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 am a believer in climate change. However I don't know if humans can be the sole blame for it.
please do not call it climate change, as climate change has been on the planet earth since the planet was born, and climate change will be here until the planet dies.
global warming fanatics only say climate change as they know they lost the battle because people don't believe that crap that comes from their pieholes concerning global warming. now they just change the title of what they say, but they still mean the same old tired subject.
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position"
100% of the scientists at the National Science Foundation all agreed in 1973 that the Holocene Interglacial Period had come to an end and we were now beginning another 100,000 years of glaciation.
100% of the scientists use to believe that the Milky Way galaxy was the entire universe.
The point being that science is not about consensus. It is about observations and testable hypotheses. It only took one man (Edwin Hubble) to prove all the other scientists of his day wrong, and completely change how we view the universe.
In 1905 Albert Einstein made testable predictions in his Theory of General Relativity, and his theory was, and still is being tested and has been proven to be correct - thus far. That is a sharp contrast from all the predictions made by climate scientists, where all of their predictions have been significantly wrong.
So far every model presented by all these scientists who support anthropological climate change have been completely wrong. Not one of their models has actually matched any of our observations. That alone should tell you that those scientists are not correct.
If you want to believe in consensus, watch American Idol. Consensus has no place in science.
Still 0.01% of the atmosphere... thats like a drop of oil in an ocean... still meaningless... adding the word billions is being deceptive when you know its meaningless... besides that, I always like how you guys keep mentioning record heat in blah blah city and then say that it raise temperature 1 degree Celsius... so instead of 104 degrees, it was suppose to be 103 degrees? Really? That's what you are complaining about... get a clue...
What do you think would happen if the atmospheric CO2 level dropped by.04%? Here's a clue, earths temperature would mirror Mars temperature..........Your ignorance is overwhelming!
100% of the scientists at the National Science Foundation all agreed in 1973 that the Holocene Interglacial Period had come to an end and we were now beginning another 100,000 years of glaciation.
100% of the scientists use to believe that the Milky Way galaxy was the entire universe.
The point being that science is not about consensus. It is about observations and testable hypotheses. It only took one man (Edwin Hubble) to prove all the other scientists of his day wrong, and completely change how we view the universe.
In 1905 Albert Einstein made testable predictions in his Theory of General Relativity, and his theory was, and still is being tested and has been proven to be correct - thus far. That is a sharp contrast from all the predictions made by climate scientists, where all of their predictions have been significantly wrong.
So far every model presented by all these scientists who support anthropological climate change have been completely wrong. Not one of their models has actually matched any of our observations. That alone should tell you that those scientists are not correct.
If you want to believe in consensus, watch American Idol. Consensus has no place in science.
Bull crap...
The mark of a true crank is hatred of the scientific consensus, be it consensus regarding the theory of evolution, the science that says homeopathy is impossible, anthropogenic global warming; various areas of science-based medicine; or the safety and efficacy of vaccines
In fact science is all about coming to a consensus, but it’s about coming to a consensus based on data, experimentation, and evidence, a consensus that has reproducible results that are, as Crichton put it, verifiable by reference to the real world. After all, what is a scientific theory like the theory of evolution or Einstein’s theory of relativity but a statement of the current scientific consensus regarding a major scientific topic? What is peer review but quality control (making sure the scientific methodology is sound) coupled with testing new science against the current consensus to see where it fits in or where it exposes weaknesses? What is science but attempting to forge a consensus regarding theories and statements that most accurately describe the universe in a useful and predictable way? Hostility towards scientific consensus: A sign of a crank – Respectful Insolence
The mark of a true crank is hatred of the scientific consensus, be it consensus regarding the theory of evolution, the science that says homeopathy is impossible, anthropogenic global warming; various areas of science-based medicine; or the safety and efficacy of vaccines
In fact science is all about coming to a consensus, but it’s about coming to a consensus based on data, experimentation, and evidence, a consensus that has reproducible results that are, as Crichton put it, verifiable by reference to the real world. After all, what is a scientific theory like the theory of evolution or Einstein’s theory of relativity but a statement of the current scientific consensus regarding a major scientific topic? What is peer review but quality control (making sure the scientific methodology is sound) coupled with testing new science against the current consensus to see where it fits in or where it exposes weaknesses? What is science but attempting to forge a consensus regarding theories and statements that most accurately describe the universe in a useful and predictable way? Hostility towards scientific consensus: A sign of a crank – Respectful Insolence
So you believe that the world is flat, that there is nothing outside of the Milky Way galaxy, and it has not snowed anywhere on the planet since the year 2000? If you believe that scientific consensus is infallible then you must.
Science has absolutely nothing to do with consensus. It only takes one scientist to prove everyone else wrong, as both Einstein and Hubble did. They did not require a vote, only observations and testable hypotheses.
There is also no such thing as the "theory of evolution." Evolution is an empirical fact. If you had actually read Darwin's book "On The Origin of Species," you would know that he theorized one species could evolve into a completely different species through natural selection. It was not a book on the "theory of evolution." Evolution itself has been indisputable since the Egyptians invented horticulture some 5,000 years ago.
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position"
dig deep into that climate change consensus, and you will find that 97% of IPCC scientists agree that climate change is due to mans activities, NOT 97% of all scientists. that has been severely misrepresented since the study was produced.
as for the debate from the other side being manufactured, the reality is that BOTH SIDES are manufacturing the debate. in reality though the oil companies dont care if a carbon tax is added to their products, why? because they will just raise prices to cover the tax, and perhaps add an extra profit margin, tiny though it might be, to increase their profits at the same time. so for instance the government might add a 3.9 cent per gallon "carbon tax" and the oil companies will raise the price by 4.1 cents per gallon at the wholesale level, which means a price increase at the retail level of something like 6 cents per gallon.
the next thing you need to do is look at what each side wants. the alarmists want an added tax, more regulations, and a big change in the worlds economy. and they will admit that even if everything they wanted done was done tomorrow, we would not feel ANY effects for at least 100 years, assuming they are right.
on the other hand what do the skeptics want? to avoid making rash decisions that will damage huge swaths of the worlds economy for a minor change at best in the climate. so think about it. put that MBA of yours to good use, and run the numbers for yourself, remember to use a dynamic economic model and not a static one.
So you're saying we should just sit back and watch while millions of people are displaced by rising seas, while people die from ever-increasing natural disasters?
People who live where the city is below sea level get what they deserve.
What ever increasing natural disasters. There have been fewer tornados and hurricanes. Sea level rise? Not happening world wide.
What do you think would happen if the atmospheric CO2 level dropped by.04%? Here's a clue, earths temperature would mirror Mars temperature..........Your ignorance is overwhelming!
What do you think would happen if the atmospheric CO2 level dropped by.04%? Here's a clue, earths temperature would mirror Mars temperature..........Your ignorance is overwhelming!
At 240 PPM? No, more like the end of the last glaciation. There are other climate variables (like the sun ). The Ordovician period was full glaciation with co2 levels at least 6000 ppm.
This is an interesting chart showing co2 forcing. Antarctic ice supposedly forms when co2 is under 450 ppm. We will be over that level in 15-20 years. Let's see how warm it gets in Antarctica where the mean annual temperature of the interior is −57°C (−70°F).
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.
). The Ordovician period was full glaciation with co2 levels at least 
