MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: ChicosBailBonds on December 21, 2009, 01:22:03 AM
-
All I can say is....wow.
-
it was sweet?
-
it was sweet?
he can't say. he can only say the word "wow" ;)
-
heard similar things from everyone I have talked to who has seen it.
-
heard similar things from everyone I have talked to who has seen it.
The college kid next door (who is my 12-year old's unofficial "big brother") said it's the greatest movie ever. He said they got their money's worth for the $300+ million they spent. He saw it in 3D at the IMAX.
Question for those who've seen it: it's OK for a 12-year old boy, right? Any concerns?
We almost went last night, but I was too tired. I figure we'll go later this week. I have such fond memories of watching the block-busters of my youth on the big screen (Star Wars, Raiders, etc.) and I want to take him to this movie.
-
The college kid next door (who is my 12-year old's unofficial "big brother") said it's the greatest movie ever. He said they got their money's worth for the $300+ million they spent. He saw it in 3D at the IMAX.
Question for those who've seen it: it's OK for a 12-year old boy, right? Any concerns?
We almost went last night, but I was too tired. I figure we'll go later this week. I have such fond memories of watching the block-busters of my youth on the big screen (Star Wars, Raiders, etc.) and I want to take him to this movie.
cost was more like $500 million.
-
cost was more like $500 million.
Which is appalling as they did not pay for big name actors/actresses and spent $150 million on marketing alone. I was really hoping to see another Battlefield Earth debacle, but hearing otherwise.
The $150 million in marketing has me thinking because has anyone else just really felt 'blah' about the commercials? I really have no desire to see it due to the marketing, but thinking otherwise due to word of mouth.
-
Question for those who've seen it: it's OK for a 12-year old boy, right? Any concerns?
IMDB's parental guides for films are a pretty good descriptor of what adult stuff happens in a movie without a lot of editorial comments involving what or what not a child should be seeing.
via IMDB's parent guide for Avatar:
Sex & Nudity
A female native(alien) wears indigenous attire. Her bare breasts are pretty much visible throughout the entire film, though there is no discernible areolae.
Male natives wear loincloths that cover front.
Several alien behinds are seen, though most of it is covered by the tail.
A male and female begin to kiss. The female jumps on the man and moans slightly. (Sex is implied.)
An alien character fondles his ponytail (which we later learn is a sensory organ) and is told "If you keep doing that, you'll go blind."
Violence & Gore
Numerous scenes of alien creatures being killed, some by other creatures, some by humans. A wolf-like creature has to be put out of pain.
A man gets semi-eaten then thrown by a dragon-like creature.
A man is shot with two large arrows and is seen suffering to expiration.
Intense battle sequences where both vehicles and their operators are destroyed.
Profanity
Moderate profanity including: d***, s***
Alcohol/Drugs/Smoking
Moderate Smoking
Moderate drinking and references to drinking in a positive light
Frightening/Intense Scenes
Numerous scenes of pursuit, some by alien creatures, some by humans.
An attack sequence where something important is destroyed is distressful to the characters, so much so that they wail in mourning.
-
IMDB's parental guides for films are a pretty good descriptor of what adult stuff happens in a movie without a lot of editorial comments involving what or what not a child should be seeing.
via IMDB's parent guide for Avatar:
Thanks. I have several sources I look to, but hadn't looked at IMDB. I also always like to hear what people think.
-
I saw it the other night. I thought this was a movie like Star Wars.
Just like Star Wars this movie used new filming techniques which will make all the movies that come after it that much better. In comparison, the Harry Potter films do a good job, but 3-6 times in each movie there's a scene that looks SO bad I wish the director/producer had reshot it to make it look more plausible. Avatar had no such scenes. It was truely amazing.
The storyline was a little "Hollywoodish" but I'd see it again because it's that impressive.
-
I have heard A+ special effects C in story and plot.
-
It sounds like IMAX 3-D is the proper way to see this flick.
-
>An alien character fondles his ponytail (which we later learn is a sensory organ) and is told "If you keep doing that, you'll go blind."
I had no desire to see this film until I read this.
-
I saw it in 3D at the IMAX.
For a 12 year old, not a problem...I took my 11 year old. A few cuss words and there are some pretty wild battle scenes at the end, but nothing that isn't in about every video game or dartoon it seems. The main female character you can see her breasts but it's like watching National Geographic, unless breasts from 12 foot tall blue female creature are your thing.
Story is good, solid, entertaining (it's not going to win anything on the story, but it's not bad either)....not great...but snappy and keeps the pace going.
The effects and overall concepting is just beyond description. I don't think anything can be said to describe it unless you actually see it. Worth going to the theatre, which is something I wouldn't say very often.
-
>An alien character fondles his ponytail (which we later learn is a sensory organ) and is told "If you keep doing that, you'll go blind."
I had no desire to see this film until I read this.
I'm going to grow a pony tail now.
-
I'm going to grow a pony tail now.
i read this thread right before going to avatar. this line could slip by easily w/o keen ears, fortunately the line came early and i heard it, had a nice immature chuckle to myself. overall it was very good, cutting edge. the plot was very storybook as some have said. the graphics were very surreal and creative.
-
I know I'm not saying anything original when I post this, but I immediately thought of the Smurfs when I saw the trailer.
That being said, and reviewing what others have said, I'm going to try and get the girlfriend to come with me to see this...I don't care if the story sucks, I'll gladly pay for the special effects.
-
I know I'm not saying anything original when I post this, but I immediately thought of the Smurfs when I saw the trailer.
That being said, and reviewing what others have said, I'm going to try and get the girlfriend to come with me to see this...I don't care if the story sucks, I'll gladly pay for the special effects.
You'll enjoy it....the story doesn't suck, it's just been told before in different ways.
-
I know I'm not saying anything original when I post this, but I immediately thought of the Smurfs when I saw the trailer.
That being said, and reviewing what others have said, I'm going to try and get the girlfriend to come with me to see this...I don't care if the story sucks, I'll gladly pay for the special effects.
South Park did a bit on that and the same connection was made.
-
South Park did a bit on that and the same connection was made.
I did see that episode, but it was nowhere near as good as the "George Lucas raping Indiana Jones" episode.
-
I did see that episode, but it was nowhere near as good as the "George Lucas raping Indiana Jones" episode.
One of the all time greats.
-
You'll enjoy it....the story doesn't suck, it's just been told before in different ways.
I have not seen it, but have been told the plot is basically "Pocahontas in Space."
