Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is the first time in recorded history that WE humans get to experience an interglacial warming period, so in our intelligent minds, "it must be our fault". There is no doubt that we are contributing to this warming, but it's going to warm never the less. It has done this in the past and it will continue to do this in the future. We are only into this warming period by 11,000 years, if past trends hold true, this warming period will last about 25,000 years with the Earth warming to about 4-6 degrees C,over today temps, at its peak. Yes, the oceans will rise and weather patterns will change, either we adapt or we will go the way of the Wooly Mammoth, the Saber-tooth Cat and others that perished when the Earth started this warming period.
Not everyone is convinced that human beings are a reason the there is a warming trend on planet earth. We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Greenhouse gases certainly affect the temperature of the atmosphere, but is not the main cause of global warming. Although there is no warming. in one place it has become warmer in the other cold. For example, in the Russian zone station in Antarctica seen cooling, when the European zone warming stations
Greenhouse gases certainly affect the temperature of the atmosphere, but is not the main cause of global warming. Although there is no warming. in one place it has become warmer in the other cold. For example, in the Russian zone station in Antarctica seen cooling, when the European zone warming stations
That's why its called global warming not local warming. Its the net effect.
Climate deniers have really slowed down any action to delay much less results of climate change.
Which is putting the rest of us and our families at risk.
Shouldn't their be consequences for that? The sort of conservatives that deny climate change are always bleating about consequences.
If they are so sure there is no problem, fine, sign a registry. Pay a fine, like 80% of your total assets if you are wrong. To include all your family assets. Why not, you are so sure you are right.
I see it as a delaying action so the uber rich can get richer before the world goes to hell. Take their money when it can no longer be denied.
While I am not supporting the OPs article at all, I think it is funny how people point out that 97% of "climate scientists" accept a human impact on climate.
These are the people whose career is based on studying the impact. They certainly are not going to say the impact does not exist. That woudl be like scientists who study black holes saying black holes do not really exist. In other words, to be a "climate scientist" you have to already accept human impact on climate or you will not be deemed a climate scientist. What is odd is where the missing 3% comes from.
There may be better statistics to support the position, but that one carries no weight with me. I would bet that close to 100% of the people who study purple unicorns for a living, also believe they exist.
Thus, this is neither support for nor against the proposition, but really a meaningless statistic. I am far more interested in the logic and validity of the data behind their conclusions than a numbers statistic. At one time 97% of medical practitioners in England believed bleeding people made them well.
People conflate two very different things in the AGW debate: the past and the future.
It is very clear that the earth is warming at a rate that is far greater than any warming period in the geologic record and the data strongly suggests that it is human activity that is causing the rapid-warming. That part is not all that debatable.
The future is another matter. It is not at all clear if the sea will rise 6" or 6' or 60' over the next 100 years due to human caused warming. I am a physicist, was a university researcher for many years, but I am skeptical of anyone who claims to know with any certainty exactly what is going to happen. Modeling complex processes with computers is extremely difficult.
So what this comes down to is classic risk analysis: What is the chance that the worst case scenario will happen, what is impact of that, what is the chance of successful mitigation of that risk, and finally, what is the cost of that mitigation? Unfortunately we don't have a good grasp on any of these inputs to perform a reasonable analysis. But I think the chance of a bad outcome is high enough that we need to put the work into nailing down the details.
At some point the science will be maxed-out and it becomes a political decision. I am not sure we are quite there yet. In that sense the Paris accords is a hedge - let's reduce carbon a bit (but not enough according to some) just in case.
If I could live another 100 years and could bet on whether Miami will be under water by that time, I would take the bet. I think it likely the sea will rise and I also think it likely that we cannot or will not mitigate it.
Not everyone is convinced that human beings are a reason the there is a warming trend on planet earth. We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Whenever you read a scientist report make sure it is peer reviewed.
Phillip Morris paid scientists to show "scientific proof" that cigarette smoking was not harmful. Those false reviews and so called proof were published on TV, written reports that were given to the White House, and printed in major newspapers that every day people read and watched. That is not the only time we have been duped as we are actually duped daily into believing false facts.
Sadly people will lie if it cushions their pockets, even if it means coming up with some kind of "evidence".
I certainly don't know if humans are impacting the climate but I do know what large prairie dog colonies do to a locale if left unfettered.
I suggest that humans are much like prairie dogs in the sense that both need land and space to exist. We have only scientists to lead us in these highly complex scenarios like climate change and unfortunately, like most aspects of our modern culture, they too have become very partisan and biased.
Last edited by High_Plains_Retired; 12-11-2018 at 01:59 PM..
Whenever you read a scientist report make sure it is peer reviewed.
Phillip Morris paid scientists to show "scientific proof" that cigarette smoking was not harmful. Those false reviews and so called proof were published on TV, written reports that were given to the White House, and printed in major newspapers that every day people read and watched. That is not the only time we have been duped as we are actually duped daily into believing false facts.
Sadly people will lie if it cushions their pockets, even if it means coming up with some kind of "evidence".
I just was gonna say this too. I saw a VICE epi showing the video you were talking about. And it is a great analogy to their video proof of oil companies making same denial about global warming.
I actually don't care about global warming or even think it's true but this particular VICE episode use a VERY viable analogy that made me a believer that global warming indeed is real.
And I really think it's high time for people to search Tesla's free energy that have been suppressed by same greedy oil and electric evil capitalists of that time.
It's time to utilize the free energy we always have.
Whenever you read a scientist report make sure it is peer reviewed.
Phillip Morris paid scientists to show "scientific proof" that cigarette smoking was not harmful. Those false reviews and so called proof were published on TV, written reports that were given to the White House, and printed in major newspapers that every day people read and watched. That is not the only time we have been duped as we are actually duped daily into believing false facts.
Sadly people will lie if it cushions their pockets, even if it means coming up with some kind of "evidence".
I've always thought that some of the most risky ingredients in cigarettes are probably all the additives, preservatives, and possibly even the paper, but not really the tobacco. Maybe their scientists had something valid to say after all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
