uscitizen
Villified User
Well I tried to give him a chance, but some of us voted for bush...
Al gore is not even in govt now is he ?
We will never know what might have been had not people been suckerd by Bush.
idiots on Global Warming...
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Well I tried to give him a chance, but some of us voted for bush...
Al gore is not even in govt now is he ?
We will never know what might have been had not people been suckerd by Bush.
PresidentialScholar
No Bull****
You'll be hard-pressed to find any objective scientist to object to the existence of global warming. If there were a pool of scientists 300 people deep, there would be 298 in agreement, and 2 in disagreement--and those two would show to have connections to oil companies or other interest groups combatting the addressing of global warming.
The fact is gas emissions on the planet are heating the globe, leading to more unpredictable weather. Scientists have even gone so far as to study the circumstances of all the CO2 that will be released by the world's oceans from the decaying matter and toxins within them, which has exponentially increased the warming of the globe. At this point, the time for emergency concern is now.
Most scientists will tell you that at this point, we are beyond preventing a major climatological disaster--it's just a matter of delaying it as much as possible. And right now, we're on a collision course.
Any disavowment of global warming or refusal to recognize the reality of its existence is a result of either ignorance of the facts of the scientific world, or an exercise in political blind-siding.
The fact is gas emissions on the planet are heating the globe, leading to more unpredictable weather. Scientists have even gone so far as to study the circumstances of all the CO2 that will be released by the world's oceans from the decaying matter and toxins within them, which has exponentially increased the warming of the globe. At this point, the time for emergency concern is now.
Most scientists will tell you that at this point, we are beyond preventing a major climatological disaster--it's just a matter of delaying it as much as possible. And right now, we're on a collision course.
Any disavowment of global warming or refusal to recognize the reality of its existence is a result of either ignorance of the facts of the scientific world, or an exercise in political blind-siding.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Well Scholar... perhaps you can thus explain the data being produced by Goddard and NASA.
1) Goddards data shows we went through a warming phase over the past 50 years.... with a large spike in the 1990's culminating in a then-record 1998 average temperatures. Since then only one year, 2005, has been warmer. 2007 was the same as 1998 according to Goddards data.... you know... the data the scientists use.... So for a decade, something has been offsetting mans contribution to global warming.
Our resident consensus freaks refuse to discuss the issue. What is causing the offset? While temperatures have certainly been warm over the past decade (making it the warmest decade on record) the temperatures over that decade produced a net zero change in average temperatures.
2) NASA seems to have some inconsistencies in their data that they have recently released from the ocean temperatures.
3) Enough of the idiotic... if a scientist disagrees with consensus they must be paid oil schills.... Here are 19,000 that disagree with the consensus enough to want to keep the debate open to new data and discussion.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
"Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
Click here to see this peer reviewed research paper."
4) This is not to say that global warming hasn't occured. Temperatures have obviously gone up over the past 50 years. But the consensus view of man being the primary cause remains open for debate.... except for the anti-Copernicus types who refuse to acknowledge or discuss any new data.
PresidentialScholar
No Bull****
1) Goddards data shows we went through a warming phase over the past 50 years.... with a large spike in the 1990's culminating in a then-record 1998 average temperatures. Since then only one year, 2005, has been warmer. 2007 was the same as 1998 according to Goddards data.... you know... the data the scientists use.... So for a decade, something has been offsetting mans contribution to global warming.
Goddard's data is not inaccurate, but its incomplete and does not deliver a large-scale view of the earth's climate change over time. Surely, any short-term graph will be very horizontal and show the year to year troughs. The facts remain, the average global temperature is steadily increased ever since we've been able to calculate it. Also, as it's just an "average", it doesn't account for the parts of the world whose climate has a much hotter or colder climate. This graph was compiled by data from the University of East Anglia and the UK Meteorological Office:
And strangely enough, the continuous rise in temperature has correlated to a continuous rise in CO2 levels on earth.
Our resident consensus freaks refuse to discuss the issue. What is causing the offset? While temperatures have certainly been warm over the past decade (making it the warmest decade on record) the temperatures over that decade produced a net zero change in average temperatures.
Again, analyzing major climactic weather changes and anomalies is a futile act unless you're looking at the long-term. The drop could be attributed to the actions of most of the countries of the world lowering their emissions, signing onto the Kyoto protocol, along with La Nina hitting, and perhaps regular year to year climate changes. The long-term measurement shows clearly that temperature is an issue. Even though the last ten years may not look like it is.
2) NASA seems to have some inconsistencies in their data that they have recently released from the ocean temperatures.
Sure. Sometimes studies have inconsistencies. There are countless other studies from innumerable countries that have consistent studies on ocean temperature, beginning with the NOAA--who is solely responsible for weather research. Because NASA messed up calculations doesn't disavow the existence of global warming, at any level.
3) Enough of the idiotic... if a scientist disagrees with consensus they must be paid oil schills.... Here are 19,000 that disagree with the consensus enough to want to keep the debate open to new data and discussion.
There are always people on both side. 19,000 sounds large, but in comparison to the amount of scientists who say it exists, 19,000 is nothing. And the fact that many scientists who refuse to believe in global warming have conflicts of interests with associations with organizations who don't want climate change legislation is a fact that can't just be blown as politics--it's a legit claim.