-
I did see that episode, but it was nowhere near as good as the "George Lucas raping Indiana Jones" episode.
Or as good as the Woodland Critters Christmas.
-
All I have to say regarding the South Park "best episode" is:
"Ha ha ha ha ha ha, made you eat your parents!"
-
The Radiohead cameo has to be the greatest ever on that show.
-
Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! <lick> <lick>
-
"Or as good as the Woodland Critters Christmas."
This episode is on at 9:30 tonight!!!!!
-
"Or as good as the Woodland Critters Christmas."
This episode is on at 9:30 tonight!!!!!
Greatest Christmas Special Ever - no matter what show it is.
-
Greatest Christmas Special Ever - no matter what show it is.
Blood orgy!
-
Got to Avatar over the weekend with my son. I agree with Chico's review: wow! We really enjoyed it. In my opinion, it's so well done that you don't really realize that much of the movie is totally CGI. I've read that they "seamlessly" blend the CGI with the real, and I have to agree -- best effects I've ever seen. We saw it in 2D because I hate those glasses and didn't want to get stuck with the choice of keeping the glasses on and being annoyed, or watching a blurry movie without the glasses. Now that I've seen the movie (and talked to friends who have seen it in 3D), I kind of want to see it again in 3D.
-
Got to Avatar over the weekend with my son. I agree with Chico's review: wow! We really enjoyed it. In my opinion, it's so well done that you don't really realize that much of the movie is totally CGI. I've read that they "seamlessly" blend the CGI with the real, and I have to agree -- best effects I've ever seen. We saw it in 2D because I hate those glasses and didn't want to get stuck with the choice of keeping the glasses on and being annoyed, or watching a blurry movie without the glasses. Now that I've seen the movie (and talked to friends who have seen it in 3D), I kind of want to see it again in 3D.
I would say 3D is the way to go. Its not over-done, pop out in your face 3D, but more subtle for the most part, making you feel like your in the action, which is how it should be. It just seemed less 'gimmicky' than other 3D films i've seen. Very well done IMO.
-
James Cameron really out did himself on this one.......Fantastic cinamatography albeit sub-par and predictable plot.
-
Special effects - A+
Thinly veiled environmental propaganda - F
-
Special effects - A+
Thinly veiled environmental propaganda - F
I take it you don't believe in climate change.
-
Special effects - A+
Thinly veiled environmental propaganda - F
"environmental propaganda" is bad for you? Next thing you know, some pie-in-the-sky do-gooder will want us to clean up the mess we've made. What the hell, leave it for the next guy to take care of, I'm too busy consuming.
-
I take it you don't believe in climate change.
I think everyone with a brain believes in climate change. Is it caused by my SUV? don't believe so...
-
I think everyone with a brain believes in climate change. Is it caused by my SUV? don't believe so...
Amen.
-
it's less environmental propaganda as it is evil American imperialism propaganda. the story was ripped from dances with wolves but this movie was never about the story. the story was just kind of necessary to give an excuse to use the special effects.
-
Your SUV? No. The couple million on American roads. Not by much. The hundreds of millions on the worlds roads along with the thousands of coal plants, oil refineries...a little more likely.
-
"environmental propaganda" is bad for you? Next thing you know, some pie-in-the-sky do-gooder will want us to clean up the mess we've made. What the hell, leave it for the next guy to take care of, I'm too busy consuming.
You're right. Where do I go to clean up those messy sunspots that have much more to do with any so-called climate change than anything man is doing?
-
You're right. Where do I go to clean up those messy sunspots that have much more to do with any so-called climate change than anything man is doing?
I'm thinking we should probably not get into this... since most scientists would disagree with your fringe science.
but, like I said, lets not get into this. ;)
-
I'm thinking we should probably not get into this... since most scientists would disagree with your fringe science.
but, like I said, lets not get into this. ;)
Agreed. No point in re-hashing the fudged data by these scientists. ;)
-
Sick movie.
Just got out of the 3D showing...I think I might go back to watch it in IMAX 3D next.
-
I take it you don't believe in climate change.
+1....it was a bit of propaganda....I believe in climate change as well....it's changing all the time, warm, cold...has been for billions of years and will continue to do so, whether we are here on this planet of not.
-
I'm thinking we should probably not get into this... since most scientists would disagree with your fringe science.
but, like I said, lets not get into this. ;)
Except when they lose the data or make it up and willfully talk about manipulating it....but I agree, let's not get into this.
Meanwhile, Mars, Jupiter, Titan, Pluto, etc are all warming during the same time period....those damn SUVs and roads on those planets \ moons...someone really needs to clamp down. Where is the Intergalactic Environmental minister when you need him\her\it?
-
Where is the Intergalactic Environmental minister when you need him\her\it?
That will be Obama's campaign promise before the next election. After all, he did successfully lower the sea levels.
-
I take it you don't believe in climate change.
Why does it always have to go back to the 'climate'. I believe in smog. I can see smog, i don't want to breath smog. If environmentalists spent the last 15 years trying to convince people that having cleaner air was important, rather than that we were causing some sort of hard to improve global change they would have gotten a lot more traction a lot quicker.
-
and this one will be locked in 3....2.....
Why does everything have to turn into a let's see who can yell louder political dick size contest?????
unnatural carnal knowledge!!!!!
-
Just don't punch my political dick.
-
Why does it always have to go back to the 'climate'. I believe in smog. I can see smog, i don't want to breath smog. If environmentalists spent the last 15 years trying to convince people that having cleaner air was important, rather than that we were causing some sort of hard to improve global change they would have gotten a lot more traction a lot quicker.
I agree, but part of that problem is that the solutions are different. Almost everyone wants cleaner air and water, that is something we should all strive for. But when we've gone down the insane path of saying CO2 is a pollutant (it's what we EXHALE as living creatures...it is FOOD for plants), then you know the insanity is alive and well.
Plus, you can't tax the Sun and this is as much about money and power as anything else. You can tax wealthy countries and citizens, so it's a lot easier to blame it on people breathing and driving SUVs so as to extract money than it is to look at the natural cycles that have been going on for billions of years...because no revenue can be grabbed from that perspective.
-
I agree, but part of that problem is that the solutions are different. Almost everyone wants cleaner air and water, that is something we should all strive for. But when we've gone down the insane path of saying CO2 is a pollutant (it's what we EXHALE as living creatures...it is FOOD for plants), then you know the insanity is alive and well.
