Quoi de neuf ?

Bienvenue sur Psychonaut.fr !

Le forum des amateurs de drogues et des explorateurs de l'esprit

Global Warming?

  • Auteur de la discussion Auteur de la discussion RealityPortal
  • Date de début Date de début

Do you believe in global warming?

  • YES! All evidence shows this clearly!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No! The more I investigate I've come to realize it's a scam!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I have no idea...

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Nombre total d'électeurs
    0

RealityPortal

Glandeuse Pinéale
Inscrit
10/11/07
Messages
154
The Australian reports:

"Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh

THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.

What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over."

Full mindblowing story here>>>
http://www.realityportal.info/content/view/251/73/
 
Waaah?!

But, this could be an explanation for the freezing cold spring we're having here...
 
"scientists" need, at least, an organization like the catholic church, in which they all say the same.
it is also a cold spring here...
 
:cry:

Where's the "banging your head against a brick wall" smiley when you need one....

I'll make a proper post after my lecture in 25 minutes *sigh*
 
And amazingly enough, it seems that the consensus we all been told about isn't that strong after all. Infowars etc reports:

Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory. Though the survey has not yet been released, the results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, and science blog DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy which states:

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
 
I don't know if global warming is true or not.... But it seems like the best thing to asume it's true.
 
Another fucktard trying to dismiss global warming.

Really, you should be ashamed of yourself.

I even doubt, considering the topics you place here, that you are a pscychonaut at all.
 
"Another fucktard trying to dismiss global warming.

Really, you should be ashamed of yourself.

I even doubt, considering the topics you place here, that you are a pscychonaut at all. "

?

I say like Albert Hofmann:
"The important thing is to never stop questioning."

For me that's the essence of being a t r u e psychonaut. Always aiming for the broadest perspective. When did you stop questioning? And how come?
 
RealityPortal,

It's good that one questions things, but asuming everything is a lie isn't the answer. Btw, your polls are f*cking subjective
 
Where do I start with this one....

This program is landslide of lies, half-truths with a couple of facts thrown in for good measure - plenty of other people have already debunked this "documentary":


First the very authenticity of the documentary (makers falsifying data):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media ... 47927.html

Scientists disproving main points of documentary (correlation of sunspots and global temprature):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... matechange


One example of a semi-lie that I'll bring up: "mosquitos are not tropical insects" it's true that mosquitos are found in cooler regions - but if you've been to a tropical area and a temperate area you'll know the difference... instead of taking the 1920's example of the program for a malaria epidemic in russia, lets look at current data... lets say: world health organisation data that shows the spread of malaria along with temperature rise (using MET office data for average temprature, not disproved data put forward by the film). This is the sort of information put forward in the program - nearly every claim in this film is a twisted communication of facts.

Right... some of the angles given by the program I can understand - the media does sensationalise climate change - that is an unfortunate side affect of information being filtered by journalists and made to sell media... the thing is that this program is no different - intead of apocalypse scenarios they propagate outrage through cooking up a conspiricy theory.

One thing about conspiricy theories - I quite like them: they are interesting - both debunking the bits that are nonsense and on the rare occation that I find something thats actually TRUE gives quite a sense of acheivement... in the case of this program any true statements are used as if they are supporting the point put across by the program, which is a very slimy way of making people who know a limited amount convinced of your point.

Remember that the maker this program has an agenda just like real journalists...

There are alot of rhetoric techniques used in this program as well as the semi-truths used like the example I've given.

1) the use of joking tone / silly music when putting across the "other side" of the argument - in actual fact the very points that are used are distorted variations of scientific conscensus.

2) Using human interest, and depicting the "other side" as unreasonable - a good example of this is the "prevention of african development" section - where it's argued that those supporting climate change want to stop developing nations burning fuel - completely ignoring the fact that emitions reduction is targeted most at those nations that give off the most emissions (developed countries).

3) Use of "science" to baffel those not accustomed to the use of real scientific data, the proccess used to release and verify it, making the viewer tend to *trust* the documentary knows what it's taliking about.

4) "experts" similar to above, but sometimes using short sound bites that could easily be part of a longer, completely unrelated topic, and using scientists that are bitter about some percieved / real slight put on them by the rest of the scientific community, who are willing to support whatever might come along to "get back at" there peers - this sounds petty and urealistic for "proffesionals" to act this way - but I've seen it for myself so I've little doubt that it happens elsewhere in the scientific community.

As you watch these documentaries keep in mind there use of words and visual cues designed to ellicit emotional response from the viewer in a way that supports *there view* which you should remember is the real focus of "documentaries" such as this - they are not righteous crusaders fighting the good fight - they are propagating ignorance, to ride the wave of public indignation all the way to the bank, to the next promotion, and to the next channel four "documentary".


I will add that although psychonautics does encourage an open mind, to see that things aren't always what they seem - that doesn't mean we should let others take advantage of that - use evidence reviewed by a knoweledgable community to come to conclusions - and by conclusions, I mean a theory that can be used to apply ideas in the world around us - even if that is replaced by more accurate conclusions -

Take Isaac Newton - he had some pretty wacky Ideas that were used to understand the universe at the time - and by building ontop of that we have come to theory of relativity and beyond - theories that help us travel in space and speculate the nature of things massive and tiny in our universe.

