Jump to content

Global Warming


JerrySeinfeld

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

First Ann Coulter now Stockwell Day.

Have you had an original idea in your life, Jerry? And you do know "global warming" (more accurately known as climate change) doesn't mean everywhere on earth warms up, right?

What do you mean, "more accurately known as climate change"? This is something I've never fully understood: do the true believers think that climate change didn't occur before the Industrial Revolution? Were climatic conditions more or less static before humans appeared? If global warming=climate change, does that mean that the climate only changes unidirectionally?

There's something vaguely Orwellian about the way the left grabs onto existing words and phrases, twists the meanings to their own uses, and expects everyone else to use their redefintions and toe the rhetorical line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean, "more accurately known as climate change"? This is something I've never fully understood: do the true believers think that climate change didn't occur before the Industrial Revolution? Were climatic conditions more or less static before humans appeared? If global warming=climate change, does that mean that the climate only changes unidirectionally?

Let me clarify: global warming is the phenomenon which leads to climate change which won't necessarily result in warmer temperatures everywhere. In some places, global warming will make things colder.

So the popular retort "if there's global warming why is it so cold, huh?" is based on ignorance of the phenomenon.

There's something vaguely Orwellian about the way the left grabs onto existing words and phrases, twists the meanings to their own uses, and expects everyone else to use their redefintions and toe the rhetorical line.

And of course, only the left does that. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean, "more accurately known as climate change"? This is something I've never fully understood: do the true believers think that climate change didn't occur before the Industrial Revolution? Were climatic conditions more or less static before humans appeared? If global warming=climate change, does that mean that the climate only changes unidirectionally?

Let me clarify: global warming is the phenomenon which leads to climate change which won't necessarily result in warmer temperatures everywhere. In some places, global warming will make things colder.

So the popular retort "if there's global warming why is it so cold, huh?" is based on ignorance of the phenomenon.

There's something vaguely Orwellian about the way the left grabs onto existing words and phrases, twists the meanings to their own uses, and expects everyone else to use their redefintions and toe the rhetorical line.

And of course, only the left does that. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

sort of like someone who gets a new fireplace installed by a handyman and is puzzeled why when the have a roaring fire in the den, the kitchen is freezing.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First Ann Coulter now Stockwell Day.

Have you had an original idea in your life, Jerry? And you do know "global warming" (more accurately known as climate change) doesn't mean everywhere on earth warms up, right?

Of course not!

Now that EVERYTHING (even cooling) is evidence of "climate change" there's no arguing against it, right?

Nowadays as long as it's too warm, too cold, too dry, too wet, too rainy, too humid...too anything, then GOSH RUN FOR THE HILLS - it's CLIMATE CHANGE.

Er, wait. That would render the science of climate change irrefutable, which would mean it's not science...

bwaahahahahahhaa :lol:

Climates do change. You're right on that. But they've been doing it for thousands and thousands of years, long before you and David Suzuki started milking the public on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First Ann Coulter now Stockwell Day.

Have you had an original idea in your life, Jerry? And you do know "global warming" (more accurately known as climate change) doesn't mean everywhere on earth warms up, right?

Of course not!

Now that EVERYTHING (even cooling) is evidence of "climate change" there's no arguing against it, right?

Nowadays as long as it's too warm, too cold, too dry, too wet, too rainy, too humid...too anything, then GOSH RUN FOR THE HILLS - it's CLIMATE CHANGE.

Er, wait. That would render the science of climate change irrefutable, which would mean it's not science...

bwaahahahahahhaa :lol:

Climates do change. You're right on that. But they've been doing it for thousands and thousands of years, long before you and David Suzuki started milking the public on the subject.

p.s. - I don't need to read the newspaper to know that it's been cold and snowy ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's something vaguely Orwellian about the way the left grabs onto existing words and phrases, twists the meanings to their own uses, and expects everyone else to use their redefintions and toe the rhetorical line.

Hmmm, it's rather interesting that you have attributed this to the "left", when the term "climate change" was practically invented by Frank Luntz, the republican strategist....hardly a "leftie"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's something vaguely Orwellian about the way the left grabs onto existing words and phrases, twists the meanings to their own uses, and expects everyone else to use their redefintions and toe the rhetorical line.

Hmmm, it's rather interesting that you have attributed this to the "left", when the term "climate change" was practically invented by Frank Luntz, the republican strategist....hardly a "leftie"

No it wasn't - it was invented by a bunch of granola scientists who used to write about the coming "global cooling" in the 1970's. Then when the world started warming in the 70's 80's and 90's they changed it to "global warming".

But now that the world has started to cool again (granola scientists HATE good news), they just figure it's easier to refer to "climate change" :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's been bloody cold here in Vancouver.

What are you on? It broke a record yesterday for the warmest December 11th on record.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/a...VR.htm?CABC0308

Today it is above seasonal.

So we had a bad week, that is bound to happen. You didn't think global warming meant everyday was going to be hot and sunny did you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's been bloody cold here in Vancouver.

What are you on? It broke a record yesterday for the warmest December 11th on record.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/a...VR.htm?CABC0308

Today it is above seasonal.

So we had a bad week, that is bound to happen. You didn't think global warming meant everyday was going to be hot and sunny did you?

I think you've made my point loud and clear and I'm glad you took the bait:

Everytime there is a weather anomally, we shouldn't start running around drawing major conclusions.

It makes me laugh everytime you see a hurricane and someone says "global warming".

Last year after Hurricane Katrina we heard CNN and all the retard environmentalists gabbing on about how the storms are getting bigger and fiercer and this is something we can expcet to see more and more of...heck even earlier this year "scientists" were predicting a very active storm season.