Plus, you can't tax the Sun and this is as much about money and power as anything else. You can tax wealthy countries and citizens, so it's a lot easier to blame it on people breathing and driving SUVs so as to extract money than it is to look at the natural cycles that have been going on for billions of years...because no revenue can be grabbed from that perspective.
Pay the man.
-
I agree, but part of that problem is that the solutions are different. Almost everyone wants cleaner air and water, that is something we should all strive for. But when we've gone down the insane path of saying CO2 is a pollutant (it's what we EXHALE as living creatures...it is FOOD for plants), then you know the insanity is alive and well.
Plus, you can't tax the Sun and this is as much about money and power as anything else. You can tax wealthy countries and citizens, so it's a lot easier to blame it on people breathing and driving SUVs so as to extract money than it is to look at the natural cycles that have been going on for billions of years...because no revenue can be grabbed from that perspective.
I see you have your conservative radio talking points down. Congrats.
I dropped it, but you can't seem to.
No one cares if you think you're right Chicos.
-
I see you have your conservative radio talking points down. Congrats.
I dropped it, but you can't seem to.
No one cares if you think you're right Chicos.
Chicos makes a lot of good points. I'd say a lot more people agree with Chicos than you think. You wanna' do something good for the environment, please stop that volcano in the Phillipines when it starts erupting. Or give up your plasma TV. Or your pets. Or exhale somehting besides CO2.
-
Chicos it is but it isn't.
The best thing you can read on warming is super freakenomics. It examines the problems with our current projection models. States that doing things to reduce the carbon already in the air is cheaper and faster than trying to reduce output. Those are the solutions we should be looking at, things like stimulating plankton growth by droping iron in the ocean. Too much focus on reduction which is expensive and won't pay dividens for another 30 years.
Seeing the movie in Imax 3d tonight.
-
Chicos it is but it isn't.
The best thing you can read on warming is super freakenomics. It examines the problems with our current projection models. States that doing things to reduce the carbon already in the air is cheaper and faster than trying to reduce output. Those are the solutions we should be looking at, things like stimulating plankton growth by droping iron in the ocean. Too much focus on reduction which is expensive and won't pay dividens for another 30 years.
Seeing the movie in Imax 3d tonight.
I completely agree.
-
Actually, the best thing one can read on "global warming" is Climate Confusion.
It makes the point that no models can absolutely predict what will happen and that cooling is just as likely.
It also examines the effect of the never ending chase for funding and grants by the so-called climate experts and the motives they have for reaching conclusions that they have to reach to continue receiving funding.
Also, the work of fiction by the late Michael Crichton, "State of Fear" is entertaining and, granted that it tells a story, it does contain historical data the casts significant doubts on the conclusions of the environmental leftists.
-
Actually, the best thing one can read on "global warming" is Climate Confusion.
It makes the point that no models can absolutely predict what will happen and that cooling is just as likely.
It also examines the effect of the never ending chase for funding and grants by the so-called climate experts and the motives they have for reaching conclusions that they have to reach to continue receiving funding.
Also, the work of fiction by the late Michael Crichton, "State of Fear" is entertaining and, granted that it tells a story, it does contain historical data the casts significant doubts on the conclusions of the environmental leftists.
fine, screw it, I'll play this little game... Note: the first is an abstract, you can read the full text of ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Chicos: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html
oops.
ATWizJr : As commenter Houston so elegantly put it in a response on one of my posts, evidence leads to consensus. Scientists like nothing more than to disprove established theories and upset the status quo. The idea that scientists may be in possession of knowledge that would bring about the biggest scientific upset of recent history, and yet would simply sit on their hands because of peer pressure or grant funding is, quite frankly, ludicrous beyond belief to anyone who knows anything about the scientific establishment.
taken from http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/consensus-matters-climate-skeptics.php
I realize that this won't shut either of you up, but perhaps the others who read the kind of crap that you two spew will be taken with a grain of salt. As it should be.
-
fine, screw it, I'll play this little game... Note: the first is an abstract, you can read the full text of ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Chicos: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html
oops.
ATWizJr : As commenter Houston so elegantly put it in a response on one of my posts, evidence leads to consensus. Scientists like nothing more than to disprove established theories and upset the status quo. The idea that scientists may be in possession of knowledge that would bring about the biggest scientific upset of recent history, and yet would simply sit on their hands because of peer pressure or grant funding is, quite frankly, ludicrous beyond belief to anyone who knows anything about the scientific establishment.
taken from http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/consensus-matters-climate-skeptics.php
I realize that this won't shut either of you up, but perhaps the others who read the kind of crap that you two spew will be taken with a grain of salt. As it should be.
As should every scientific study. Even the ones that lead to a consensus.
-
Relax Hards, before you get this thread locked.
The world wide climate is a complex system. Too complex to be reliably predicted by our current computer models. As to the effect of 6 billion bodies on the climate, there can be no doubt that 6 billion organisms of any kind would be expected to have some type of effect.
But, the effect is dwarfed by the natural output of many other forces in nature, including volcanos and sunspots. And until it can be proven beyond any doubt that warming is being caused by man I'm not willing to endorse any unilateral action by our government that would compromise our national interest or redistribute our national wealth. Especially when all the other countries will not agree to be bound by the same rules.
The strategy of changing the name of the movement from Global Warming to Climate Change should tell one something.
And, scientists have to eat, too.
-
I see you have your conservative radio talking points down. Congrats.
I dropped it, but you can't seem to.
No one cares if you think you're right Chicos.
I don't listen to the radio, sorry Hards. I just follow common sense. Or I listen to people like Dr. Richard Lindzen from MIT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS-cLp1PEGQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS-cLp1PEGQ)
Or I may listen to someone like Reid Bryson, the father of Climatology (RIP). Or any number of other highly educated men and women who have a different point of view.
I can drop it too....but it seems you really can't since you needed to get in the talk radio comment...or are you dropping it "after the talk radio" comment. LOL
-
Good thing Hards dropped it....I read that post of his and then see a bunch of other responses from him "dropping it". LOL
It's pretty simple for me, why are other planets warming at the same time? Why has data been hidden, models not shared, data manipulated? Why are there a number of very prominent scientists from academic institutions like MIT, Harvard, Oxford, UCLA, NASA that say this is all cyclical? Seems if it was PROVEN science and a slam dunk, then these guys would be on board.
Perhaps if the data wasn't hidden, wasn't manipulated, the models actually SHARED with other scientists rather than hidden, a lot of the doubts could be eliminated.