What am I trying to say with the above example? -

Gravity is only a theory - but trying to disprove it won't stop you turning into a human pancake if you jump out of an 18th story windoy.


Finally:
Even if climate change is not affected by CO2:
There are more implications to CO2 emmissions than climate change:

When CO2 is absorbed by the ocean, it doesn't just go away - it affects the pH of the water by being turned into carbonic acid - the main implication of this is the increased erosion of coral reefs - the more acidic the water is the more of the coral skeleton is dissolved every year - if the zooxanthellae / polyps don't gain enough nutrients to overcome this then the reef recedes - if the reef recedes, not only is the reef ecosystem destroyed, but the land it protects is vunerable to storms / hurricanes and tsunamis which destroy rare species, endanger indigenous populations, destroy economy - usually through loss of tourism and fishing.

and Finally finally, even if all I've told you is rubbish - other emmisions produced by the petrochemical industry are harmful to humans - although there is probably a documentary out there that "proves" that wrong too.

Anyways, nothing personal to those buying into the documentary, just sharing my opinion / experience.

PEACE
 
daytripper a dit:
"scientists" need, at least, an organization like the catholic church, in which they all say the same.
it is also a cold spring here...

Science is like a church, everybody joins, but most of em think something totally different
 
RealityPortal a dit:
And amazingly enough, it seems that the consensus we all been told about isn't that strong after all. Infowars etc reports:

Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory. Though the survey has not yet been released, the results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, and science blog DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy which states:

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

Yawn yawn fucking yawn, global warming swindle all over again. Please come with some info you actually argumented AND studied yourself instead of just copying/pasting horse shit.

Its easy to collect all that has been said into an abstraction called 'report' and then juggle with even more abstractions, people expressed in percentages that do or do not agree. You never spoke those people, you never asked them personally how they feel about it etc..

Here's some generic accepted info related to global warming:

he report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming. Human-caused global warming is often called anthropogenic climate change.

* Global Warming: How Hot? How Soon?
* Global Warming Can Be Stopped, World Climate Experts Say
* Global Warming Interactive: Learn About Its Causes and Effects

• Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface. (See an interactive feature on how global warming works.)

• Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it.

• These gases persist in the atmosphere for years, meaning that even if such emissions were eliminated today, it would not immediately stop global warming.

• Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.

• Other recent research has suggested that the effects of variations in the sun's output are "negligible" as a factor in warming, but other, more complicated solar mechanisms could possibly play a role.

What's Going to Happen?

A follow-up report by the IPCC released in April 2007 warned that global warming could lead to large-scale food and water shortages and have catastrophic effects on wildlife.

• Sea level could rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 to 59 centimeters) by century's end, the IPCC's February 2007 report projects. Rises of just 4 inches (10 centimeters) could flood many South Seas islands and swamp large parts of Southeast Asia.

• Some hundred million people live within 3 feet (1 meter) of mean sea level, and much of the world's population is concentrated in vulnerable coastal cities. In the U.S., Louisiana and Florida are especially at risk.

• Glaciers around the world could melt, causing sea levels to rise while creating water shortages in regions dependent on runoff for fresh water.

• Strong hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and other natural disasters may become commonplace in many parts of the world. The growth of deserts may also cause food shortages in many places.

• More than a million species face extinction from disappearing habitat, changing ecosystems, and acidifying oceans.

• The ocean's circulation system, known as the ocean conveyor belt, could be permanently altered, causing a mini-ice age in Western Europe and other rapid changes.

• At some point in the future, warming could become uncontrollable by creating a so-called positive feedback effect. Rising temperatures could release additional greenhouse gases by unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing carbon trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of wat

Thats 2500 scientist over 130 counties.

But no, let's believe the neocons or corps who want to keep us asleep and use ignorance, like yours, to get their lies across.

It's not personal but you share this planet with me, and my kids, and I think it's outrageous in a time like this, to keep debating about 'are we doing it or not'. It's clear that we are doing it and it's also clear that some powers that be, don't want it to be clear. For the same reasons that these powers didn't want us to believe that the earth was actually not flat, not so far away in history.

Edit:

BTW the 3 people that voted that they don't believe in global warming should refrain from smoking during the day because you have obviously not understood or read, the poll at all.

Hint: global warming is a fact.
 
Here's some more facts:

FACT: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming.

The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." (Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change [PDF], 2005)

The only debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now.


read more here:
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
 
RealityPortal, though this forum does indeed facilitate the posting of off-topic issues, you are clearly overdoing it. And since every news item you post contains a link to your website rather than any original source, it makes me wonder what is your purpose.

38197-spam.jpg


To be clear as to what this forum centers around, preferably even in the Lounge and General Psychonautics sections, please read this definition of what is a psychonaut.

