Who believes the hype of global warming?

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Davan

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Davan

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Davan
Wheres the emergency?

So you're waiting for things to be a diaster before worrying? That's one way of dealing with things i guess.

No, I wouldnt. However, as opposed to you, I dont feel that sacrificing millions of lives all over the globe by denying them heat from burning coal and fossil fuels is a good thing. I dont feel that repressing under-industrialized civilizations under the guise of "Planetary Health" is ok just because YOUR country has already managed to pass the point where those resources are as heavily needed. I dont think that the world begins and ends within the boundaries of North America and Europe.

If Im going to push a policy that kills and represses as much of the world as your Global Warming hogwash, it BETTER DAMN WELL BE PROVEABLE!

You know, those aren't the only two options. I swear, you anti-environment folks (or whatever your prefered title is) are as stupid as the greenie-weenies.

For example, more nuclear, wind, solar, etc power, less fossil fuels. It's not rocket science.

Yes, youre right. America cant afford to instituse nuclear, wind and solar power as an extensive power option, but the infrastructure is there for Ghana!!! Yep those central African countries are all set to skip over the beginning and intermediate steps and go STRAIGHT to countrywide solar and wind power!!! Youre terribly smart arent you.

american can afford it, but politics get in the way.

That's true...although I'm happy to say that environmentalist types are starting to get on board with the whole idea of nuclear power, probably the most reasonable solution overall. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than what we have now.

The environmentalists or the public whose starting to worry about running out of gas? I don't see too many 'environmentalists' who think nuclear waste that kills for thousands of years is a really great idea. I think that the wonderful civilization we've created where everybody has to be a cog in the machine to eat and raise their families will mean they prefer to kill their kids tomorrow rather than do it today.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Davan

Originally posted by: Forsythe


two things.

1)
It is proven so far to the extent of our knowledge, but nothing is certain, all evidence points towards the fact that it's happening. We just don't know how bad it's gonna be.

Im sorry but the facts do not agree with this comment.

Originally posted by: Forsythe
2)
Noone's telling developing countries to stop burning coal.

Incorrect. This is exactly what the Kyoto Protocol was designed to do.

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Noone needs to yet. usa still lets out 25% of the worlds Co2.

Incorrect. CO2 is a *naturally occuring* trace gas that is essential to the world and environment, and humans are only responsible for about 3.4% of the gas released into the atmosphere anually. Therefore, the amount of the worlds supply of CO2 being released by the United States is 0.85%

The facts do agree with this, find me facts against it then.

The kyoto protocol makes no demands to developing countries at all. Which is a major point of criticism from americans that don't support the kyoto protocol. Go figure.

Screwing flies i see.

 

[sandorski]

Global Warming is very real, you should be afraid. <<<<<<FACT

 

[Forsythe]

Link
Link2
In fact, just check out this entire page of news related to climate change. Try to find how many talk against the fact that the climate is changing to the warmer.

 

[Cruise51]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCPPR
Your name isn't Jack Abramoff is it?

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Global Warming is very real, you should be afraid. <<<<<<FACT

I won't say you should be afraid.

A warmer climate will eventually solve itself, and sadly, humanity will endure. But before anything like that happens, we'll say major flows in population because areas will be completely uninhabitable.
And it won't take many years before everyone will know that a heating climate is a fact, and severe action will most likely be taken.
And the future ofcourse will be a good time for better alternatives that coal and oil.

 

[Davan]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

The facts do agree with this, find me facts against it then.

The kyoto protocol makes no demands to developing countries at all. Which is a major point of criticism from americans that don't support the kyoto protocol. Go figure.

Screwing flies i see.

Yeah I tried already, I guess you ignored everything I posted above.

The most reliable data from the country that produces the most CO2 shows an increase in total temperature over the past 120 years at .5 degrees Celcius. The data is heavily modified, going through at most 7 different filters and adjustments. The "warming trend" began long before heavy industrialization and CO2 emissions, severing the already tenuous link between CO2 and any imagined increase in global temperatures. On top of that, many scientists are now proposing an even heavier Global Heat Island Effect, which would adjust the average temperatures down even further, possibly close to .1 degree Celcius.

Shaky ground for global policy indeed.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Davan
Did you know that the total estimated temperature increase in the US over the last 120 years is 0.33 degrees Celcius?

Did you know that most ecological scientists believe that the downward estimates generated from the Global heat island effect are far too small, and that the actual change in temperature is even lower than what we believe?

Did you know that all temperature data is heavily handled, modified, and "normalized" before it is released, tainting it?

Did you know that claims of melting Glaciers is based on measurements of less than 1% of the worlds glaciers?

Did you know that scientists have found that the ice around Antartica is increasing?

Did you know that there are more trees in the US today than there were 50 years ago?

Did you know that the largest increase in CO2 was accompanied by a *decrease* in measured global temperatures (before 1950)



Wheres the emergency?

:roll:

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Davan

Originally posted by: Forsythe


two things.

