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.
A by product of liberalism is selfishness, and many of those who have drunk the AGW Koolaid are as much motivated by that as they are paranoia or ignorance.
Oh yes .... like the perpetual cheating husband .... yes dear I did fool around with those other 100 women for 30 years, but this time is different?
We're talking about science here, not human behavior. More specifically, you're arguing that pumping out 25 billion tons of CO2 (only one of several greenhouse gases, by the way) will have no effect on the environment. Keep this figure in mind: 25 billion tons. By comparison, the annual output from volcanoes is about 200 million tons. We already know from scientific research that volcanic output initially cools the air because it blocks out sunlight, and we know from geological and other forms of scientific evidence that the short term cooling will be replaced by long-term warming, other factors generally remaining constant -- geologists saying this, not even IPCC "alarmists". Thus, there is a logical reason to conclude that human output will, over time, have a major impact on climate. To deny that is similar to other forms of anti-environmental denials such as that human activity has an impact on biodiversity in forests and in oceans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
No .... the fundamental operation of the Earth's climate mechanisms aren't just going to change at your convenience.
Again, try to keep up here. I'll reiterate this until the light bulb goes on: we're not talking about natural mechanisms solely. Nobody on this forum is denying that natural mechanisms warm the earth; what we're arguing is your assumption that man-made mechanisms cannot warm the earth, which is absurd. If humans can recreate the destructive power of a natural volcanic eruption, why can't they also recreate the destructive effects of other natural phenomena? The fact that nature is destructive does not mean that humans are not destructive as well. This argument of yous is just an abortion of logic and critical thinking -- it really is. Why can't humans warm the earth? Because you can't see it? Because you can't understand the science behind the explanation? Because it was 105 in Phoenix yesterday and because it was 110 at this same time last year? Stop making such utterly simplistic conclusions and start thinking about the arguments people are making, not just the simplistic rebuttals that you read about on Newsmax.
Quote:
The well established Cause & Effect relationship between rising global temperatures and the increased release of CO2 into the atmosphere from the oceans didn't abruptly reverse itself in the 20th Century, after Hundreds of Thousands of years of operating precisely in that sequence. To suggest it did is a contrivance of either fools or liars.
Natural forces created global warming in the past; therefore, natural forces can cause global warming in the future. YES! I agree with that.
Natural forces created global warming in the past; therefore, it is not plausible to conclude that human activity can also cause global warming. NO!
Do you see the difference? Hopefully, others do, but I won't hold my breath.
Quote:
Fact 1) the overall temperature increase measured over the past century is absolutely consistent with normal fluctuations in global temperature records.
Not quite. The temperatures could be within the range, but even if that is the case, there is still one question: what is causing the change, a natural phenomenon, or are humans causing the earth to warm faster than it would by itself.
During natural warming cycles, carbon and other gases are absorbed by natural forces. There is a tremendous amount of greenhouse gas that is not caused by human activity. In fact, human activity accounts for a very, very small amount of the greenhouse gases that we know of. Even IPCC "alarmists" and "swindlers" would agree with you.
Their point? It's that humans are added volumes and volumes, by the billions of tons each year, and by the trillions of tons each decade, carbon which cannot be absorbed through natural processes. Thus, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is beginning to spike, and we know this by way of many different measurements, not those which are calculated by some quack who is hardly even recognized for his scientific contributions. The most reliable measurements are not those that were taken in the 19th Century by scientists working near industrial factories in industrial centers; they come from ice cores and other proxy data that can be accessed, compared, and analyzed consistently and reliably. In other words, the science is still on the side of the "alarmists" and "swindlers" -- unless you have something that trumps the data.
Quote:
Fact 2) Past global temperatures and CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today, and those times .
There is no evidence that reliably supports this at all. At best, some of the proxy data does show an increase in carbon and a natural warming trend that occurred, but the data shows that the carbon output has been abruptly and consistently increasing since 1860 -- again, using consistent and reliable ice core data here. Moreover, the temperatures have been increasing as well, and we can tell by using both proxy data (tree rings, etc) and more recently, we have the benefit of meteorological instrumentation. Thus, once again, you're wrong.
Quote:
.. like the Medieval Warm Period marked a precipitous increase in prosperity, with expansion of agricultural regions and growth in production beneficial to human, animal and plant life .... and did not result in the doom for which Al "the snake oil salesman" Gore claims will happen, i.e. ... the meltdown of polar ice and 25 foot rises in Sea levels.
