Proven fact?

[cancan]

YouTube - Minnesotans For Global Warming Song

[ottomobeale]

The house thing shows alot of "leader" types are do as I say not as I do. Just like judges who impose busing or low income housing but send their kids to private schools and live in upscale areas behind gates and walls.

Call me a skeptic. Yes some of the scientist detractors are on oil company payrolls. MANY pro man made climate change scientists are in it because that is where the money is. Plus it is easy to go with the flow and be politically correct.

That being said. Im big on reducing electric usage and icreased car mileage. From a national security standpoint.

[Tesaje]

The reality is that climate studies are extremely complex. The only science more complex is astronomy. I just shake my head at all the armchair opinions based on nothing but what some climatologist said from all the people who have no idea of what the science of climatology entails and encompasses.

Whenever something gets politicized, it interferes with good science. Follow the money and throw out any opinions that are bought and paid for by companies that don't want to stop polluting. Just like a doctor paid by the pharmaceutical company who throws out any evidence that shows a negative result so they can push a new drug. That is not good science.

The truth is that climate does change and sometimes changes dramatically. Climate change always has a cause, sometimes natural and sometimes not. But climate is all about averages, not individual days or a year. But even discounting measurement issues (and there are many issues with instrumentation), there is clear evidence of significant global warming in the polar regions. The permanent ice is like a global memory and when it starts melting more than is being replaced, then something is definitely afoot.

As far as human cause - the famous pea soup fog in London doesn't happen anymore because they cleaned up the toxic industrial pollution. - it was smog. Since the industrial age (about 200 years), we have clear evidence of average warming. We know the effects of carbon dioxide and some other compounds in the atmosphere and how the heat exchange works. We know there is a balance that keeps the earth in the balmy state that supports life. Without some greenhouse effect, the earth would be as sterile as Mars. With too much and you get Venus.

Politically, it is a difficult subject to handle because it is so complex and so many factors come into play, it is hard to reduce it down to sound bites. It is also hard to get any absolute answers.

But the preponderance of the evidence and analysis says that the current global warming is a result of human deforestation and pollutants released into the atmosphere. One of the most disturbing trends is that every reanalysis and remodeling shows it is worse than was predicted. Does that mean the science is bad? No, it means they are learning and it is happening faster than they thought.

Besides, green energy means better air and less toxins for all of us. If we can get it to go mainstream, it should be cheaper too.

[Wild Style]

this thread needs more facts.

Anyone have links to scientist and what they have to say about it? I know someone linked to a group of scientist who don't believe, can we see both sides of the coin? Also in doing so can we source who is funding their research (yes, that matters)

[TexasHorseLady]

Whenever something gets politicized, it interferes with good science. Follow the money and throw out any opinions that are bought and paid for by companies that don't want to stop polluting. Just like a doctor paid by the pharmaceutical company who throws out any evidence that shows a negative result so they can push a new drug. That is not good science.

Likewise, there are scientists who are "bought and paid for" by their political beliefs. Peer review, while useful, is limited in that your peers do tend to have the same biases that you do (I used to watch the design of studies that were, in all good faith, attempting to design something unbiased, and have seen firsthand how very, very difficult that is - your bias, after all, impacts your initial premise, the questions you ask and how you frame them, and if the prevailing bias of your peers, as well, is one way or the other, that is VERY difficult to overcome completely).

So, throw out any opinions that are paid for by groups of people who have an objective to prove either side. (Global warming, for example, has become an industry just like any other, I fear - it's what we humans do, it seems, with our issues, we turn them into businesses. See animal rights and PETA for a prime example of this - follow the money.) What does that leave you?

[Wicked Felina]

Originally Posted by cancan

there has been no recorded warming in the last 5 years. Really? Can you prove that statement?


posted by seebee
Climate change is real, and natural. But not at the extreme degree at which it is now occuring. Since scientists have been recording this information, the rate at which changes have been happening has dramatically increased within the last century. Our climate is changing (warming) at a rate never before recorded.


could you show me proof or at least your source of information scientificly proven for this statement? Or
for that matter sources for all your statistics.

OY...Sure, I'd be happy to share. This subject is extremely complex, and it is certainly not going to be settled here on CD forum by - and this is a guess, now! - people who are not trained in the relevant sciences. Now, wouldn't that be something!

alot of what was touted as scientific fact has in fact been debunked. science has been flawed , seriously flawed by some and maybe on purpose.Yes, I agree. Of course this has happened in all walks of life, and will continue to. But which facts are you talking about that have been 'debunked'?

I have been reading several papers and studies for the past few weeks. Like I said NO SCIENTIST HERE...Yikes, I can barely get through reading some of these papers. Every one of these sources have the same essential idea as to what causes excess greenhouse gas emissions. What I originally posted was not my idea...it was taken directly from these studies. (With the exception I switched the mm to inches and c to F).

You, or anyone who wants the information, can find the websites and access their data just as easily as I did.

N.A.S.A.
Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (they have lots of simple graphs I can understand!!!)
Center for Ecology and Hydrology
N.O.A.A.

Tesaje and others wrote good posts, IMO. No panic, no arguments. Green living, as I said, sure couldn't hurt, even if you think this is all bunk. It may just make us a little more responsible and respectful towards Mother Nature.

[Wicked Felina]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

See animal rights and PETA for a prime example of this - follow the money.) What does that leave you?

Well, what do you know, I agree! Howewver, we really must start a new thread someplace about animal rights issues. Don't confuse animal rights and PETA...two different creatures, there. That's a fact!!

[Wicked Felina]

Originally Posted by Tesaje

The truth is that climate does change and sometimes changes dramatically. Climate change always has a cause, sometimes natural and sometimes not. But climate is all about averages, not individual days or a year. But even discounting measurement issues (and there are many issues with instrumentation), there is clear evidence of significant global warming in the polar regions. The permanent ice is like a global memory and when it starts melting more than is being replaced, then something is definitely afoot.

As far as human cause - the famous pea soup fog in London doesn't happen anymore because they cleaned up the toxic industrial pollution. - it was smog. Since the industrial age (about 200 years), we have clear evidence of average warming. We know the effects of carbon dioxide and some other compounds in the atmosphere and how the heat exchange works. We know there is a balance that keeps the earth in the balmy state that supports life. Without some greenhouse effect, the earth would be as sterile as Mars. With too much and you get Venus.

Politically, it is a difficult subject to handle because it is so complex and so many factors come into play, it is hard to reduce it down to sound bites. It is also hard to get any absolute answers.

But the preponderance of the evidence and analysis says that the current global warming is a result of human deforestation and pollutants released into the atmosphere. One of the most disturbing trends is that every reanalysis and remodeling shows it is worse than was predicted. Does that mean the science is bad? No, it means they are learning and it is happening faster than they thought.

Besides, green energy means better air and less toxins for all of us. If we can get it to go mainstream, it should be cheaper too.

I can't give you any more reps right now. Well said here!