As far as the opinion of science, the International Panel on Climate Change, of whose members are the world's premier minds on climate change said in 2007 that global warming is real and that based on the evidence, humans are responsible. This same conclusion was reached at the G8 summit and its Joint Sciences Academy, the American Meteorological Society, and layers of other American and International, governmental and non-governmental scientific organizations--over 30 of them.
A 2004 article on scientists' collective opinion based from over 900 articles in scientific journals found that 3 out of 4 scientists explicitly or implicitly supports the "consensus" view.
4) This is not to say that global warming hasn't occured. Temperatures have obviously gone up over the past 50 years. But the consensus view of man being the primary cause remains open for debate.... except for the anti-Copernicus types who refuse to acknowledge or discuss any new data.=
Not really. There are a vastly small minority of scientists who still hold to this. Study after study after poll after report show that the VAST majority of scientists accept that global warming is real and is caused by humans. The only point of debate is the degree of damage and how long it will be before it happens.
Bill
Goddard's data is not inaccurate, but its incomplete and does not deliver a large-scale view of the earth's climate change over time. Surely, any short-term graph will be very horizontal and show the year to year troughs. The facts remain, the average global temperature is steadily increased ever since we've been able to calculate it. Also, as it's just an "average", it doesn't account for the parts of the world whose climate has a much hotter or colder climate. This graph was compiled by data from the University of East Anglia and the UK Meteorological Office:
And strangely enough, the continuous rise in temperature has correlated to a continuous rise in CO2 levels on earth.
Our resident consensus freaks refuse to discuss the issue. What is causing the offset? While temperatures have certainly been warm over the past decade (making it the warmest decade on record) the temperatures over that decade produced a net zero change in average temperatures.
Again, analyzing major climactic weather changes and anomalies is a futile act unless you're looking at the long-term. The drop could be attributed to the actions of most of the countries of the world lowering their emissions, signing onto the Kyoto protocol, along with La Nina hitting, and perhaps regular year to year climate changes. The long-term measurement shows clearly that temperature is an issue. Even though the last ten years may not look like it is.
2) NASA seems to have some inconsistencies in their data that they have recently released from the ocean temperatures.
Sure. Sometimes studies have inconsistencies. There are countless other studies from innumerable countries that have consistent studies on ocean temperature, beginning with the NOAA--who is solely responsible for weather research. Because NASA messed up calculations doesn't disavow the existence of global warming, at any level.
3) Enough of the idiotic... if a scientist disagrees with consensus they must be paid oil schills.... Here are 19,000 that disagree with the consensus enough to want to keep the debate open to new data and discussion.
There are always people on both side. 19,000 sounds large, but in comparison to the amount of scientists who say it exists, 19,000 is nothing. And the fact that many scientists who refuse to believe in global warming have conflicts of interests with associations with organizations who don't want climate change legislation is a fact that can't just be blown as politics--it's a legit claim.
As far as the opinion of science, the International Panel on Climate Change, of whose members are the world's premier minds on climate change said in 2007 that global warming is real and that based on the evidence, humans are responsible. This same conclusion was reached at the G8 summit and its Joint Sciences Academy, the American Meteorological Society, and layers of other American and International, governmental and non-governmental scientific organizations--over 30 of them.
A 2004 article on scientists' collective opinion based from over 900 articles in scientific journals found that 3 out of 4 scientists explicitly or implicitly supports the "consensus" view.
4) This is not to say that global warming hasn't occured. Temperatures have obviously gone up over the past 50 years. But the consensus view of man being the primary cause remains open for debate.... except for the anti-Copernicus types who refuse to acknowledge or discuss any new data.=
Not really. There are a vastly small minority of scientists who still hold to this. Study after study after poll after report show that the VAST majority of scientists accept that global warming is real and is caused by humans. The only point of debate is the degree of damage and how long it will be before it happens.
Bill
Last edited:
CO2 does not drive climate change.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/stott2007/stott2007.html
Warming oceans absorb less naturally occurring CO2. Deep sea volcanism is another natural source of global warming through the process mentioned above and the resulting CO2 forcing.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029874.shtml
This study estimates over 200K deep sea volcanoes, the activity of which is largley unkown and likely to be underepresented when modeling climate.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/stott2007/stott2007.html
Warming oceans absorb less naturally occurring CO2. Deep sea volcanism is another natural source of global warming through the process mentioned above and the resulting CO2 forcing.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029874.shtml
This study estimates over 200K deep sea volcanoes, the activity of which is largley unkown and likely to be underepresented when modeling climate.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/jouzel2007/jouzel2007.html
Orbital and Millennial Antarctic Climate Variability over the Past 800,000 Years
Orbital and Millennial Antarctic Climate Variability over the Past 800,000 Years
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1143791v1
http://www.eckerd.edu/aspec/swisspage/Scientific Papers.htm
The chicken littles will ignoe this one for sure
http://www.eckerd.edu/aspec/swisspage/Scientific Papers.htm
The chicken littles will ignoe this one for sure