also, apparently living in the third world makes you blind to the numerous food riot.*roll eyes*

This is what happens when you politicize science. A bunch of assholes screaming bullshit from all sides.

You know what else is bullshit though? Ethanol in my car. I like my tea sweet you bastards!

[Savok]

Soil that can grow sugar can grow other things.

[DangerousDaze]

Is there something about AVERAGES people don't understand? Just because there's a super cold winter here and there doesn't mean, on average, temperatures aren't increasing. Besides, there's a reason they usually refer to it as "climate change" now, because warmer temperatures overall can disrupt the weather patterns we're used to and make it colder in some areas.

Also, that article? Shit happens, sometimes people are wrong. That's one article written 10 years ago, in a newspaper, not a scientific journal.

Is there something about READING you don't understand? The article quotes the opinions of a number of climatologists, including a senior research scientist at the recently disgraced CRU. I'm glad we both agree that their opinions are worthless.

Yes, climate does not equal weather. But they both have similarities: they're both chaotic systems that we don't understand. The only difference is that while the weather predictors are proved wrong every other day the cimatologists have about 50 years before they're exposed. Well, it's been 10 years since that article and they haven't covered themselves in glory so far.

[Chaos Machine]

Soil that can grow sugar can grow other things.

unless its more profitable to grow sugar.

[Savok]

True, profit is driving this whole scam afterall, but take away the scam take away most of the profit.

Still, that article too old? Well lets talk about the recent predictions of the UK Met Office, time and time again they tell everyone they're going to boil to death yet it never happens, even the BBC is sick of it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8443687.stm). What John Hirst was doing before the Met Office is rather interesting too...

Mind you, it's pretty easy to predict the weather, just see where Al Gore is going that day, expect blizzards.

[Adam Blue]

Yeah, this is normal weather. It's 20 fucking degrees, in Texas.

Also, I found my new favorite site for the weather: The Fucking Weather (http://thefuckingweather.com/)

Dude...I'm in the DFW area having band practice in the garage. We can barely stand it. Last night blew chunks walking from bar to bar. I'm weeeeak!

[muddi900]

Soil that can grow sugar can grow other things.

Not if everything is frozen.:p

You certainly have no idea how agricultural trade works and it is irrelevant to this discussion. My point was that it is a political battle, with all the sentimental horseshit that comes with it.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

It is clear that the vast majority of people that decry global warming on this forum have absolutely no idea how it works.

Understand that weather and climate aren't the same thing. Understand that global warming doesn't mean everything is going to be hot. Understand that one piece of data does not equal a trend (or end a trend).

Everyone loves science until it's inconvenient.

[DangerousDaze]

Understand that weather and climate aren't the same thing.
The problem is that climatologists aren't any better at modelling climate than meteorologists are at modelling weather. Both are chaotic systems with forcings and feedbacks that we don't understand. It's just taking longer for climatologists to be proved wrong.

[Cit Phil Cit]

The problem is that climatologists aren't any better at modelling climate than meteorologists are at modelling weather. Both are chaotic systems with forcings and feedbacks that we don't understand. It's just taking longer for climatologists to be proved wrong.

Are you saying that a meteorologist is not allowed to make predictions based on evidence of the likely weather to expect?

Or that you you should ignore meteorologists absolutely and completely because they are part of a clandestine organization trying to extort money from world governments because their predictions have been wrong, and that some meteorologists disagree with one another about weather predictions?

[DoctorFinger]

Weather |= Climate. Extreme cold doesn't disprove AGW, nor does extreme heat prove it.

[DangerousDaze]

This whole "Weather is not climate" thing is becoming somewhat of a mantra these days. A shield to hide behind.

Like, we're supposed to have faith in climate models because they're not the same as weather models. The truth is that neither models are any good.

[torrefaction]

It's 33 degrees here.

And by HERE, I mean in South Florida.

[DangerousDaze]

"Weather != Climate" is just pure misdirection. It doesn't speak to the quality of climate models, it just excuses the quality of weather models. I accept that predicting the weather is extremely difficult (although I bet I would be just as accurate with the algorithm "tomorrow's weather will be the same as today's").

