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.
Instead we should believe the warmist cabal (i.e., the IPCC) for our propaganda?
This is the same outfit that had to backtrack on their fear mongering defective scenarios (Himalayas melting, sea level rising, arctic melting, etc, etc) that is filled with the shysters reponsible for the hoax, that relies on grey literature from sources like...Greenpeace and WWF.
They have LOST ALL credibility.
They are nothing more than a political propaganda entity intent on a "global" solution (money) that they get to manage.
Ain't going to happen.
Everything is documented in these websites - all the gross distortions, defective models, failed predictions and fear mongering scenarios;
It's been getting colder lately, but why would the planet get colder, then hotter, then end up existing probably well past man kind? Because it is the planet. We have no clue about all the cycles going on here or how long a cycle could be. What if we are in 100,000 year cycles? With our short life spans we have no way of yet measuring what is going on.
PS, there was also the same action on Mars as Earth, suggesting this is a solar system issue, not a man made anything issue.
It's been getting colder lately, but why would the planet get colder, then hotter, then end up existing probably well past man kind? Because it is the planet. We have no clue about all the cycles going on here or how long a cycle could be. What if we are in 100,000 year cycles? With our short life spans we have no way of yet measuring what is going on.
Oh gee, the weather has been changing for hundreds of thousands of years, so why worry?
We DO have ways of "measuring what is going on", it's a scary word called "science", one that Republicans and their spokespersons on FOX News have told you to ignore, to pretend that scientific consensus is a "conspiracy" and to ignore man made climate change the results of this taking place at an alarming rate. And these models have a certain level of accuracy, and when combining scientific measurements with long terms forecasts you get a near unanimous agreement this planet is in for some big changes, and not one of them is beneficial. Even any short term "gains" from a warmer planet will be erased quickly by calamitous consequences somewhere else. That's reality.
And reality backed by measurable science is hard to dispute, at least those of us in the reality based community
Just wait till the left finds out the ice is coming back and NYC will be high a very dry, with a sea level some 400 feet lower making it miles out to see on the continental shelf and a need to move ports out that far.
MMGW is a man made hoax, and weather stations in cooler places, such as the weather station on My Washington NH were never asked for data.
This year globally it is said to have been a record breaking cold, while i didn't think so myself.
Lefties just remember when it gets cold you don't get to burn a thing for heating ok? You get just nice warm veggies to eat. With that whine of course.
Maybe because they are not coming to the realization the planet is no getting hotter and they believe that global warming is not a hoax?
And anyway, how is the scenario fanciful? The chart says nothing about warming, just projected CO_2 increases. If people keep emitting CO_2 at a similar rate the concentration will go up.
1. Will they? In the past, CO2 levels have been higher, yet they did not remain high. It is speculation that elevated CO2 levels will always remain high and the geologic history of the earth would tend to refute this contention.
2. It is pure speculation that increased CO2 levels increase temperature. In fact, the fossil record shows that this is not true. CO2 levels increase in RESPONSE to increase temperatures. The contention of man made global warming is like saying that lung cancer causes cigarette smoking.
3. The chart is pure fantasy, as it is SPECULATION, which is exactly what it is.
3. The chart is pure fantasy, as it is SPECULATION, which is exactly what it is.
speculation != fantasy
the chart gives a prediction, based on certain assumptions. Is there a specific assumption you believe to be fantasy?
The data point from 2008 is not fantasy at all, an the previous years are likely quite accurate. Humans have increased CO_2 concentration from 280 to 390 ppm. I suppose you could say it just randomly increased during a time when humans were burning fossil fuels (which emits CO_2) while during the rest of 800,000 years it oscillated between about 170 to 300 ppm, but that sounds rather silly. The predictions to the right are based on how much fossil fuels will be burnt, hence a lower and upper bound. One could estimate the amount of fossil fuels (and CO_2 releasing processes like cutting down forests) that have burned so far compare that with the change in CO_2 concentration to get how much CO_2 might change in the future.
I didn't see how this is fantasy at all.
Last edited by nei; 04-24-2011 at 09:12 PM..
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.