CM
 
"RealityPortal, though this forum does indeed facilitate the posting of off-topic issues, you are clearly overdoing it. And since every news item you post contains a link to your website rather than any original source, it makes me wonder what is your purpose. "

Please Cadeus Mercurius,

I'm only interested in that people can see that there are many different perspectives out there. And that reality isn't an constant. But rather actually different from person to person.

I believe that people should be able to acces many different sides of the story and that is what my mission is about. Helping to share interesting information that can stimuate thought, debate and perhaps make us all a bit more aware.

Like you, I do this without any means, don't make any money out of it. It's purely out of love for mankind that I do this. Since I believe information should be free and since I experienced so much on psychedelic journeys that have thought me so much about reality and the importance of always keeping an open mind and open perspective.

And for me that is the essence of being a psychonaut. I can't really understand your fear for the broad variety of different subjects that i post. i have researched reality for all om my life, written articles for scandinavias biggest newspaper, had my own tv show talking about those issues already in the early 90s and then later seem many of the prediction come to pass.

How come you are so fearfull towards issues you yet have to get to know and so casually just can wipe them off, or disapprove of my perspective.

Isn't being a psychonaut for you about always keeping an open mind and heart? Albert Hofmann did actually say: "The most important thing is to never stop questiong?

Don't you agree with that?

And how come you always seem to be so angry and hostile?

Don't you believe in an openhearted debate?

And don't you think this is something that everyone will benefit from?
How come you seem to judge everything I do?

I think many people would like to know that?


Love and kindness

Kevin
 
I just think CO2 reduction is a significant priority, no matter or this whole climate problem is accurate or not.

I don't even see the point in discussing the global warmth because acting on CO2 reduction shouldn't depend on global warmth or not.

No one actually can come up with a objective answer because it's tied with one's political standpoint.

Every scientist is influenced by an organisation or even paid.

Look: http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/3863 ... html?p=8,1

IMO this is supported by Exxon or Shell. It's says the global warmth is as good as over.

On the other hand All Gore might exaggerate as well with drastic negativism. Showing melting ice and dissapearing lakes in a row. But this doesn't matter.

It's our responsibility for this earth, our spaceship and home in the universe.

When you had a home party, you've to clean it up after. When we make dust in our home (that is a fact), earth, we have to clean it up. No matter or the rats are checking in or not.
 
Agree with Brugmansia.

Its not just about global warming and who is causing it. It's not a natural phenomenon that lungcancer, once a rare disease, evolved into a smokers fate into something that even people who live healthy lives seem to develop (which is being investigated as we speak).

It's about fish near big American cities becoming sterile because of people's piss and shit containing broken down prozac and other horse shit.

It's about non sustainability of the capitalistic or western lifestyle, about economic religion which basically is a shell game set up by a small group of powerful people to control us.

It's about food prices skyrocketing worldwide because our addiction to oil (and the ever increasing prices).

It's about Amazonian rain forest disappearing rapidly while virtually ALL our major medicine, has been extracted from there and we are not even on 20% of investigating all that's there (and possibly could be used to cure cancer or AIDS, given you believe AIDS actually exists ;) ).

It's not that I don't like discussions, I just am fed up with people trying to make major issues on our planet into a philosophical game while we may not even have enough time left, to turn things around. I'm personally done with polls which are setup in such a way that there is no room for any other argument, backed up by topics which need massive use of CAPS to get a point across, that nobody would look at twice otherwise.
 
maybe the end of the mayan calendat prodicts this, HC.

Que Serra, Serra..


However it always is a good thing to go back to the basics and respect nature. I kinda have to agree with you, HC. They are deliberately killing the earth. I'm not saying it's happening on the global warming part. Cuz i find that a load of crap anyway. But we're definetely hurting mother Earth as we speak. I hope the higher powers will soon come to realise this.

On the other hand, HC, i can't seem to understand why you act like a mad man, and get so frustrated about all these subjects.
It's a good thing to see more then one opinion on the matter. So in the end, hopefully, there will be a golden way of saving our mother!
 
It's a cold spring, al right. But that doesn't mean that global warming doesn't exist. Even with extensive global warming, some parts of the world will get colder, while others will get hotter. Temperature isn't equally distributed.

Besides that, just think: we have used a lot of forest, both for wood and agriculture, thereby suffocating the lungs of the earth. At the same token we polluted the air and pumped massive amounts of greenhousegasses in it. Isn't it logically evident that somehow the climate is also dependent on human behaviour?
 
Forkbender a dit:
It's a cold spring, al right. But that doesn't mean that global warming doesn't exist. Even with extensive global warming, some parts of the world will get colder, while others will get hotter. Temperature isn't equally distributed.

Besides that, just think: we have used a lot of forest, both for wood and agriculture, thereby suffocating the lungs of the earth. At the same token we polluted the air and pumped massive amounts of greenhousegasses in it. Isn't it logically evident that somehow the climate is also dependent on human behaviour?

earth is only dependant on herself. she'll do as she pleases. us humans can only intensify that. both negative or positive.

btw, has it occurred to some of you that maybe the fact the moon is taking more distance from the earth might be the cause of the temperature-changes..?
 
Retour
Haut