Vote YES on Global Warming.

Post by **TheCatt** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:04 pm

See, life down here is cheaper cuz you don't need those, and don't get your hair all mussed up with em.

Post by **Cakedaddy** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:02 pm

Most coats include a hat for free though. There's no upgrade charge for them or anything!

Post by **thibodeaux** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:19 pm

Cakedaddy wrote:So, to the southerners here. That flap of material on the back of your coat/sweatshirt is a hat. It's pulled up over your head when it's cold out. It makes the cold not so cold. FYI.

Thanks, but down here we have this yellow light in the sky called "the sun" that keeps us nice and warm. Mostly.

Edited By thibodeaux on 1170300014

Post by **Vince** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:58 pm

Cakedaddy wrote:Most coats include a hat for free though. There's no upgrade charge for them or anything!

Unless your coat comes from Apple. Then you get charged $1.99 to pull the hat up over your head the first time.

Post by **TheCatt** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:54 am

Cakedaddy wrote:Most coats include a hat for free though. There's no upgrade charge for them or anything!

When I was living in Chicago, I had one of those coats.

Really, I've never bought a coat down here with one of those since I was a little kid. I always thought those were children things.

Post by **GORDON** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:15 pm

Why can't the north be farther south?

Post by **Vince** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:33 pm

The Great Global Warming Swindle. Best documentary ever.

Post by **TPRJones** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:23 am

My favorite irony in it all is that water vapor is the most powerful of the greenhouse gases, yet what is the waste product of the "environmentally friendly" hydrogen fuel cell vechicles being pushed by the ecowarriors? Yeah, water vapor.

DoctorChaos · Post by **DoctorChaos** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:22 am

Vince wrote:The Great Global Warming Swindle. Best documentary ever.

Interesting, its not available right now.

Post by **TheCatt** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:09 am

You can read about it here.

Post by **TPRJones** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:38 pm

You can also watch it here (in eight parts, this link is to part one): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....search=

No matter what you may think of the film, there is one thing that cannot be ignored: the correlation between sunspot activity and temperatures on earth are almost of a 1-to-1 relationship. This means either that sunspots are controlling temperature which is then controlling CO2, or CO2 levels on earth are somehow controlling sunspot activity on the sun. There are no other options.

I don't know about you, but the idea of CO2 levels on earth controlling sunspot activity sounds a bit absurd to me.

EDIT: Well, on second thought, there is one other option: both sunspots and CO2 in earth's atmosphere are controlled by a third thing so far unknown. However, I sitll find it hard to believe that something outside the sun could be causing it's sunspots and our CO2 to such a strong degree and still find it possible that our meger output of CO2 could have any effect - positive or negative - on a process that is powerful enough to cause such massive magnetic storms on the surface of the sun. Occam's razor takes us back to the sunspots -> temperature -> CO2 relationship.

Edited By TPRJones on 1173827222

Post by **TheCatt** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:16 pm

TPRJones wrote:No matter what you may think of the film, there is one thing that cannot be ignored: the correlation between sunspot activity and temperatures on earth are almost of a 1-to-1 relationship. This means either that sunspots are controlling temperature which is then controlling CO2, or CO2 levels on earth are somehow controlling sunspot activity on the sun. There are no other options.

Correlation <> Causality

Post by **Vince** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:17 pm

TheCatt wrote:
TPRJones wrote:No matter what you may think of the film, there is one thing that cannot be ignored: the correlation between sunspot activity and temperatures on earth are almost of a 1-to-1 relationship. This means either that sunspots are controlling temperature which is then controlling CO2, or CO2 levels on earth are somehow controlling sunspot activity on the sun. There are no other options.
Correlation <> Causality

Well, you're right. Which is entirely what the warming argument is based on.

My favorite part of it was the Greenpeace co-founder talking about leaving the group when they started talking about banning chlorine. "It's on the Periodic Table. I think banning an element is a little outside out jurisdiction."