Besides, in what schools are we teaching that the pursuit of science and truth is to HIDE THE DATA? Wow. What progress, what a pursuit for truth. Amazing.
Reid Bryson, the father of Climatology continues to roll in his grave.
-
Good thing Hards dropped it....I read that post of his and then see a bunch of other responses from him "dropping it". LOL
It's pretty simple for me, why are other planets warming at the same time? Why has data been hidden, models not shared, data manipulated? Why are there a number of very prominent academic institutions like MIT, Harvard, Oxford, UCLA, NASA that say this is all cyclical? Seems if it was PROVEN science and a slam dunk, then these guys would be on board.
Perhaps if the data wasn't hidden, wasn't manipulated, the models actually SHARED with other scientists rather than hidden, a lot of the doubts could be eliminated.
Besides, in what schools are we teaching that the pursuit of science and truth is to HIDE THE DATA? Wow. What progress, what a pursuit for truth. Amazing.
Reid Bryson, the father of Climatology continues to roll in his grave.
nevermind that more than 95% of scientists dont agree with a DEAD guy who isn't privy to any new information.
Chicos, you wonder why people call you a douche.
-
nevermind that more than 95% of scientists dont agree with a DEAD guy who isn't privy to any new information.
Chicos, you wonder why people call you a douche.
LOL...still haven't dropped it yet....
You're so classy to pick on the dead like that. Lindzen, by the way, isn't dead. Neither are the 50,000 or so scientists that have signed petitions saying this is not a slam dunk case.
And no, the number isn't close to 95%.....and you wonder why so many people question your logic when you throw really stupid numbers out like that. Try again, make sure you double up the douche comments next time, it definitely makes your argument stronger....and it will get you nominated into the Dodds Board Hall of Fame which is really a crowning achievement. LOL
-
LOL...still haven't dropped it yet....
You're so classy to pick on the dead like that. Lindzen, by the way, isn't dead. Neither are the 50,000 or so scientists that have signed petitions saying this is not a slam dunk case.
And no, the number isn't close to 95%.....and you wonder why so many people question your logic when you throw really stupid numbers out like that. Try again, make sure you double up the douche comments next time, it definitely makes your argument stronger....and it will get you nominated into the Dodds Board Hall of Fame which is really a crowning achievement. LOL
arent you banned there?
my dead reference was to this: Or I may listen to someone like Reid Bryson, the father of Climatology (RIP). Or any number of other highly educated men and women who have a different point of view.
or maybe RIP means something different to you?
prove that the number isn't closer to 95%. FIND something, rather than your much tauted 'common sense' that you seem to think is far and away better than everyone else's.
And you can drop your kiddie LOL garbage at me. I've dealt with forum trolls before and I know exactly how they operate.
-
Hards can't give it up. He has to have the last word even if it is enviro-babble. Prove that the number isn't 95%? The case hinges on this? First class d-baggery.
Very simple proposition here. Data is unclear, has been hidden, manipulated, "lost". There should be plenty of room for doubt about what part man plays in any global warming, er, change er, cooling?...er? The most compelling evidence we have is that the enviro-left has fudged the data. I wonder why?
PS is this spewing? LOL.
-
Hards can't give it up. He has to have the last word even if it is enviro-babble. Prove that the number isn't 95%? The case hinges on this? First class d-baggery.
Very simple proposition here. Data is unclear, has been hidden, manipulated, "lost". There should be plenty of room for doubt about what part man plays in any global warming, er, change er, cooling?...er? The most compelling evidence we have is that the enviro-left has fudged the data. I wonder why?
PS is this spewing? LOL.
I'm entitled to defend my position as much as the two of you are.
I am the only one who has posted concrete valid data regarding the conversation.
-
One more voice to this will probably get the thread locked, so perhaps this could be viewed as a public service.
Damn it, Chicos, let it drop. Don't you know that the science is settled on global warming...errr...climate change. And those 5% "fringe" scientists* (which happens to include one of the most respected scientists at that fringe school in Boston) who Hards so elequently explained "like nothing more than to disprove established theories and upset the status quo" should just shut the hell up and fall in line. After all, they're on the fringe. They should quit requesting key data that the "majority" scientists used to support their positions (which has, unfortunately, been discarded). They should not question the methods or biases of the "majority" scientists.
Hards, I agree with you to a point. Scientists do love to test theories and upset the status quo. That being the case, why are the 95% (as you say) so adamant to call the 5% "fringe" (your word) and to try to stifle debate?
*I think this was Hards' number, but I'm not going to re-read the entire thread.
-
I'd like to see some evidence that all planets are warming, and that this can be considered cyclical. Actually, I'm interested in more evidence on both sides.
-
I'd like to see some evidence that all planets are warming, and that this can be considered cyclical. Actually, I'm interested in more evidence on both sides.
Here you go
Mars warming.... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Pluto warming.... http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html
Triton warming .... http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html
Jupiter warming.... http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-jupiter.htm
And at the same time, we've had solar activity changing outside the norms of it's cycle. Right now, we're in a minimus cycle which is why global temperatures are DOWN the last decade and that cycle has now gone on longer than expected.
-
Too funny....prove the 95% Hards.
This should be good. You made the 95% claim, let's see your proof.
And no, you're not the only one to post data. I've given you Richard Lindzen from MIT and a wonderful video that he recently put on. I could give you thousands more and you could do the same. Which begs the question, with all these smart fellows on both sides saying different things, with climate change going on earth for billions of years (ice ages and warming and ice ages and warming), with warming on other planets at the same time, with solar activity \ sun spots working overtime in the 1990's but now at a minimus level, with East Anglia caught with their hands in the cookie jar manipulating data \hiding data \ not sharing models.....yeah, it's settled and a slam dunk. ::)
-
And at the same time, we've had solar activity changing outside the norms of it's cycle. Right now, we're in a minimus cycle which is why global temperatures are DOWN the last decade and that cycle has now gone on longer than expected.
link?
-
link?
Let me be clear...do I think human activity affects some termperatures? Yes, I do. What I don't buy is that it's an all or nothing proposition or even one that affects things by more than 1 or 2%. That's the difference.
