Despite my lengthy post a few min ago... right now I'm more concerned with figuring out why I suck at poker lol.

Whew, I bet the ice caps are glad to hear that.

Hey, come back guys! Mpethy says it's actually cooler than it was in 1998. Stop melting -- it's all in your heads!!

Rigged, imo--the period 1940 to 1945 were some of the coldest years in the 20th century. So you have shown me a pic tht shows the bay freezing in one of the coldest winters of the 20th centrury and not freezing in one of the warmest. So ****ing what?

You people who think that global warming is such a big problem rig the discussion, just like these two pics are rigged.

This chart shows two things--1. what i was just saying about the weather in the 40's, and 2. It is the scare graph that everybody uses to show that the average global temperature is rising:



So note the time frame--1880 to more or less the present. This is the chart of the scaremongers--"omg, look how much temperatures have increased in the past 120 years--we're doomed."

The question is, why 1880? What was special about that year?

As it turns out 1880 is about the time that everybody more or less agrees that the "Little Ice Age," was wrapping up. In other words, to create their chart, the scaremongers go back to the coldest temperatures that coincided with the industrial age and they build the most dramatic chart they can.

The whole discussion gets ****ing rigged. If you look at a temperature chart for the last 1200 years, the so-called "global warming" looks a lot like we have been there and done that already.

The chart below starts at the beginning of the Medieval Warming Period that lasted from roughly 800 AD to 1200 AD. This was the period of warm temperatures that allowed the settlement of Greenland by the Norse, and its end is one of the main factors Jared Diamond says in "Collapse" caused the failure of that colony.


Each line on this graph is an independently created temperature reconstruction for the period.



So this is my question--why the **** does half the world think that people have caused this period of global warming when we saw temperatures in the same range in the preindustrial Medieval period?

It is LOL to me that anybody could believe that people caused this particular period of global climate change when it is absolutely clear that non-manmade climate change 800 years ago saw temperatures at least this high.

I don't know whether the world is in a long term warming trend or cooling trend or whether it is stable withing a broad range. I tend to think it is the third option--there have been ice ages and periods as warm as the one we are in now well before people started pumping **** into the atmosphere. The evidence simply does not support the fact that people have caused a rise in temperatures. When you look at this graph from the past 1200 years, the recent period looks like pretty standard variance.

OMFG, look at that graph. We're all going to die!!!

Actually, Nasa reports that the antarctic ice sheet INCREASED in size from 1979 to 1999.

This actually makes sense in a warming trend (and one unquestionably existed in this period) as antarctic temperatures would get high enough for snow more often, but not high enough to melt the accumulation.

Um, wrong.

A lot of global warming research was done in the 90s, but since you claim its reversed since 1998, I limited myself to recent studies and articles.

"Uncontroverted" is easily dismissed. Even if you don't believe the EPA, NOAA is pretty bad ass and certainly they have some credibility.



Here's a link to where they discuss how the warming is not an even warming across the globe, meaning some locations have cooled, but that overall, across the world, its getting warmer.

A simple google search turned up peer-reviewed and internationally accepted studies from the last few years with evidence of global warming, such as NRC, 2006. I didn't read the whole thing either, but I'll save you some time.



OK, maybe not enough granularity for you. "Its cooling the last ten years." Here is their summary of findings on recent effects.

Or there is IPCC, 2007. Again, I haven't read it all, but I'll quote parts of the summary of their findings.

How about NASA? Hansen et al, 2005 finding that the Earth is gaining .85 Watts per square meter, the energy imbalance from what is trapped and what is radiated. Leading into how measures of greenhouse gases and atmospheric temperatures are inadequate to describe climate changes (link).


This isn't the "preponderance" of research I wanted, just what I found on first look with google in response to you. Now, I know not everyone agrees. And I found this rather interesting and balanced article about how and why the effect of, and "danger" from, global warming is often exaggerated. It does a good deal to explain some of the Gore-blowback I'm seeing in this thread (for the record, I like the guy, but I haven't seen his movie). Yes, even some (few) scientists disagree, especially about the scale and effect of climate change. But it is real.

See, that's the thing. To "believe" otherwise you have to only pay attention to some datapoints, and disregard the vast majority. You have to ignore the observed reality. You have to blind yourself to the facts and models. You have to enter a state of non-thinking and put "faith" in the idea that humans cannot change the climate.

I'm not asking you to become a flaming liberal like me. I am asking you to admit to yourself that there is evidence that the world's climate is changing, and that humans can affect that change.


Postscript: The fact that folks in this thread see a need to change how we use energy even if they don't see the world like me heartens me, and supports my comment that getting off oil is a cause that can be embraced by all. And yes, its a complicated subject with much complexity (surely much of which we don't even know about yet) and many vagaries. I'm not even arguing the minutia, just making my attempt to point out how absurd it is to say "pfft, there's no global warming."

