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.
I honestly don't understand why. If climate change turns out to be wrong, and we (as a society) had to endure some extra economic hardship isn't that worth it if climate change turns out to be a very real with disastrous consequences?
I mean the only reason why I can imagine it is because the congressmen are simply bought by the Oil & Gas industry and honestly just don't care about what the evidence has to say.
Maybe because the HYSTERIA is never quite ending...... (maybe you are young and have not been around this block many times)......
HIV/AIDS
population explosion
food shortages
flu pandemics
environmental extremes
For the record Herr von HyperionGapsteinmetzler, I love climate change....seeing the leave turn colors, then snow, then the blossoming of spring and the green of summer.
It's all good.If you think it should be sunny and 74°F 24/7 they got pills for that.
Uh-huh, well, then this map which comes from the fanatical right-wing United States Government NOAA will throw you for a loop....
Up for the challenge?
No climate hopey-changey supporter has ever been able to debunk it.
When you can explain why this Inter-Glacial Period is the coldest of the last 8 Inter-Glacial Periods spanning 800,000 years, then I'll seriously consider listening to what you have to say.
Why don't we split the difference?
Instead of waiting for the average global temperatures to increase 10.8°F so that it is just as warm as the last Inter-Glacial Period, let us know when global temperatures increase 5.4°F.
Think you can do that?
Watching the global warming nutters flee as fast as they can...
Mircea
Thank you for providing that graph. If the AGW can't see how damning it is for them, then we know the brainwashing is complete. Can anyone else besides me see a cycling effect on that graph? Or am I just imagining it?
To tell you the truth, that graph makes me 100 times more sure than I was before that my opinion on this issue is correct.
I'll chime in. It has been changing since day 1. Archeology can back that up.
Man-made? That is preposterous. The earth would shed any sign of our existence in short time. We can't kill cockroaches - how can we kill a planet?
I don't undersand the disdain for science aspect - those who push the climate change agenda skew the science to suit their narrative. As for people making money off AGW...how about AL Gore?
I was addressing the OP's question.
I don't give a f__ what you have to say. Block me.
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1"
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.
"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"
"We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about ACC (SI Materials and Methods). We tallied the number of climate-relevant publications authored or coauthored by each researcher (defined here as expertise) and counted the number of citations for each of the researcher's four highest-cited papers (defined here as prominence) using Google Scholar. We then imposed an a priori criterion that a researcher must have authored a minimum of 20 climate publications to be considered a climate researcher, thus reducing the database to 908 researchers. Varying this minimum publication cutoff did not materially alter results (Materials and Methods)."
"We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers and classified each researcher into two categories: convinced by the evidence (CE) for anthropogenic climate change (ACC) or unconvinced by the evidence (UE) for ACC. We defined CE researchers as those who signed statements broadly agreeing with or directly endorsing the primary tenets of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that it is “very likely” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the 20th century (3). We compiled these CE researchers comprehensively from the lists of IPCC AR4 Working Group I Contributors and four prominent scientific statements endorsing the IPCC (n = 903; SI Materials and Methods). We defined UE researchers as those who have signed statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC. We compiled UE names comprehensively from 12 of the most prominent statements criticizing the IPCC conclusions (n = 472; SI Materials and Methods). Only three researchers were members of both the CE and UE groups (due to their presence on both CE and UE lists) and remained in the dataset, except in calculations of the top 50, 100, and 200 researchers’ group membership."
See how different the Anderegg study is from a real scientific survey where individuals are asked questions?
The 97% number is intended for the low information crowd who don't bother asking questions like. "How did you come up with that number?" and is actually 75 out of 77 individuals cherry-picked for the survey from lists previously compiled.
So first you go on yammering about the Zimmerman one and now you're going off on the Anderegg one? Can't figure it out or what.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zelva
Maybe because the HYSTERIA is never quite ending...... (maybe you are young and have not been around this block many times)......
HIV/AIDS
population explosion
food shortages
flu pandemics
environmental extremes
It makes one TIRED after a while, is why....
Just to be sure I understand your argument.
Since HIV/AIDS, population increase, food shortages, and flu pandemics are only hysteria they should be ignored.
Therefore: environmental extremes (AGW) is only about hysteria and should be ignored.
I honestly don't understand why. If climate change turns out to be wrong, and we (as a society) had to endure some extra economic hardship isn't that worth it if climate change turns out to be a very real with disastrous consequences?
The problem I have with climate-change is that the only solution offered by liberals for climate-change is more government. More government means more taxes, higher prices, and fewer choices. I could really care less about some arbitrary "economy" being hurt.
Liberal policies would drive energy costs up to such an extent that almost no one would even be able to drive a car. In Europe the poor don't even drive. In most of Europe, the cost of getting a drivers license is literally hundreds or thousands of dollars. Liberal policy would have everyone herded from the country into densely packed cities with grossly inflated costs of living.
For people who still believe in an American independent spirit. The dream of living largely independently out in the country. Free from big brother government meddling in your day-to-day life. They recognize that any government action to stop climate-change would take away that independence.
And we really shouldn't be talking about a Republican/Liberal split here. Most "Treehuggers" are people who would love to live "off-the-grid" and live largely independently. Doing things like growing their own food. They will be hurt by climate-change legislation as well.
If you could conclusively prove that global-warming is going to cause all of the crazy things you claim it will, then you may have an argument. But none of the global-warming predictions have panned out. None of them. We aren't having more extreme weather. The climate has stopped warming, and sea-level rise per year has fallen by about a third in the last decade.
If you want to uproot a large percentage of the population and force them into tiny apartments in cities, you better at least have proof it is a necessity. So far, I simply haven't seen the necessity.
Even in the worst warming models, we would have somewhere between 50 and 100 years before sea-level rise could even start negatively affecting any important parts of our coasts. Even if we stopped using all fossil fuels tomorrow, the climate-models predict the sea-levels are still going to rise. All it would do is slow down that rise.
The truth is, the "solutions" so far for global-warming are garbage anyway. They aren't even solutions. And in most cases the people pushing for these "solutions" are people invested in companies that would be set to make a huge profit. The truth is, there are a bunch of self-serving, egotistical, and greedy jerks on all sides of the climate debate. There are no angels. Which is why I always lean towards doing less instead of more in the absence of proof. I don't want to give these sociopathic ********** CEO's, bankers, investors, and politicans any more money and power than I absolutely have to.
And that is exactly how statisticians are able to bamboozle the general populace any time they wish to do so.
as it has been said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
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.