Point one: that there were economic benefits as a result of warming is of no effect on this discussion, which is whether man-made global warming is real.
Point two: I did not vote for Al Gore. I don't care one whether he says another word on the matter again. He could just as well go back to his Tennessee farm and sip on some Jim Beam for all I care. Might do us all a favor as he those of us who do understand that global warming is a reality would have one less political distraction to deal with.
Quote:
Fact 3) Climate Scientists were caught fabricating data on one hand, and excluding inconvenient data on the other, to support their Global Warming fraud, and this is a FACT, despite the efforts to sweep it under the psuedo-scientific carpet.
The science that has been used to establish a consensus among climatologists is not fabricated; it is a lengthy, large, voluminous body of work, and it is scientific fact. There have been embarrassing miscalculations and prematurely published predictions made about such things as the rate at which snow would melt in the Himalayas, but other than that, the overall body of science is dead on.
Quote:
Moreover, conventional, mainstream science has proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be as corrupt as the politics which now drives all of the various sciences through funding mechanisms.
Ah yes, that's it. I'm glad you finally got to your point. Let's take a high profile example and project it to discredit all science. Yeah, smart move, bud. One guy at the New York Times plagiarizes, so anyone who writes is a plagiarist. This is typical of the mainstream right wing these days, and it's what I expected you eventually be reduced to. You're taking an objective argument and turning it into a subjective one instead. Nice try. You'll probably fool a lot of your fellow Americans that way, as we tend to be an inquisitive bunch of gibbons these days, but you're not going to fool me or others who are otherwise properly educated.
I appreciate your effort to educate, but I think many here are only dredging up the topic for political trolling. According to them, we don't need scientists at all. We can just depend upon the talking points provided by our favorite partisan chat rooms and such. If we can prove a scientist, somewhere, has been unethical, all science can be discarded.
The fact that most scientists around the world who study this agree is no matter. Funny thing is, the science is pretty simple. CO2 is pretty impervious to short-wave radiation from the sun, but is a good barrier to long-wave (infrared) radiation radiating back in to space from warmed earth and water, like an atmospheric comforter it does its best work at night, in winter, and at higher latitudes. Which is precisely what we are observing. They physics need not defense and are no mor arguable than gravity or electrical conductivity, and host of other readily observable phenomena. I've made these points before, but end up being lambasted as someone in on the plot.
I would guess more the posters here believe in the Rapture than anthropogenic global warming. It is what happens when ideology and political self-delusion trump the desire for truth.
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Sorry, I am not going to go for an article with a title like that. No scientist would call global warming concerns alarmist. It is a partisan screed.
Alarmism is not needed. The effects of greenhouse gases on climate are facts. The subtext of this article is that if anything is different from what is in models, the general facts no longer apply. That is just not true.
Sorry, I am not going to go for an article with a title like that. No scientist would call global warming concerns alarmist. It is a partisan screed.
Alarmism is not needed. The effects of greenhouse gases on climate are facts. The subtext of this article is that if anything is different from what is in models, the general facts no longer apply. That is just not true.
So, basically, let me get this straight. NASA finally admits that there's a net loss of heat from the earth despite increases in CO2, and you're saying no the earth is still warming up
I appreciate your effort to educate, but I think many here are only dredging up the topic for political trolling. According to them, we don't need scientists at all. We can just depend upon the talking points provided by our favorite partisan chat rooms and such. If we can prove a scientist, somewhere, has been unethical, all science can be discarded.
QUOTE]
BS..!! Scientists around the world DO NOT agree with global warming. Most of those that do have been outed as phoneys...
You are way to easy.. the kind of guy that falls for every scam that comes along...!!
Sorry, I am not going to go for an article with a title like that. No scientist would call global warming concerns alarmist. It is a partisan screed.
Alarmism is not needed. The effects of greenhouse gases on climate are facts. The subtext of this article is that if anything is different from what is in models, the general facts no longer apply. That is just not true.
There IS global warming, there is no such thing as "Man Made Global Warming"
Someday we will again have global cooling, that won't be man made, either....
I appreciate your effort to educate, but I think many here are only dredging up the topic for political trolling. According to them, we don't need scientists at all. .
Who said that? Who is "them"?
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.