So why am I not allowed to believe that our climate models are equally crap? Especially when they're predicated on trying to fit "simple science" such as the effect of increasing the percentage of CO2 in a bell jar on temperature in said bell jar to something as chaotic as world climate.

[torrefaction]

"Weather != Climate" is just pure misdirection. It doesn't speak to the quality of climate models, it just excuses the quality of weather models.

The quality of climate models are shit. They didn't even take into account wind, which is why they didn't/couldn't understand why certain shelves where growing despite all other predictions. Hell, Fluid Dynamics is actually one of the least understood areas of science that is actually observable. We barely understand WATER.

[Panthera]

They didn't even take into account wind

Yet more proof that the deniers here haven't a clue what they're talking about. Really, where do you get this stuff? It took two seconds and google to find out it just plain isn't true. This isn't something that's debatable or political. Climate models do include wind. Do you just believe everything you read?

There's a line when genuine skepticism crosses to conspiracy theory.

[Panthera]

(Somehow doubleposted)

[Ox]

There's a point when genuine skepticism crosses to conspiracy theory.
And making an incorrect statement about what climate models consider crosses into conspiracy theory? Doesn't torrefaction have to, I dunno, postulate the existence of a conspiracy first?

[DangerousDaze]

Yet more proof that the deniers here haven't a clue what they're talking about.
Even that word "denier" speaks volumes. We're not allowed to be "sceptics" (a state which, incidentally, should be the resting state of all scientists). No, we're "deniers", because that has such strong connotations. We're associated in some way with those other great deniers, such as David Irving et al. Another great word linked to climate science which as absolutely no place in the scientific dictionary is consensus.

Really, where do you get this stuff? It took two seconds and google to find out it just plain isn't true. This isn't something that's debatable or political. Climate models do include wind.I suspect he meant that early climate models didn't include wind (though I wouldn't want to put words into his mouth). It's true to say that climate models have evolved greatly over the years, often as a result of them simply not predicting reality, i.e. create a starting point in the past and run the model - if it's accurate then it should predict what's happening today.

It's funny that the latest climate models are predicting flat temperatures up to 2050. That's a conveniently long period of time to keep bringing in those research grants while not having to explain why things aren't getting any warmer.

[Panthera]

And making an incorrect statement about what climate models consider crosses into conspiracy theory? Doesn't torrefaction have to, I dunno, postulate the existence of a conspiracy first?

I'd think so, yes.

[Ox]

I'd think so, yes.
Okay, now I'm confused. Did torrefaction postulate a conspiracy somewhere? Or are you just tossing around that label with reckless disregard for whether it really applies?

[Panthera]

Even that word "denier" speaks volumes. We're not allowed to be "sceptics" (a state which, incidentally, should be the resting state of all scientists).

Yes, you're allowed to be skeptics. Skepticism is wonderful. The problem is when you don't apply it to your own sources.

Another great word linked to climate science which as absolutely no place in the scientific dictionary is consensus.

Consensus alone does not determine truth, but it has a place in science and policy.

[Panthera]

Okay, now I'm confused. Did torrefaction postulate a conspiracy somewhere? Or are you just tossing around that label with reckless disregard for whether it really applies?

I didn't call him a conspiracy theorist. It was a general warning - more a description of the quality of information out there.

[DangerousDaze]

I've been prompted that this debate would feel more at home in the P&R forum. I tend to agree, hence the move (a redirect will hang around for a week for those who may be lost). Thanks for the heads up (I only navigate via "New Posts" so it's rare that I notice what forum a discussion takes place in).

[torrefaction]

Yet more proof that the deniers here haven't a clue what they're talking about. Really, where do you get this stuff? It took two seconds and google to find out it just plain isn't true. This isn't something that's debatable or political. Climate models do include wind. Do you just believe everything you read?

There's a point when genuine skepticism crosses to conspiracy theory.

I get it from studies. I misspoke when I said winds, but they didn't take into account certain effects of wind. Also, I may have also interchanged winds with moisture, because it's been a while since I read the study. I'm not denying anything, and you don't know my stance on this. So, I would appreciate it if you would be more civil, and not attack something that comes from climate studies. I'll provide some links, so maybe you can educate yourself. Maybe I'll even find the link where they didn't account for the reaction of the arctic winds.