Here you go....we're in a 50 year low for solar flares. This affects my industry considerably because satellites are affected by solar flares in certain months, but we've had none of it the last few years.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/04/the_solar_cycle_and_global_war.php
Sun oddly quiet...hints at new little Ice Age http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090504-sun-global-cooling.html
NASA....Deep Solar Minimum going on currently http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
Many other articles on the recent solar activity (it was off the charts not long ago but has gone down considerably recently....and temperatures have fallen at the same time....amazing)
Just a few below
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6762640/Copenhagen-climate-summit-global-warming-caused-by-suns-radiation.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/03/global_warming_and_the_sun_98154.html
-
Let's also be clear, the UN and others need a boogey man and the boogey man is the west (Europe and the USA). The last thing the UN or scientists who want grants ($$$$) is to say the Sun is causing the vast vast majority of this. Because you can't tax the sun. You can't get fat grants from the Sun. But if you blame it all on man, especially those rich guys from the west, well then you can extract big dollars to flow out of those entities and into others.
-
Let's also be clear, the UN and others need a boogey man and the boogey man is the west (Europe and the USA). The last thing the UN or scientists who want grants ($$$$) is to say the Sun is causing the vast vast majority of this. Because you can't tax the sun. You can't get fat grants from the Sun. But if you blame it all on man, especially those rich guys from the west, well then you can extract big dollars to flow out of those entities and into others.
That is an opinion. It's not evidence.
Thanks for the other links. Plenty to chew on.
-
That is an opinion. It's not evidence.
Thanks for the other links. Plenty to chew on.
Absolutely an opinion. But I think it has a lot of merit as well. Lindzen from MIT certainly shares it, as does Michaels from UVA and many other scientists. If you're looking for grant money, it's best to scare things up as much as possible because the dollars will flow. And as said before, you can't tax the sun....even if it's the primary heating engine for earth and the entire solar system (and the entire solar system is seeing these changes at the same time...amazing coincidence). LOL
-
Blah blah, Does anyone have a problem with Clean Air? Does anyone not want independence from Mid East oil? If you saw your child holding their head next to a car's tail pipe would you tell them to stop breathing that crap in?
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=9087
What i don't get is why the right wingests act like they were impartial and evaluated the evidence and than decided that global warming was crap. When anyone who knows anything about evangelicals knows that they rejected the theory on a religious basis from the beginning. The evangelicals control the GOP, thus you get fed anti-global warming propaganda on fox for the last 15 years and now you are conviced that you were an unbiased observer who weighed all evidence equally and came to your own conclusion. The evangelicals also have scientist lining up to sign pettitions that evolution is garbage and intelligent design is the only way to go. Is anyone going to start putting links up to those guys?
That said, I'm not saying i believe humans are causing it. Although I think the 'the world is too big and complex for us to know' argument is weak
-
apparently no one actually clicked the links of the articles I posted the first time. What is the use in posting the same one again?
Responses to the question: "Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
97%+ of active, publishing, climatologists, (you know, people who actually study this stuff) said yes.
-
apparently no one actually clicked the links of the articles I posted the first time. What is the use in posting the same one again?
Responses to the question: "Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
97%+ of active, publishing, climatologists, (you know, people who actually study this stuff) said yes.
only 6% of scientists are republicans, because it is an anti-science party that doesn't accept new information once their minds are set, not that dems are free of that.
I was just talking to a friend (green party guy) who was interviewing for a job where most his coworkers would be gay, he was talking to one of them about how he thought everyone should be allowed to do whatever makes them happy as long as they aren't hurting anyone. The interviewer was pushing the conversation forward saying that is true about, gay marriage, drug use, prostitution, swingers, gambling, abortions, etc. Than my friend mentioned owning guns and the guy said "i don't know about that." Why the switch in mentality?
-
Blah blah, Does anyone have a problem with Clean Air? Does anyone not want independence from Mid East oil? If you saw your child holding their head next to a car's tail pipe would you tell them to stop breathing that crap in?
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=9087
What i don't get is why the right wingests act like they were impartial and evaluated the evidence and than decided that global warming was crap. When anyone who knows anything about evangelicals knows that they rejected the theory on a religious basis from the beginning. The evangelicals control the GOP, thus you get fed anti-global warming propaganda on fox for the last 15 years and now you are conviced that you were an unbiased observer who weighed all evidence equally and came to your own conclusion. The evangelicals also have scientist lining up to sign pettitions that evolution is garbage and intelligent design is the only way to go. Is anyone going to start putting links up to those guys?
That said, I'm not saying i believe humans are causing it. Although I think the 'the world is too big and complex for us to know' argument is weak
Yes, absolutely want clean air but I also want a vibrant economy. You can't run it on pixie dust.
Wind and solar are massively inefficient and cannot do the job alone, not even close. Without subsidies, they are huge money losers as well, but even if we say the subsidies are ok, they cannot create the output.
If I want clean air, then why not nuclear? I'm all of nuclear but for some reason none of the politicians want to go for this.
As for Mid East oil, hell I've been saying that forever. I'm the son of a Petroleum Geologist \ Geophysicist who spent most of his career with the oil companies. I was schooled on this heavily...he was a scientist afterall. We have craploads of oil at our disposal IN THIS COUNTRY that we refuse to touch. We have more oil shale in the USA than any country in the world except Canada. We have more natural gas deposits than ANY country in the world. There is plenty of energy here in the states to be had that would get us off the Middle East if we ever decided to actually do something about it.
At the end of the day, I believe in renewable energies (I have solar panels myself) but they CANNOT do the job alone. Nuclear is here, but we won't do it. Clean coal is here, but we won't do it. Oil, natural gas, Oil shale is here, but we won't do it.
Wind and solar cannot do it alone and at some point people are going to wake up to this. And just wait until we put more and more electric cars on the grid, where do people think that electricity is going to come from?
Sometimes people don't think all the way through.
-
When you went down the rat hole of evangelicals, you lost me....just tired canards but not surprising. Why did you turn this into a political debate, it wasn't until you just did. And yes, the world is very complex and to think we have a handle on it is pure lunacy. We can't tell what the weather will be like 10 days from now, we can't determine when earthquakes will happen, we can't tell for certain when a volcano will erupt, we sure as hell can't pinpoint down something as complex as climate and all the variables that go into it (sun, oceans, atmosphere, gases, etc).
And Hards, there are many people that study climate and the affects on the earth, not just climatologists. This is the latest change of many by the group wanting to put this all on humans. In the past, when certain groups were pushing hard on the global warming agenda, all scientists in related fields were included....geologists, climatalogists, atmospheric scientists, hydrologists, oceanographers, meterologists, etc, etc.
Then when more and more of these other fields started saying HANG ON A SECOND, the folks pushing this stuff started to exclude their opinions. Now, the latest fetish is to say only climatologists opinions count. This is also about when GLOBAL WARMING was changed to CLIMATE CHANGE. Conveniently.