1)
It is proven so far to the extent of our knowledge, but nothing is certain, all evidence points towards the fact that it's happening. We just don't know how bad it's gonna be.

Im sorry but the facts do not agree with this comment.

i'd like to see your facts, you still haven't shown any really...

Originally posted by: Forsythe
2)
Noone's telling developing countries to stop burning coal.

Incorrect. This is exactly what the Kyoto Protocol was designed to do.

actually the us dumped kyoto because it *DIDN'T* bring 3rd world countries into the plan.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Davan

Originally posted by: Forsythe

The facts do agree with this, find me facts against it then.

The kyoto protocol makes no demands to developing countries at all. Which is a major point of criticism from americans that don't support the kyoto protocol. Go figure.

Screwing flies i see.

Yeah I tried already, I guess you ignored everything I posted above.

The most reliable data from the country that produces the most CO2 shows an increase in total temperature over the past 120 years at .5 degrees Celcius. The data is heavily modified, going through at most 7 different filters and adjustments. The "warming trend" began long before heavy industrialization and CO2 emissions, severing the already tenuous link between CO2 and any imagined increase in global temperatures. On top of that, many scientists are now proposing an even heavier Global Heat Island Effect, which would adjust the average temperatures down even further, possibly close to .1 degree Celcius.

Shaky ground for global policy indeed.

any once again, you still haven't given any facts. how about a real link, or can't you provide one of those?

 

[piasabird]

You only need a 7 degree (F) drop to start an ice age, so I think moving 1 degree (F) in the opposite direction in a century is quite significant.

How can you quantify a comment like this?

Who was alive during the Ice age standing outside with a thermometer?

We cant even pin down the true origins of the Clovis Point. It is presumptious to talk about the Ice age. If scientists are so intelligent what caused the ice age? Do you really think that they know that much???

The reason I ask is that something caused the last ice age, and it is most likely some kind of cosmic event and nothing we can do can really change the environment that much. We do not have enough historical evidence to predict the climate changes with any certainty. People, if you believe that these people who have populated the earth for a mere second of the millions or billions of years (According to Scientists) can predict global changes, then you are deluding yourselves.

I think it is a worthwhile area of study, but Until we have a few hundred thousand years of data, how can we claim to know very much?

Did you know that dust from space causes the earth to rise. Maybe this dust washes into the ocean and causes the oceans to rise from that. Maybe the earth's crust is actually getting lower??? Maybe magma is pushing up the ocean floor and heating up the ocean also??? Maybe Solar activity is heating up all the planets??? Any data on the cyclic activity of the Sun??

As you see there are many things people do not always consider . . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_dust

Text

Magma Dome Activity!

 

[Davan]

I think Ive shown far more than anyone has bothered to post in rebuttal, however fine if you want something to peruse then read over this informative piece -

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Its a long read but well worth it if you have an open mind.

 

[Cruise51]

The publisher of the site is a former Tobacco industry lobyist... The lowest form of life in existence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Center

 

[Cruise51]

LOL this is the part that cracked me up:

"TASSC's funders included:

* 3M
* Amoco
* Chevron
* Dow Chemical
* Exxon
* General Motors
* Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
* Lorillard Tobacco
* Louisiana Chemical Association
* National Pest Control Association
* Occidental Petroleum
* Philip Morris
* Procter & Gamble
* Santa Fe Pacific Gold
* W.R. Grace"

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Davan

Originally posted by: Forsythe

The facts do agree with this, find me facts against it then.

The kyoto protocol makes no demands to developing countries at all. Which is a major point of criticism from americans that don't support the kyoto protocol. Go figure.

Screwing flies i see.

Yeah I tried already, I guess you ignored everything I posted above.

The most reliable data from the country that produces the most CO2 shows an increase in total temperature over the past 120 years at .5 degrees Celcius. The data is heavily modified, going through at most 7 different filters and adjustments. The "warming trend" began long before heavy industrialization and CO2 emissions, severing the already tenuous link between CO2 and any imagined increase in global temperatures. On top of that, many scientists are now proposing an even heavier Global Heat Island Effect, which would adjust the average temperatures down even further, possibly close to .1 degree Celcius.

Shaky ground for global policy indeed.

Take this graph.
If you look at the red line, which shows temperature, you can see that infact changes of .5 degrees occur at normal intervals at more than 1000 years.
And i take it the "warming trend" you're referring to is the bounceback from the last iceage?
I have heard several reports mentioned that says the warming shows all signs of being caused by the greenhouse effect.
And in fact, the poles are warming more repidly than any other place.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Cruise51
LOL this is the part that cracked me up:

"TASSC's funders included:

* 3M
* Amoco
* Chevron
* Dow Chemical
* Exxon
* General Motors
* Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
* Lorillard Tobacco
* Louisiana Chemical Association
* National Pest Control Association
* Occidental Petroleum
* Philip Morris
* Procter & Gamble
* Santa Fe Pacific Gold
* W.R. Grace"

OP served a hot plate of simma down now.