I'm not, nor have I ever, denied warming. My only real argument is that it's hard to definitely say it's man-made, given lack of historical data. Remember that civility conversation we just had? I'm going to ask you to keep it fresh in your mind.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12833-climate-is-too-complex-for-accurate-predictions.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11649-climate-myths-we-cant-trust-computer-models.html

I can't find the damn study I read a while back, but it was a big deal, because climates are complex. If you're denying that, then I don't even know what to say to you.

[torrefaction]

And making an incorrect statement about what climate models consider crosses into conspiracy theory? Doesn't torrefaction have to, I dunno, postulate the existence of a conspiracy first?

It was also a misinterpreted statement, because I didn't adequately explain myself.

But DangerousDaze makes an even more important point. Science is about observation and consensus. When you become so embroiled in a theory that you lose that perspective and latch on to it with a firm belief that it's true, then you are no longer in science land.

A scientist believes nothing but laws to be hard and true, and we have very, very few of those.

[torrefaction]

Also, in case anyone wants to call out DangerousDaze's statement about flat temps until 2050, I happened to have read THAT article too. What is probably surprising to Panthera is that I consider myself a science buff... and do things like, I don't know, read studies.

http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/stat-model-predicts-flat-temperatures-through-2050

[Panthera]

In that case, I apologize. It did appear that you were firing out yet another piece of hearsay. I'm talking about people who spout arguments that have been debunked ages ago and have little relevance to the actual debate - who will mention the heating of mars or the carbon output of volcanoes as if that's enough to show the whole thing is a scam.

A little cite goes a long way.

[torrefaction]

In that case, I apologize. It did appear that you were firing out yet another piece of hearsay. I'm talking about people who spout arguments that have been debunked ages ago and have little relevance to the actual debate - who will mention the heating of mars or the carbon output of volcanoes as if that's enough to show the whole thing is a scam.

A little cite goes a long way.

Generally, I cite everything. I haven't been active much lately, or you may have known better than to call me out like that, but I'm going to refer back to my earlier point about civility. If we're going to up the level of discourse around here, it's very important to give someone at the very least the benefit of the doubt...for instance, a reply that would have not caused me to nearly be uncivil myself would have been, "Can you provide any scientific evidence of what you just stated".

Not picking on you here, but everyone should expect similar responses from me in the immediate future.w

[Voodoo]

I've been prompted that this debate would feel more at home in the P&R forum. I tend to agree, hence the move (a redirect will hang around for a week for those who may be lost). Thanks for the heads up (I only navigate via "New Posts" so it's rare that I notice what forum a discussion takes place in).

In all fairness of discussion, because the thread was moved here, I also removed the ban from P&R upon anybody that was involved in the conversation prior to the move.

[Hotcod]

Welp i never meant this to happen, i just wanted to post an awesome picture... if any one gets killed i want it on record it's not my fault

*runs away*

[DoctorFinger]

"Weather != Climate" is just pure misdirection. It doesn't speak to the quality of climate models, it just excuses the quality of weather models. I accept that predicting the weather is extremely difficult (although I bet I would be just as accurate with the algorithm "tomorrow's weather will be the same as today's").

So why am I not allowed to believe that our climate models are equally crap? Especially when they're predicated on trying to fit "simple science" such as the effect of increasing the percentage of CO2 in a bell jar on temperature in said bell jar to something as chaotic as world climate.I also believe the climate models are greatly flawed, but that still doesn't mean that weather = climate. Dislike the climate models all you want, but do so for the right reasons.

[Doogie2K]

Also, regardless of whether they affect the weather/climate to a significant degree or not, I think it should be self-evident that we should be seeking to remit fewer "greenhosue gases" and become more energy-efficient: belching gases we can't breathe into the atmosphere is a Bad Idea as a general rule, and there's a finite amount of many current fuel sources, so we should try to make them last as long as possible until we can sustain ourselves without them. Plus, energy efficiency is almost always cheaper in the long run.