As my dad used to tell me, one large volcano eruption changes the climate for years....so why are geologists opinions no longer included in these little polls? It's silly. The climate is complex beyond belief and includes disciplines of many sciences, not just climatology. But it's important to note that the father of Climatology, Dr. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, was damn clear that he felt all of this was cyclical.
-
apparently no one actually clicked the links of the articles I posted the first time. What is the use in posting the same one again?
Responses to the question: "Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
97%+ of active, publishing, climatologists, (you know, people who actually study this stuff) said yes.
Yup, 75 of 77 they chose to survey. I'm glad you stated ACTIVE and PUBLISHING (i.e.....need their grant money to stay in business).
Isn't it ironic as hell how many change their tune when the retire and don't need the money any more. LOL
Of course there have also been over 50,000 scientists that signed on to say humans aren't a MAJOR contributor to climate change.....a factor, but not a MAJOR factor.
-
A new development in wind power allows for it to be done. We've figured out how to tie turbines to balloons, teathered to the ground allowing for the turbine to be high enough in the air that it will be able to put out a consistent rate of power anywhere in the country.
I feel like nuclear is a step backwards because:
A: we'll need to build large plants. (we can gradually add wind and solar to out grid in 1000's of places)
B: we'll need to deal with waste.
C: we'll need to revamp the grid. (less important with other solutions because power won't be traveling the same distances.)
Yes it would require gov subsidies to start putting solar panels on office and gov buildings. But that would be a better use of stimulus $ than many of the current projects. Tax benefits based on Leed certification would also be nice.
Back to the original topic. Avatar was awesome. I would argue that the 'propaganda' in the film is overstated by some posters in this thread.
-
Yup, 75 of 77 they chose to survey. I'm glad you stated ACTIVE and PUBLISHING (i.e.....need their grant money to stay in business).
Isn't it ironic as hell how many change their tune when the retire and don't need the money any more. LOL
Of course there have also been over 50,000 scientists that signed on to say humans aren't a MAJOR contributor to climate change.....a factor, but not a MAJOR factor.
and again, you are ignoring the rest of the poll... I know how people like you work.
3146 scientists were asked the question, and more than 82% of them replied yes.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=3&t=190&&a=17
-
A new development in wind power allows for it to be done. We've figured out how to tie turbines to balloons, teathered to the ground allowing for the turbine to be high enough in the air that it will be able to put out a consistent rate of power anywhere in the country.
I feel like nuclear is a step backwards because:
A: we'll need to build large plants. (we can gradually add wind and solar to out grid in 1000's of places)
B: we'll need to deal with waste.
C: we'll need to revamp the grid. (less important with other solutions because power won't be traveling the same distances.)
Yes it would require gov subsidies to start putting solar panels on office and gov buildings. But that would be a better use of stimulus $ than many of the current projects. Tax benefits based on Leed certification would also be nice.
Back to the original topic. Avatar was awesome. I would argue that the 'propaganda' in the film is overstated by some posters in this thread.
Wait, I thought every opinion that doesn't agree with someone's is propaganda.
or maybe the word is just thrown around too much...
-
Rabble rabble rabble....RABBLE!
-
Chico's is right, why aren't more scientists trying to stop valcano's?
Did you know that during one ice age the entire earth was covered and that valcano's were the only thing that allowed it to thaw?
Chico's evangelical comment answered via PM.
-
And at the same time, we've had solar activity changing outside the norms of it's cycle. Right now, we're in a minimus cycle which is why global temperatures are DOWN the last decade and that cycle has now gone on longer than expected.
Lets unmuddy this...
All 10 of the last 10 years on record have been within the hottest 20 years on record that shows something... the thing that makes that concerning is that it's happened in one of the deepest solar minimums ever recorded (the sun has an 11 year solar min/max cycle, and we are now at the end of the solar min. cycle).
-
Chico's is right, why aren't more scientists trying to stop valcano's?
Did you know that during one ice age the entire earth was covered and that valcano's were the only thing that allowed it to thaw?
Chico's evangelical comment answered via PM.
Ice Age....undoubtedly started by man
-
Lets unmuddy this...
All 10 of the last 10 years on record have been within the hottest 20 years on record that shows something... the thing that makes that concerning is that it's happened in one of the deepest solar minimums ever recorded (the sun has an 11 year solar min/max cycle, and we are now at the end of the solar min. cycle).
The key is the first sentence....ON RECORD
We've been keeping records of temperatures for about 130 years...for about 80 of those years we were still crapping in outhouses...so how good were the instruments. The earth is BILLIONS of years old. We have some ice core samples saying one thing and others saying something else. We have some scientists evaluating literally tree rings from about 15 trees and deciding to extrapolate that to the entire planet.
And no, if you read the articles I posted, we are BEYOND the min cycle right now which is why some scientists are wondering if we are going into a prolonged cooling period like we had at the turn of the century or perhaps the little ice age, because we've PASSED the 11 year cycle.
By the way, do a search on those temperature gathering centers....what a disgrace some of those are. Putting them right next to blacktop, parking lots, exhaust fans, air conditioners...it's funny how those temperature readouts fluctuate so much (like the ones at the U. of Arizona) vs those in places in the middle of nowhere....hmmm).
Here's a little hint and a few photos...and this is how we're collecting the data. Jesus Christ.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
One of my favorites at the U. of Arizona...right there on the blacktop. A few others from Australia, California, etc.
(http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/Tucson1.jpg)
(http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/niwa_building_weather_station.jpg)
(http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/Eastport_ME.jpg)
(http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/SantaRosa_Press_Democrat_MMTS.JPG)
(http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/SantaRosa_Press_Democrat_aerialview.JPG)
(http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/Concord_COOP.jpg)
-
Physicists....but apparently their opinions don't count. LOL
It's the sun, stupid
http://seekingalpha.com/article/175641-climategate-revolt-of-the-physicists
-
i find it kind of amusing that this avatar-based thread is about global warming when the movie was extolling the evils of american intervention in other cultures (read: evil american imperialism)
-
i find it kind of amusing that this avatar-based thread is about global warming when the movie was extolling the evils of american intervention in other cultures (read: evil american imperialism)
That's a whole other debate, but I would argue you are right, it was more about imperialism than anything else. Of course, on the grand scheme of things, American Imperialism has been rather minor leagues compared to the British, French, etc over the course of time.