And what happened this year? NOTHING!!!!!

N O T H I N G

Not ONE hurricane hit the USA this season. Not ONE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you've made my point loud and clear and I'm glad you took the bait:

Everytime there is a weather anomally, we shouldn't start running around drawing major conclusions.

It makes me laugh everytime you see a hurricane and someone says "global warming".

Last year after Hurricane Katrina we heard CNN and all the retard environmentalists gabbing on about how the storms are getting bigger and fiercer and this is something we can expcet to see more and more of...heck even earlier this year "scientists" were predicting a very active storm season.

And what happened this year? NOTHING!!!!!

N O T H I N G

Not ONE hurricane hit the USA this season. Not ONE.

One instance should not be taken as proof. You can't say "it was warm today" therefore global warming exists, just as you can't say "it was cold today" therefore global warming does not exist. But, over time, with enough data, it is easy to see a trend emerging.

Another way of looking at this. Let's say you have a coin and "tails"= a hot day , "heads"= a cold day. If you flip the coin, some days will be colder and some will be warmer, but overall it will be average. Now, let's say global warming starts, it will be like having a weighted coin, where the probability of "tails" becomes 60% and the probability of "heads" becomes 40%. If you flip it only once, you just might get "heads". You might even get "heads" a few times in a row. But ,if you flip that coin enough times, you'll find that 60% of the time it's "hot" and 40% of the time it's "cold". Thus, you can conclude that global warming does exist, since without global warming it would be 50/50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's been bloody cold here in Vancouver - it snowed like crazy and Alberta has only recentlly excaped a weeks long deep freeze.

Is it just me, or has the global warming spared western Canada? :lol:

Do global warning experts ever make the claim that it won't snow in places like B.C.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not ONE hurricane hit the USA this season. Not ONE.

Instead a tornado hits London, England.

And Continental ski hills are all snow-free. And the papers in England are predictably linking the unusual warm weather with global warming. Last year, when Eastern Europe saw some of the lowest sustained temperatures on record? Not a peep. The only thing predictable about the weather is that no matter what happens the eco-doom crowd will spin it to mean that mankind is the devil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Continental ski hills are all snow-free. And the papers in England are predictably linking the unusual warm weather with global warming. Last year, when Eastern Europe saw some of the lowest sustained temperatures on record? Not a peep. The only thing predictable about the weather is that no matter what happens the eco-doom crowd will spin it to mean that mankind is the devil.

Just as the neo-con right wing has claimed that there is no pollution and no acid rain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Citation?

"At Quebec City, the two sides appointed special envoys to study the acid rain problem. The Americans saw this as being enough to mollify Ottawa at that time. Mr. Reagan wasn’t convinced acid rain was a problem. At a National Security Council meeting he pointed out “we haven’t had air as clean as we now have for decades.”"

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editoria.../2004/0915.html

Acid rain and pollution all in one comment.

You're suggesting that the right wing was an early believer in air pollution and acid rain? Citation for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're suggesting that the right wing was an early believer in air pollution and acid rain? Citation for that?

No. Rather, I'll ask you how far off Reagan's position (as indicated in your quote) was from reality. I remember acid rain being a big deal back in the 80's, with a lot of scary talk about dying lakes and forests. The worst of those predictions have proven hugely inaccurate. So, what happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Rather, I'll ask you how far off Reagan's position (as indicated in your quote) was from reality. I remember acid rain being a big deal back in the 80's, with a lot of scary talk about dying lakes and forests. The worst of those predictions have proven hugely inaccurate. So, what happened?

Perhaps you forgot the various treaties that were signed and the reductions in sulfur emissions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_Emiss...uction_Protocol

Do you have citations for it being all nonsense? You still think it came from ducks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not ONE hurricane hit the USA this season. Not ONE.

Instead a tornado hits London, England.

And Continental ski hills are all snow-free. And the papers in England are predictably linking the unusual warm weather with global warming. Last year, when Eastern Europe saw some of the lowest sustained temperatures on record? Not a peep. The only thing predictable about the weather is that no matter what happens the eco-doom crowd will spin it to mean that mankind is the devil.

Exactly - everything is evidence of global warming, which doesn't make it very scientific.

If it's too cold - that's evidence of global warming...or "climate change".

This website I believe provides a non-biased (maybe even environmentalist bias?) history of how climates on the earth have change throughout the past 500,000 years, the pastcouple of centuries and even in the past century...this is nothing new - it's just new to bored david suzuki fanatics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you've made my point loud and clear and I'm glad you took the bait:

Everytime there is a weather anomally, we shouldn't start running around drawing major conclusions.

It makes me laugh everytime you see a hurricane and someone says "global warming".

Last year after Hurricane Katrina we heard CNN and all the retard environmentalists gabbing on about how the storms are getting bigger and fiercer and this is something we can expcet to see more and more of...heck even earlier this year "scientists" were predicting a very active storm season.

And what happened this year? NOTHING!!!!!

N O T H I N G

Not ONE hurricane hit the USA this season. Not ONE.

Bait, what bait. There were 9 named storms this year in the Atlantic basin. True none of them hit the US. This isn't meant to be offensive towards you, but the United States is not the only determining factor in the global warming problem.

There were 24 named storms in the Pacific, so it wasn't exactly a slow year.

I completely agree with you that climate change is a hard thing to prove because it has happened in the past without human intervention. Completely agree.

Even as this map shows.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TempAno...cmp_1951-80.gif

.... while some areas have experieced increases over the last fifty years or so, there are some areas that haven't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,719
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Ronaldo_
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...