[RandoM51]

I think we're hitting the limit on how many times you can get it wrong before people stop believing you.
If this were true meteorology would be a dead science.
Plus, energy efficiency is almost always cheaper in the long run.
As long as officials are elected and have to deal with term limits the long run will take a backseat to political expediency.

[torrefaction]

Every science gets it wrong. I'll give a completely unrelated answer. Milk. Someone tell me if it drinking a moderate amount is good or bad for you. Now, tell me how many times that answer has changed in your lifetime.

I place no FAULT on meteorologists or climatologists for getting things wrong. On the contrary, they have a higher hit rate over time, just like I'd hope they would.

But anyone with a truly scientific mindset would not have global warming, or place man at the core of blame, with any sort of true conviction. As I said earlier, the only thing a real scientist will hold with true conviction is laws. We can all believe, with conviction, that if I drop the stand off of a 3 story building onto Al Gore's head, it will fall and eventually it his head. Gravity will cause this. I can say it with certainty.

Man, I'd love to drop a book on Al Gore's head.

I'll tell you what the dogma of global warming reminds me of. People who insist, because a couple of fringe scientists who got their degrees from diploma mills, think burning jet fuel can't weaken the structure of steal, so the towers MUST have been rigged with bombs.

Man, I'd love to drop a book of Michael Moore's head.

[diablopath]

Every science gets it wrong. I'll give a completely unrelated answer. Milk. Someone tell me if it drinking a moderate amount is good or bad for you. Now, tell me how many times that answer has changed in your lifetime.

I place no FAULT on meteorologists or climatologists for getting things wrong. On the contrary, they have a higher hit rate over time, just like I'd hope they would.

But anyone with a truly scientific mindset would not have global warming, or place man at the core of blame, with any sort of true conviction. As I said earlier, the only thing a real scientist will hold with true conviction is laws. We can all believe, with conviction, that if I drop the stand off of a 3 story building onto Al Gore's head, it will fall and eventually it his head. Gravity will cause this. I can say it with certainty.

Man, I'd love to drop a book on Al Gore's head.

I'll tell you what the dogma of global warming reminds me of. People who insist, because a couple of fringe scientists who got their degrees from diploma mills, think burning jet fuel can't weaken the structure of steal, so the towers MUST have been rigged with bombs.

Man, I'd love to drop a book of Michael Moore's head.

Did Michael Moore ever suggest that? I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 once when it first came out, but I honestly don't remember much from it, because I found it to be pretty shitty. However, I didn't quite remember it as being as crazy as Loose Change.

[torrefaction]

Did Michael Moore ever suggest that? I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 once when it first came out, but I honestly don't remember much from it, because I found it to be pretty shitty. However, I didn't quite remember it as being as crazy as Loose Change.

I honestly can't sort out the crazies anymore, so I may have been thinking of the wrong fucking loon. So, I'll posit that I may be wrong, but I do not revoke my wish to drop The Stand on Michael Moore's head from a great height.

[Panthera]

Yeah, Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't about 9/11 conspiracy theories, which really are nucking futs.

[Slack3r78]

Did Michael Moore ever suggest that? I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 once when it first came out, but I honestly don't remember much from it, because I found it to be pretty shitty. However, I didn't quite remember it as being as crazy as Loose Change.

Yeah, I would suggest /s/Michael Moore/Alex Jones for that particular example.

[torrefaction]

Yeah, I would suggest /s/Michael Moore/Alex Jones for that particular example.

See,you DO know how to use vim.

[ShivaX]

I honestly can't sort out the crazies anymore, so I may have been thinking of the wrong fucking loon. So, I'll posit that I may be wrong, but I do not revoke my wish to drop The Stand on Michael Moore's head from a great height.

I don't recall Moore jumping on that bandwagon, he was more about the war in Iraq.

Now Rosie O'Donnell took that whole line of stupidity to new heights.

You just got confused on your fat liberal men.

[Slack3r78]

I don't recall Moore jumping on that bandwagon, he was more about the war in Iraq.

Now Rosie O'Donnell took that whole line of stupidity to new heights.

You just got confused on your fat liberal men.