$0.02

Speaking of climate, in a completely unrelated story, I always like this story

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

I like reading about the effects of the largest natural disaster.

lol

that we both used the same graph to "prove" opposite sides of the argument

How much did you put on that bet? (I know its not kosher in polite company, but this is a gambling forum, so we talk about our wagers. ) How leveraged are you?

I "paper traded" a lot, but I never got up the gumption to actually short anything. I did well on paper.

Reminds me of a dude that used to hang around here, I think wolffund was his name. Typical degen, but one time he made $2,000,000 overnight because he shorted just the right thing at just the right time... all with money he borrowed off his wife. Hah.

see, this is the thing that you don't understand (as evidenced by the fact that you took my quote out of context in the most offensive way possible):

I am not on the other side of you. I do not think there is sufficient evidence for the position you maintain. That's all. I have no opinion on whether, over the long term, the world is cooling, warming or fluctuating within a stable range. There is not enough evidence to have an opinion one way or the other.

All I know is that the world has been this warm before, in preindustrial times, and given this, it is sort of ridiculous for people to assume on paltry evidence that this warming period was caused by people.

Before global warming became a politically based quasi-religion, climatologists referred to the Medieval Warm Period as the "Global Climate Optimum."

This tells me all I need to know about the global warming scaremongers.

Well, my sincere apologies for offensively taking your quote out of context.

That, and the duplicate graph and the like, shows that a lot of the delta is a matter of perception only.

We can agree on one thing for sure, the debate has taken a quasi-religious nature with too much inflexibility and dogma from both sides.

Oh sure mpethy muddy things up with, what are those called...ummm....facts. Yeah, it's not like we can prove or disprove the actual cause of the warm up. Global warming just is what it is and we have to deal with it. Sorry that glacier picture was a bit of a troll.

The industrial revolution has not done much to help the environment on a whole and I think that's why people are always quick to blame it. Plus the fact that corporations have no ethics. Some people that run them do, but a Corps main purpose is to bring a return to it's shareholders and therefore it will not do something, even if its ethically correct, if they don't have to. There must be underlying value to the shareholders(+ev) for a corp to make a decision. Corps are easy targets to blame for all of societies ills. Look at the way people just despise the oil companie's for their record profits over the last year. Bet their shareholders don't. Why do we dislike other peoples gain soo much? People in the oil industry are still working, isn't that a good thing?

Until the market dictates that "Evironmentally Friendly" products are viable noone will produce them. The US is full of people who don't really understand that, or don't understand why electric cars will be sooo friggin expensive when they first come out. This really gets back to what Sam was saying the other day about how stupid it is to require companies to make products that not many people want at a cost where they won't be able to sell them. They should really require basic economics in high school to teach things like supply & demand and economies of scale.

Can't solve the worlds problems, gotta go do someones taxes.

Odd question, being the globalwarmingconspiracytheory.com forums and all, but anyone know a good forum I could visit to discuss poker hands and possible micro limit strategy?

Quote of the month, imo.

http://www.pocketfives.com/

I think you guys need to cool down a bit, things have gotten a bit warm with your debate.

I enjoy the educational material, thanks!

lol

where do you want to talk about?



This picture really makes me sad:


I believe a pinguin just farted while swimming under water

There's no strategy in poker.

The limit forum has links above the NL holdem links. But NL is the Cadillac of poker so I'm not sure why you are switching.

Fold?

Sorry I don't really know what I'm talking about. I just watched Rounders (I think that's the name lol!) and I think I want to give Texas Hold 'Em a shot! All I can think about right now is Vegas and the ****ing Mirage.

edit: And taking "stacks" off tourists, whatever that means.

I just found out that the girl at my local Starbucks is a friend of yours, Kurt.

I suck at NL and own at PL

That is all as Digger would have said

Good discussion ITT regarding climate change, i agree with both of you. There are various arguments that harden the need for a change in the way we function as a society regarding energy infrastructures. Eventual animal extinctions, uncontrolled and unconscious manipulation of our environment and climate, effects of nature disasters in economically exploited and consequently poor regions who still live of agriculture should be prevented for the sake of information, knowledge, well being and human wealth. Other problems lie in the actual state of autocracy and exploitation powers of basic resources that could provide wealth to the people for free. Profit based interests clash between resource dependent countries and all type of wars break loose, with no thought whatsoever about the importance of a human life and wealth. Trying not to be too pessimistic about the actual state of the world (if this is even possible), the pursuit of photovoltaic energy sources and alikes can considerably drop energy prices and avoid the need of wars for energy, dropping investments in military departments, political agendas, etc. This applies to the US, China and any other region that is growing thru capitalism, war and political agendas.

I bet there are hundred of other reasons...