 

[dannybin1742]

Did you know that the total estimated temperature increase in the US over the last 120 years is 0.33 degrees Celcius?

Did you know that most ecological scientists believe that the downward estimates generated from the Global heat island effect are far too small, and that the actual change in temperature is even lower than what we believe?

Did you know that all temperature data is heavily handled, modified, and "normalized" before it is released, tainting it?

Did you know that claims of melting Glaciers is based on measurements of less than 1% of the worlds glaciers?

Did you know that scientists have found that the ice around Antartica is increasing?

Did you know that there are more trees in the US today than there were 50 years ago?

Did you know that the largest increase in CO2 was accompanied by a *decrease* in measured global temperatures (before 1950)



Wheres the emergency?

and you have a degree in what field of science?????

i'll believe the NAS (national academy of sciences)before anyone else, go read the articles in Science, there is at least one article on climate in every issue, this stuff is real, its not made up

 

[Davan]

Originally posted by: Cruise51
LOL this is the part that cracked me up:

"TASSC's funders included:

* 3M
* Amoco
* Chevron
* Dow Chemical
* Exxon
* General Motors
* Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
* Lorillard Tobacco
* Louisiana Chemical Association
* National Pest Control Association
* Occidental Petroleum
* Philip Morris
* Procter & Gamble
* Santa Fe Pacific Gold
* W.R. Grace"

Back with the Ad Hominem attacks huh. Very good, its nice to have something to fall back on

 

[piasabird]

So what caused the last ice age?

Little Ice Age Nasa Research

 

[dannybin1742]

Originally posted by: Cruise51
LOL this is the part that cracked me up:

"TASSC's funders included:

* 3M
* Amoco
* Chevron
* Dow Chemical
* Exxon
* General Motors
* Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
* Lorillard Tobacco
* Louisiana Chemical Association
* National Pest Control Association
* Occidental Petroleum
* Philip Morris
* Procter & Gamble
* Santa Fe Pacific Gold
* W.R. Grace"

enough said right there, how about a real study published by the NAS?

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: piasabird
You only need a 7 degree (F) drop to start an ice age, so I think moving 1 degree (F) in the opposite direction in a century is quite significant.

How can you quantify a comment like this?

Who was alive during the Ice age standing outside with a thermometer?

We cant even pin down the true origins of the Clovis Point. It is presumptious to talk about the Ice age. If scientists are so intelligent what caused the ice age? Do you really think that they know that much???

The reason I ask is that something caused the last ice age, and it is most likely some kind of cosmic event and nothing we can do can really change the environment that much. We do not have enough historical evidence to predict the climate changes with any certainty. People, if you believe that these people who have populated the earth for a mere second of the millions or billions of years (According to Scientists) can predict global changes, then you are deluding yourselves.

I think it is a worthwhile area of study, but Until we have a few hundred thousand years of data, how can we claim to know very much?

Did you know that dust from space causes the earth to rise. Maybe this dust washes into the ocean and causes the oceans to rise from that. Maybe the earth's crust is actually getting lower??? Maybe magma is pushing up the ocean floor and heating up the ocean also??? Maybe Solar activity is heating up all the planets??? Any data on the cyclic activity of the Sun??

As you see there are many things people do not always consider . . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_dust

http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/whsun.html

Several things.

We have temperature measurements from the last iceage. Vostok ice cores, look it up.

We think we know what causes ice-ages, cyclical variations in the distance to the sun, the inclination of the earth and so on. And indeed the ice ages appear at cyclical times.
But there appears to be many factors.

It is true that humans have populated the earth a relatively short time. Only a few millons of years. And the latest bid as to the age of the universe i heard was 17 billion years.

We do have historic data that shows that natural climate changes don't happen this fast. And besides, we are still in the early phases, the evolution of it would be logarithmic.

And we have 400k years of data.

There is no reason to believe that oceans should be rising because of cosmic dust, of which the earth recieves thousands of tonnes each year. But if the oceans were rising, why aren't the mainland?

And yes we have data on cyclical of the sun, and it shows nothing that would lead you to believe that the global temperature would increase like it has the last 30 years.

 

[piasabird]

Biochemistry prepares your for this subject in what way?

 

[Forsythe]

Here is some data showing cyclical variations i the sun, and the iceages they are thought to affect. Data

 

[dannybin1742]

because as an undergrad you still have to take courses like general biology, which covers all this stuff, as well as being able to read scientific articles in science or nature to understand how these studies are conducted? what science degree do you have?

my point is that you get alot of these guys on these threads who have no science background trying to defend somthing that they have no academic knowledge on, AND no ability to comprehend a real scientific study because they have no science degree or training, or they cut and paste from their prefered websites

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Biochemistry prepares your for this subject in what way?

Biochemistry what?
Where did i mention that?

[edit]

oh, nm i guess.

How about you reveal your position to what i said piasa?