Post by **TPRJones** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:03 pm

TheCatt wrote:
TPRJones wrote:No matter what you may think of the film, there is one thing that cannot be ignored: the correlation between sunspot activity and temperatures on earth are almost of a 1-to-1 relationship. This means either that sunspots are controlling temperature which is then controlling CO2, or CO2 levels on earth are somehow controlling sunspot activity on the sun. There are no other options.

Correlation <> Causality

Agreed, and thus my edit. But nearly 100% correlation over millions of years does imply either causality or a common cause from another source.

Edited By TPRJones on 1173837895

Post by **GORDON** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:42 pm

You can have correlation without causality, but you can't have causality without correlation.

I think.

I've always seen the "Correlation <> Causality" response as a person who doesn't have any evidence to refute a suggestion, and is afraid of thinking new thoughts. Not saying it is always wrong to say "Correlation <> Causality," but I see it used an awful lot where maybe it shouldn't be.

Or not. Whatever.

Hey, did you hear about how GLOBAL WARMING was melting the Arctic icepack and killing the polar bear? Yeah, turns out the polar bear population is increasing.

Post by **TheCatt** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:06 am

Well, I have no evidence either way, since I'm not a scientist. I do believe we should limit our impact on the Earth as a general principle.

Correlation of 1 can still just be a coincidence.

Post by **TPRJones** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:34 am

Sure, but a coincidence of this magnitude is a rediculious idea. We're not talking about a few years that happen to be similar. We're talking about going back into the historical record as far as it goes and finding a correlation of approximately one all the way through it.

The odds on that are extreme (which is a huge understatement). What would be the odds that every single person purchasing a lottery ticket in the past drawing happened to pick the same numbers and split the $370 million 500 million different ways among us? Something on that order of unlikely applies here, too, I would bet.

There comes a point where you have to acknowladge a causal relationship (whether directly or from a third-party common cause) as being the most likely answer. Otherwise you might as well say that gravity doesn't really exist, it's just a coincidence that things have been orbiting each other all this time and any minute now everything will fly off in different directions regardless of past experience.

Post by **TPRJones** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:40 am

TheCatt wrote:I do believe we should limit our impact on the Earth as a general principle.

I will say that I respect the sentiment behind this statement. I can't respect the statement itself; to me it sounds like an ant walking across the Hoover Dam worrying that his tiny little footfalls will cause it to crumble. It's a bit egotistical of the ant to think he has that much power.

Nonetheless, I do respect that you and most of those not personally making money or gaining power from the ecological disaster prediction industry do mean well. It's a shame that so many rotten people are feeding off of those well-meaning sentiments for their own personal gain.

DoctorChaos · Post by **DoctorChaos** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:07 am

GORDON wrote:Hey, did you hear about how GLOBAL WARMING was melting the Arctic icepack and killing the polar bear? Yeah, turns out the polar bear population is increasing.

Makes sense their nuts dropped. :laugh:

Seriously, we seem to be stuck with a couple unique situations that could cause planetary warming (notice I didn't use global warning). One: sunspots, Two, increased carbon dioxide. Both of these have been tracked and correlated with an increase in global temperatures over many years. It would be really nice if we could stop pointing fingers, Al, and start exercising some voluntary restraint because it's the responsible and right thing to do.

I'll get off my soap box now.

I think I just echoed TPR. Sorry, guess I should read more.

Post by **TheCatt** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:04 am

TPRJones wrote: I can't respect the statement itself; to me it sounds like an ant walking across the Hoover Dam worrying that his tiny little footfalls will cause it to crumble. It's a bit egotistical of the ant to think he has that much power.

Speaking of statemens that don't deserve respect.

This is among the stupidest statements I've heard from any side of any argument ever.

Plenty of people echo that same shit, but I've never known why any intelligent person would repeat it.

Does that mean if we set off all our nuclear bombs, nothing would change? If we burned down all the forests in the world, nothing would happen?

We're not an ant. Maybe if there were only 1 human in the world, I'd prolly agree with you.

This argument is one of my two buttons, so it sort of sets me off. But, I still think you're smarter than that, TPR.

Edited By TheCatt on 1173878050