1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

More Global Warming BS from the BBC

Discussion in 'Members' Lounge' started by SSL0207, Sep 4, 2006.

  1. SSL0207

    SSL0207 Mhmm....

    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    the link:
    BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Deep ice tells long climate story

    i had no idea that we could tell the carbon dioxide levels in the air 800,000 years ago let alone determine the earth is that old from ice that could have been formed in such varying circumstances as to make the level of carbon dioxide irrelevant to the actual levels in the air...

    more global warming bull...
     
  2. pissedoffsol

    pissedoffsol RETIRED

    Messages:
    49,693
    Likes Received:
    54
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Location:
    Retirement Home
    plant a tree.

    problem solved.
     
  3. TommyTheCat

    TommyTheCat Gonzo Scientist

    Messages:
    1,248
    Likes Received:
    11
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    Like the BBC has created this news or something....wtf does "BS from BBC" even mean? <-like they've always been spewing shit from their mouths and keyboards or something.

    Btw. I'll let you in on a secret: Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  4. SSL0207

    SSL0207 Mhmm....

    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    thanks for the secret....
    i said nothing about any constant spewing from keyboards...
    all i was saying is that i think the article is incorrect, based on assumptions that 'science' doesn't make, and basing our actions off of such information (ie, investing billions of dollars a year into 'saving' an environment that isn't anywhere near dying) would be counterproductive...

    if you buy into the type of stuff that article is talking about: then ok, your opinion is just as valid as mine...

    btw... did you even read the article?
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2006
  5. VTEC_CBR

    VTEC_CBR Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    28
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Location:
    Virginia Beach
    Someone told me Al Gore was on the MTV VMA's talking about global warming...what a douche.
     
  6. Capt. Orygun

    Capt. Orygun Win the Day

    Messages:
    7,180
    Likes Received:
    121
    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Location:
    Oregon
    Everyone knows what actually causes global warming...

    [​IMG]
     
  7. SSL0207

    SSL0207 Mhmm....

    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Location:
    Wisconsin
  8. TommyTheCat

    TommyTheCat Gonzo Scientist

    Messages:
    1,248
    Likes Received:
    11
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    And you're most likely wrong. Not to say this automatically spells doom - who knows what processes could react to such a huge fluctuation of CO2, maybe its not so bad - but it doesn't look good.

    And how does science not make these assumptions? What assumptions are these, by your standard, non-scientific people making? Do you not believe we can draw so much information from ice? Is that the problem for you?

    "...800,000 years ago, let alone determine the earth is that old"
    Now let's examine this little diddy here. So you must be presuming that perhaps the earth isn't as old as many people have said. Therefore, you might believe there is another theory out there that better explains the origins of the earth -> ergo, sum...cut the bullshit, you dont believe in a lot of sciences, but the bible is what you may trust. Which leads me to think you know little of what science is and does.

    Don't try to tell me this is just a warming period either. If you're going to ignore science one minute, and then call it back for your defense, you've get little ground to stand on.
     
  9. SSL0207

    SSL0207 Mhmm....

    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    eh... you completely missed the point... Science Doesn't Make Any Assumptions... go read that secret you posted... science is about knowing and ordering the physical universe... science should never be based on assumptions...

    3. another reason i don't agree with that article... it tells of massive amounts of more carbon dioxide which is supposed to mean lower temperatures in the past... but did you notice that if carbon dioxide and lower temperatures actually correlate in the way that the article suggest that it means that the temperature/environment 800,000 years ago was much Colder than now - to the point that it would actually be worse for living organisms than the current temperature...

    or, if any of the above reasons do not satisfy, how bout this... that ice was made in the ICE AGE... yes, that does mean more carbon dioxide and lower temps... but doesn't even begin to show some sort of bad temperature progressoin....

    this is silly. what i said is that i did not presume the earth to be 800,000 years old. That doesn't mean that i presume is anything. That doesn't mean i presume its 4500 yrs or 4.5 billion years old. That doesn't mean I believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, or that i subscribe to any other theory. It just means, i don't necesarily agree with thier article.

    Science has not been recording temperatures for very long. In fact, the ability to measure changes in temperatures hasn't been around for all that long. Definately not for long enough to espablish an earth old pattern.
    Who Invented the Thermometer - Fahrenheit Celsius and Kelvin Scales.

    Yes, its true, the northern hemisphere is 1.2345678 degrees warmer than it was 50 years ago and yes we do have hole in the ozone layer over antartica that may or may not have been there 100 years ago... but no "science" has shown that the earth has been progressively getting warmer for xxxxxxx years and that we are the cause.

    worried? go plant a tree and never eat at mcdonald's again...
    if not? live life as you always have...
     
  10. TommyTheCat

    TommyTheCat Gonzo Scientist

    Messages:
    1,248
    Likes Received:
    11
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    That's what they're attempting to find out, the conditions. If we were there, we wouldn't need to go ice hunting.

    No one so far has come up with a reason as to why that might be of any interest. There doesn't seem to be much of a way for the particulates and molecules buried hundreds of feet in ice to escape. And some of the materal has changed, its radioactive, and they are drawing data from that as well.

    What you state here doesn't point to a much colder climate in the past, it points to a higher temp in the future. No one would extrapolate the data as if today's levels of CO2 are normal, and draw conclusions that the past would be much colder than believed. But I'm not really sure what you're saying, maybe I'm not hearing you right in this part of your post. Part of the thing they're getting at is that there is a massive flux in CO2 levels, the earths temperature may not go up as fast as you'd think, but they're not really much to stop it from going up.

    P.S. By "assumptions" I'm merely categorizing what analysis/interpretation of data they have come up with. A lone scientist's analysis or findings could be considered an assumption until others have validated it, but i use it in a broad sense. I was also emphasizing your criticism of their work, i don't believe they make assumptions.
     
  11. SSL0207

    SSL0207 Mhmm....

    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    k... i understand what youre saying...

    i'm just saying that i think that in this article we dont' know enough about the ice and how it was formed/may have changed/when the ice was formed... to draw any conclusions about now or the future...

    and the BBC puts out a lot of stuff that comes from the standpoint that would disagree with mine... so thats why the title showed my opinion of thier 'science'...
     
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page