Rosie O'Donnel jumped on a bandwagon about emotional outrage with a shaky, at best intellectual basis? You don't say.

[Ox]

Also, regardless of whether they affect the weather/climate to a significant degree or not, I think it should be self-evident that we should be seeking to remit fewer "greenhosue gases" and become more energy-efficient: belching gases we can't breathe into the atmosphere is a Bad Idea as a general rule, and there's a finite amount of many current fuel sources, so we should try to make them last as long as possible until we can sustain ourselves without them. Plus, energy efficiency is almost always cheaper in the long run.
1. Nobody disputes that it might be nice to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, much like nobody disputes that it might be nice to eat healthier. The debate is entirely over whether and how much it's appropriate to use the force of law to compel people to give up fossil fuels or eat healthier. If someone suggests banning French fries and I object, it's not much of an argument to point out that we all agree French fries aren't health food.

2. In the long run, everyone is dead. People are to some extent willing to sacrifice present well-being for long-term benefits, but that extent is limited. This is perfectly rational.

Did Michael Moore ever suggest that? I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 once when it first came out, but I honestly don't remember much from it, because I found it to be pretty shitty. However, I didn't quite remember it as being as crazy as Loose Change.
Michael Moore didn't say that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. But he did spend an awful lot of time discussing how the Bush Administration permitted Osama bin Laden's family members to leave the country. So either he thinks the Bush Administration was in league with bin Laden, or he thinks an appropriate reaction to 9/11 would have been to imprison innocent people because they happen to be related to a terrorist. Personally, I think accusing him of being a conspiracy nut is the more charitable interpretation.

[Savok]

If this were true meteorology would be a dead science.
We tend not to want to implode our economies based around the 7-day forecast, we're more forgiving on that basis.

As long as officials are elected and have to deal with term limits the long run will take a backseat to political expediency.
Well that's... interesting.

Also, since it's been mentioned the whole thing is treated more as a religion then science:

0k6B8N7ov2Q

.... yeah.

[Hotcod]

The science is progressing at a huge rate and while people have had to contradict them self's in the face of new evidence the fact that such major changes in the details have taken place with out the over all idea being over turned is, if anything, a pretty good indication that the over all idea isn't overly wrong.

Now should I go dig up some far right anit science religious nut jobs to show that in some places being anit global warming is almost a religion to some people? No, 'cus they clearly have no place in an argument about the science and the scientists who are behind it.

[National Kato]

But he did spend an awful lot of time discussing how the Bush Administration permitted Osama bin Laden's family members to leave the country. So either he thinks the Bush Administration was in league with bin Laden, or he thinks an appropriate reaction to 9/11 would have been to imprison innocent people because they happen to be related to a terrorist.

Actually, I thought his point was confusion about how all passenger flights were grounded after 9/11, but bin Laden's family and dozens of Saudi royals were allowed to fly out in a secret White House-authorized airlift. The alleged details are found, if I remember correctly, in that book 'House of Bush, House of Saud.'

[TheFlyingOrc]

It is clear that the vast majority of people that decry global warming on this forum have absolutely no idea how it works.

Understand that weather and climate aren't the same thing. Understand that global warming doesn't mean everything is going to be hot. Understand that one piece of data does not equal a trend (or end a trend).

Everyone loves science until it's inconvenient.

Science requires repeatable experiments. Modeling is not really very scientific.

[TheFlyingOrc]

belching gases we can't breathe into the atmosphere is a Bad Idea as a general rule,

Umm...so we should stop breathing or farting then?

[Doogie2K]

Umm...so we should stop breathing or farting then?

Sigh..."on a mass level."

Nitpicky pedantic twat. ;)

[diablopath]

Does anybody else know where I can find more pictures like this? Like, "close" satellite photos? Or I assume it's from a satellite. Or a really high balloon or something.

[DangerousDaze]

Does anybody else know where I can find more pictures like this? Like, "close" satellite photos? Or I assume it's from a satellite. Or a really high balloon or something.

Here's a hires version. You can find more at the same site (there's a gallery link on the page below).

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/?2010007-0107/GreatBritain.A2010007.1150.250m.jpg