Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Why do 97% of scientific studies agree that climate change is manmade?
1. Consipracy 22 41.51%
2. Scientists are not as smart as average Joe 5 9.43%
3. Scientists don't believe in the bible or the rapture 26 49.06%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-20-2013, 06:47 PM
 
10,553 posts, read 9,607,099 times
Reputation: 4784

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
Then why did they make the assumption that they were about causes - at least in this case and instance?
They didn't.

 
Old 05-20-2013, 07:57 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,379,976 times
Reputation: 4190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
They didn't.
You're blinded by your preconceived ideology.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 08:00 PM
 
10,553 posts, read 9,607,099 times
Reputation: 4784
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
You're blinded by your preconceived ideology.
No, I know what I'm talking about.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 08:00 PM
 
6,331 posts, read 5,190,626 times
Reputation: 1640
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
Because the average layperson doesn't have the background in science to appreciate the scientific research, or even bother to read summary reports by experts.

One of the ways we can evaluate information is to look at the source. A scientist who has been studying global warming all of his or her professional life has more credibility than a non-scientist. You also need to look at bias. A scientist who is working for the oil industry is going to have less credibility than someone who is working at a non-profit university or climate center. Then you need to look at the evidence for and against something. There is a lot of scientific evidence in support of the fact that man-made increases in CO2 levels have contributed to accelerated global warming, and very little scientific evidence refuting this.
The righties seem to believe that the scientific community consists of primarily Communist hacks who can't be trusted, unlike Rush Limbaugh fans who know the truth
 
Old 05-20-2013, 08:08 PM
 
Location: Long Island
56,893 posts, read 25,822,100 times
Reputation: 15443
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
why do the fascist liberals deny science...because they want to tax it


NOT ONE scientist has proven MANMADE global warming

the globe evolves..the global enviroment changes..periodicly...there have been WARMER TIMES..there have been cooler times..there have been times when C02 was MUCH, MUCH higher

science shows that humans use oxygen and expele (exhale) co2

science shows that greenery (plantlife) uses co2 and expeles o2

science shows that co2 levels have been 3 times HIGHER than they are today, in the past (ie the co2 325 of today is is much lower than the 750-10000 that co2 levels were 100,000 years ago

science shows us that the earth has warmed AND cooled many times

science shows us that ANTARTICA was once a lush furtile land, not covered in ice

science shows us that greenland was once a green lush furtile land, not covered with ice

science shows us that GLACIERS created many of the geographical features that we look at today (ie Long Island was made by the lower reaching of graciers, the great lakes were created by glaciers, the grand canyon was created by glacial melting)

science shows us that plants would grow much better, and use less water if the co2 was HIGHER...around 700-1500ppm compared to the current 320ppm


The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research (SCIENCE) demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.Plants under effective CO2 enrichment and management display thicker, lush green leaves, an abundance of fragrant fruit and flowers, and stronger, more vigorous roots. CO2 enriched plants grow rapidly and must also be supplied with the other five "essential elements" to ensure proper development and a plentiful harvest.



science shows As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels - below 225 ppm - will cease to grow or produce.

SCIENCE shows that plants exposed to elevated CO2 concentrations are likely to lose less water via transpiration



common sense states that as the earths polulation expands, so does the need for more plantlife...to keep our oxygen levels up.............yet the global warming liberals only want to talk about car/industry exaust; man created co2,.... and how to tax it


why do liberals DENY science???...because with the science they cant get their TAX..so they manipulate the science
What exactly would you consider proof of man made global warming, a video lookming back at what happened from 2013 on....


Quote:

common sense states that as the earths polulation expands,
so does the need for more plantlife...to keep our oxygen levels
up...........
So since the population is expanding plantlife is also expanding, there has been no deforestation in the last 100 years, all good?


Quote:
why do liberals DENY science???
I think you definitely have that backwards, NASA, National Geographic and most of the worlds scientist disagree with you,
 
Old 05-20-2013, 08:16 PM
 
10,553 posts, read 9,607,099 times
Reputation: 4784
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. "The following website has a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Climate Change: Consensus

Statement on climate change from 18 American scientific associations:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)

Or how about the 200 scientific organizations world-wide that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.:

http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

Naysayers, go and check out some of the links to the scientific associations. Read what they have to say. Educate yourselves.

Last edited by ellemint; 05-20-2013 at 08:33 PM..
 
Old 05-20-2013, 08:19 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,811,595 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
So since the population is expanding plantlife is also expanding, there has been no deforestation in the last 100 years, all good?
For the record in the US the amount of forested areas has actually grown slightly over the last century.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 08:21 PM
 
10,553 posts, read 9,607,099 times
Reputation: 4784
Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009)General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

Notice the pale blue bars for actual scientists studying climate change, i.e. the experts who actually know what they are talking about.




http://opr.ca.gov/s_denier.php
 
Old 05-20-2013, 08:21 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,811,595 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,....
Here is what they are citing for that 97%, figure.
Quote:
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618
Do you want to try and defend it? I
 
Old 05-20-2013, 08:26 PM
 
10,553 posts, read 9,607,099 times
Reputation: 4784
"A small but vocal group has aggressively spread misinformation about the science, aiming to cast doubt on well-established findings and conclusions. Their goal is to create confusion and uncertainty, thereby preventing meaningful action to remedy the problem. The same strategy was used cynically for decades by the tobacco industry after research showed that cigarettes caused cancer.

Many of the deniers share some traits:

Many have little or no expertise in climate science. While some have some science background, their training often is unrelated to climate science and they have not published “peer-reviewed” scientific work in climate or atmospheric science.

Many receive funding for their efforts from industries with a financial interest in ignoring climate change. Oil companies, coal-burning electric utilities, and other companies that make their profits from burning fossil fuels have funded denier organizations and scientists, just as tobacco companies funded people who claimed that second-hand smoke was safe.

Because of the serious impacts of climate change, the delay and obfuscation tactics of the deniers are particularly concerning."


Office of Planning and Research - The Deniers
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top