-
i find it kind of amusing that this avatar-based thread is about global warming when the movie was extolling the evils of american intervention in other cultures (read: evil american imperialism)
Well initially the thread was about blue breasts and masturbation.... Would you rather go back to that?
-
Yes, absolutely want clean air but I also want a vibrant economy. You can't run it on pixie dust.
Wind and solar are massively inefficient and cannot do the job alone, not even close. Without subsidies, they are huge money losers as well, but even if we say the subsidies are ok, they cannot create the output.
If I want clean air, then why not nuclear? I'm all of nuclear but for some reason none of the politicians want to go for this.
As for Mid East oil, hell I've been saying that forever. I'm the son of a Petroleum Geologist \ Geophysicist who spent most of his career with the oil companies. I was schooled on this heavily...he was a scientist afterall. We have craploads of oil at our disposal IN THIS COUNTRY that we refuse to touch. We have more oil shale in the USA than any country in the world except Canada. We have more natural gas deposits than ANY country in the world. There is plenty of energy here in the states to be had that would get us off the Middle East if we ever decided to actually do something about it.
At the end of the day, I believe in renewable energies (I have solar panels myself) but they CANNOT do the job alone. Nuclear is here, but we won't do it. Clean coal is here, but we won't do it. Oil, natural gas, Oil shale is here, but we won't do it.
Wind and solar cannot do it alone and at some point people are going to wake up to this. And just wait until we put more and more electric cars on the grid, where do people think that electricity is going to come from?
Sometimes people don't think all the way through.
So, if we want to "think all the way through," then we must consider ALL energy-related costs, including the incredible subsidies given to nukes, coal power, and natural gas in the form of state and federal subsidized raliroad transportation of the coal from the great basin to the power plants in the east and far, far west, etc. We must also consider the hidden billions spent on health care costs because of respiratory-related diseases caused by coal-burning power plants. We must also consider the subsidy costs of cleaning up our lakes and fresh water sources because of coal-burning water pollution. We must also consider the cost of state-by-state legal mandates that utilities earn a guaranteed annual profit. We must also consider the inefficiency of fossil fuel burning energy production through voltage drop across miles of power lines, when local solar/wind production can deliver significantly more energy by being closer to the places of power usag,......and so forth. And most dangerous of all is the fact of global warming/climate change. Talk about "clean" fossil fuels? In my view, there ain't nothing clean about burning coal, no matter how it's packaged and sold.
-
So, if we want to "think all the way through," then we must consider ALL energy-related costs, including the incredible subsidies given to nukes, coal power, and natural gas in the form of state and federal subsidized raliroad transportation of the coal from the great basin to the power plants in the east and far, far west, etc. We must also consider the hidden billions spent on health care costs because of respiratory-related diseases caused by coal-burning power plants. We must also consider the subsidy costs of cleaning up our lakes and fresh water sources because of coal-burning water pollution. We must also consider the cost of state-by-state legal mandates that utilities earn a guaranteed annual profit. We must also consider the inefficiency of fossil fuel burning energy production through voltage drop across miles of power lines, when local solar/wind production can deliver significantly more energy by being closer to the places of power usag,......and so forth. And most dangerous of all is the fact of global warming/climate change. Talk about "clean" fossil fuels? In my view, there ain't nothing clean about burning coal, no matter how it's packaged and sold.
An their ain't nothing clean about batteries in hybrid cars that have to be discarded....and their ain't nothing clean about solar cells (Photovolatics) once they use up their 15 to 25 year lifespan....and on and on.
Not to mention the fact that manufacturing batteries, wind energy systems and solar panels costs an enormous amount in .... you guessed it....fossil fuels as well as very toxic chemicals.
Pick your poison (literally) because everything has a drawback. I'd rather put carbon back into the air since it sustains life (plants, oceans, etc) then some other options which have their own pollution issues.
-
I hope we can admit it's a little funny how 5 years ago people would have been saying "the earth isn't getting warmer." And now that the polar caps are crashing into australia, the same people are switching to "it has nothing to do with us, just look at mars" or "it may have a little to do with us but not more than a little."
Why is it people only talk about our carbon production as a possible factor in warming?
What about all the carbon that isn't being used up by trees we've cut down or just aren't growing in every urban/farm area across the world? Or what about the fact that the suns rays is hitting hundreds of thousands of square miles of blacktop and tar roofs instead of grass?
Quick check, is anyone here against dumping a bit of iron in the ocean on plankton schools to increase their size thus reducing carbon and increasing the bottom rung of the food chain? Probably, and he's probably and enviromentalist who doesn't want to mess with stuff.
-
I hope we can admit it's a little funny how 5 years ago people would have been saying "the earth isn't getting warmer." And now that the polar caps are crashing into australia, the same people are switching to "it has nothing to do with us, just look at mars" or "it may have a little to do with us but not more than a little."
Why is it people only talk about our carbon production as a possible factor in warming?
What about all the carbon that isn't being used up by trees we've cut down or just aren't growing in every urban/farm area across the world? Or what about the fact that the suns rays is hitting hundreds of thousands of square miles of blacktop and tar roofs instead of grass?
Quick check, is anyone here against dumping a bit of iron in the ocean on plankton schools to increase their size thus reducing carbon and increasing the bottom rung of the food chain? Probably, and he's probably and enviromentalist who doesn't want to mess with stuff.
Which poles are you talking about....the southern pole has been growing.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/revealed-antarctic-ice-growing/story-e6frg6no-1225700046908
This is why this stuff gets me crazy...this isn't absolute but so many want to make it that way. Yes, the northern pole is shrinking but the southern pole is growing. And again, we have satellite imagery from only about 20 years...we have no idea how much it has grown or shrunk in years past other than stories of locals.
I'm all for the environment, I'm all for clean air and water, I want to protect the future as much as anyone. I'd just like to know how we are going to do this since so many folks that are pushing this stuff are against everything. Wind and solar CANNOT do it all, cannot even come CLOSE to doing it all.
-
Physicists....but apparently their opinions don't count. LOL
It's the sun, stupid
http://seekingalpha.com/article/175641-climategate-revolt-of-the-physicists
from the article
They haven't completely worked out the mechanism yet, but they think it has to do with cosmic rays causing cloud formation and clouds reflecting sunlight back into space.
ground breaking stuff.
-
I hope we can admit it's a little funny how 5 years ago people would have been saying "the earth isn't getting warmer." And now that the polar caps are crashing into australia, the same people are switching to "it has nothing to do with us, just look at mars" or "it may have a little to do with us but not more than a little."
