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.
Another climate change thread started by a Conservative. Really? City Data must have 20,000 Climate Change threads started by Conservatives and 100 started by Liberals. There is Climate Change and man is at least partly responsible. To deny this is to be criminally complicit in the accelerated extinction of humankind. I am not at all surprised that Conservatives have wound up on the deny'er side of the Climate Change imbroglio. When have Conservatives ever wound up championing the humanitarian angle? When? This is not a rhetorical question. Tell me one issue on which the Conservative viewpoint does not favor a rich, well off minority of individuals, even when the particular Conservative espousing those views may not themselves be in that rich, well off minority.
H
Many agree with you on hte underlined part above, however, it's how many on your side spokes people are pusing the idea...that we must act now or you will die a horable death, and oh those darn animals in the woods.....
It is only the liberal AGW scammers who want people to believe their lies that their opponents do not believe the climate changes. Nobody is that stupid. Of course the climate changes. So the next time someone calls another a "climate change denier," you will know who and what they truly are - lying liberal freaks.
There are a lot of different factors that determine the climate. One of them is radiative forcing, which is the difference between the energy that hits the Earth and the amount reflected back into space. The three radiative active "greenhouse" gases that have the biggest effect are water vapor, methane and carbon dioxide. Methane is about 25 times more radiative than carbon dioxide, but there is so little methane in the atmosphere it accounts for less than 1% of the radiative forcing. Carbon dioxide (at 400 ppm) accounts for just under 4%, while water vapor accounts for 96% of the radiative forcing.
It is pure hubris to believe humans, or any species, could have a significant impact on the planet that could effect global climate. Humans may excel at destroying their local environment, but that is as far as our destruction extends.
well said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
It is nothing to believe. Anthropogenic climate change is about as strong a theory as can be.
yep, and theories are rubbish because they are NOT proven. which means that theories are in fact WEAK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
Another climate change thread started by a Conservative. Really? City Data must have 20,000 Climate Change threads started by Conservatives and 100 started by Liberals. There is Climate Change and man is at least partly responsible. To deny this is to be criminally complicit in the accelerated extinction of humankind. I am not at all surprised that Conservatives have wound up on the deny'er side of the Climate Change imbroglio. When have Conservatives ever wound up championing the humanitarian angle? When? This is not a rhetorical question. Tell me one issue on which the Conservative viewpoint does not favor a rich, well off minority of individuals, even when the particular Conservative espousing those views may not themselves be in that rich, well off minority.
H
another post from the uneducated alarmist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
Do you really wish to try to defend that that absurdity?
Humans do affect temperature and atmosphere on a local basis. You see that on the weather reports - the temp is usually a little warmer in the urban populated areas than the suburbs. Pollution is a little worse in the populated areas.
However, there is no large scale human effect on the environment.
Temperatures in the Mat-Su Valley are actually slightly warmer during the summer than Anchorage, and slightly colder during the winter than Anchorage.
As far as air pollution is concerned, that really depends on the geographical location of the city. Denver, Juneau, and Anchorage, for example, have an inversion layer that is caused by mountains being right next door to those cities and that traps air pollution in one spot. There are a lot of cities in a similar predicament. Los Angeles, for example, has the Santa Monica and San Gabriel mountains that traps air pollution and keeps it in one location. Cities that do not have mountains nearby do not have this problem.
All the pollution mankind has ever created has been confined to the troposphere (the first 6 to 8 miles of atmosphere) where it is washed out of the atmosphere in a matter of weeks. In order to have a global effect it must reach the stratosphere, which begins 6 to 8 miles up and goes up another 23 to 25 miles. All climate occurs within either the troposphere or stratosphere.
"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"
That's right.......................theory. Bad theory but theory nevertheless.
I deal in facts. And the fact is humans have no bearing on whether the earth cools or heats which it does on its own periodically.
See, this is part of the problem. A theory is not an educated guess. A theory is an explanation for a particular phenomenon, based on facts and data. The data shows, carbon emissions coincide with increased climate change and unusual weather trends.
I'm guessing you don't believe in evolution either?
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.