Why is it people only talk about our carbon production as a possible factor in warming?
What about all the carbon that isn't being used up by trees we've cut down or just aren't growing in every urban/farm area across the world? Or what about the fact that the suns rays is hitting hundreds of thousands of square miles of blacktop and tar roofs instead of grass?
Quick check, is anyone here against dumping a bit of iron in the ocean on plankton schools to increase their size thus reducing carbon and increasing the bottom rung of the food chain? Probably, and he's probably and enviromentalist who doesn't want to mess with stuff.
you and I think quite a bit alike on this topic.
In addition to the square miles of black top and tarred roofs, what about the millions of miniature green houses that are cars?
-
from the article
ground breaking stuff.
Because it's complex stuff....the very same reason why the climate folks refused to let their models be examined for fears of being caught manipulating or unable to explain their modeling (too late, that one is out of the bag now). Those East Anglia folks really nailed it.
I would hope at the very least you would acknowledge that climate and what affects climate goes well beyond the study of climatology. To not engage the opinions of other scientists in related fields is naive.
-
The key is the first sentence....ON RECORD
We've been keeping records of temperatures for about 130 years...for about 80 of those years we were still crapping in outhouses...so how good were the instruments. The earth is BILLIONS of years old. We have some ice core samples saying one thing and others saying something else. We have some scientists evaluating literally tree rings from about 15 trees and deciding to extrapolate that to the entire planet.
And no, if you read the articles I posted, we are BEYOND the min cycle right now which is why some scientists are wondering if we are going into a prolonged cooling period like we had at the turn of the century or perhaps the little ice age, because we've PASSED the 11 year cycle.
By the way, do a search on those temperature gathering centers....what a disgrace some of those are. Putting them right next to blacktop, parking lots, exhaust fans, air conditioners...it's funny how those temperature readouts fluctuate so much (like the ones at the U. of Arizona) vs those in places in the middle of nowhere....hmmm).
So just to be clear, we are supposed to believe scientists who say that the temperature on jupiter has increased from what it was 20 years ago (based on god knows what) and believe the scientists who tell us what the temperature of the earth was millions of years ago based on ice, but the scientists who track temperatures here on earth are FOS because you think they are too stupid to take their own AC units into account.
-
Because it's complex stuff....the very same reason why the climate folks refused to let their models be examined for fears of being caught manipulating or unable to explain their modeling (too late, that one is out of the bag now). Those East Anglia folks really nailed it.
I would hope at the very least you would acknowledge that climate and what affects climate goes well beyond the study of climatology. To not engage the opinions of other scientists in related fields is naive.
I never said anything to the contrary.
I simply said that the vast majority of scientists believe in climate change.
as for 'caught manipulating data', I'd like to see exactly you are referencing. If you are referencing the 64mb of emails that were 'hacked', I've got plenty of news for you.
-
In addition to the square miles of black top and tarred roofs
Great places to put weather stations to capture all of the magnified heat from the blacktop....nothing like distorting the data.
-
Great places to put weather stations to capture all of the magnified heat from the blacktop....nothing like distorting the data.
I approve of your assumption that data for all sets include the select weather stations that you mentioned.
-
So just to be clear, we are supposed to believe scientists who say that the temperature on jupiter has increased from what it was 20 years ago (based on god knows what) and believe the scientists who tell us what the temperature of the earth was millions of years ago based on ice, but the scientists who track temperatures here on earth are FOS because you think they are too stupid to take their own AC units into account.
Nope, to be clear we're supposed to be highly skeptical about all of this and ask questions about why they're putting temperature readers next to Air Conditioners or on the black top or roofs.
We're supposed to be skeptical enough to ask why some scientists are saying earth is warming due to human activities while other scientists are saying other planets are warming at the same time and ask why
We're supposed to be skeptical enough to ask why the AGW crowd has not been willing to share models, share data, has emails flying around seemingly advocating the distortion of data......sorry, but if this happened on the other side, you would be levitating you would be so pissed off.
We're supposed to be skeptical enough to ask questions about data that is based on 130 years of records when the earth is billions of years old and has gone through ice ages and heating periods many times in the past
And just as we're supposed to be skeptical enough to ask where BIG OIL's money is going, we should be EQUALLY skeptical about where all this environmental $$$$ is going, who it is funding, and what the end game is there.
-
I never said anything to the contrary.
I simply said that the vast majority of scientists believe in climate change.
as for 'caught manipulating data', I'd like to see exactly you are referencing. If you are referencing the 64mb of emails that were 'hacked', I've got plenty of news for you.
And like I said, I also believe in climate change, it's been going on forever and will continue to go on FOREVER. The question is whether it is AGW or not.
And please, let me know about the news you have from the "hacked" (and already verified as authentic emails). Thanks
-
And like I said, I also believe in climate change, it's been going on forever and will continue to go on FOREVER. The question is whether it is AGW or not.
And please, let me know about the news you have from the "hacked" (and already verified as authentic emails). Thanks
I'm fine with asking questions. What I'm not fine with is blindly accepting the minority opinions which have been debunked time and again.
as for the hacked email's that have been 'verified' (by who exactly? the hackers with an adgenda?.. right)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/
time for another homework lesson CBB.
-
[quote author=Hards_Alumni link=topic=16860.msg166645#msg166645 date=1262218578
In addition to the square miles of black top and tarred roofs, what about the millions of miniature green houses that are cars?
[/quote]
Let's get one thing straight here, it's asphalt, not blacktop.
Second, asphalt is the most recycled construction material.
Third, the color of asphalt has no more/less impact to warming than the grey color of concrete.
-
I approve of your assumption that data for all sets include the select weather stations that you mentioned.
LOL....read the article I linked, the sad part is that the data from these sites WERE \ ARE included in the data sets...that is why it's so troubling. It's an embarrassment. I didn't even post the best photos. The fact that ANY of this data becomes part of the set is scary.
I've got news for you, there is a reason why Mann and others are suspended right now.
-
LOL....read the article I linked, the sad part is that the data from these sites WERE \ ARE included in the data sets...that is why it's so troubling. It's an embarrassment. I didn't even post the best photos. The fact that ANY of this data becomes part of the set is scary.
I've got news for you, there is a reason why Mann and others are suspended right now.
You're right, the 5 you've shown versus the THOUSANDS of stations. The one's you've shown don't even make a blip on a statistical analysis. But that is of little concern to you.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfScience.pdf
Why wouldn't you post the 'best' photos? Do you wish to form a weaker argument? I somehow doubt it.