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.
Being a "PhD scientist" hasnt let facts get in the way of selfishness I see. And since this selfishness and consumption is bred into every American its going to be tough to change the mindset. The good news is many people, some of them even conservatives, are seeing the results of climate change and wanting to change their ways.
Unfortunately, you are not in their ranks. Your pseudo science background and personal beliefs set you far apart from research scientists who understand that fossil fuels are warming the planet.
So it is obvious you don't know what your speaking about. Pseudo science...I recieved a PhD in Biological Sciences. Where did you obtain your PhD?
Correlation and Model building do not make for strong science, nor cause and effect. Any trained researcher would tell you that.....
Correlative Environmental science is akin to stating.....take this new medication because its use is correlated with a good outcome, although we have not determined if the drug is causing the beneficial effect, but lets go ahead and recommend it anyway for the masses....how irresponsible is that?
Can you provide references of objective scientists who believe that fossil fuels are warming the planet?
you say selfishness, I say being smart....I am not going to change my lifestyle and waste money on something that is being argued from a political vantage point and not one on science...
Combine the ignorance with an almost religious dogma in denyng science you have the "No way can man influence the climate" set who get their talking points from Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
I'll argue with climate change deniers no matter their educational backgrounds.
It's an easy argument to win, I've got facts on my side.
Really, can you share some of the facts? With references please?
I have enclosed some light reading, wtih references...that was commisioned in responce to the multitude of IPCC reports...
PS - If you recall my last post, I did not deny climate change, but the rationale that it s was proven to be man made.....accuracy with terminolyg is a good thing.
A simple question, with no answers.....I was hoping for something a bit more constructive, and intellectually stimulating....and we get name calling...funny....
So help me out, Mr. Scientist sir. As best as this ordinary civilian can figure, about 3% of the total CO2 that goes into the atmosphere is man-made, a small part of the carbon cycle. In turn, CO2 is only about 3% of all greenhouse gases? Is that right? And mightn't higher levels of CO2 spur worldwide growth of vegetation, which would use more CO2?
Just based on the facts, it seems like a fool's errand to try to affect climate by limiting CO2 emissions. The bill passed by the House would lower temperatures decades from now by like a tenth of a degree, while creating economic havoc. Another unfortunate side-effect would be the enrichment of Al Gore, which would make him even more insufferable.
Ha, ha...spot on in my opinion. Although me thinks another angle is being taken to redistribute the welath, perhaps through calls of rationing and more Govt control....will see what comes out of Cancun this week and next....
Interesting read. This paper was developed because may felt the IPCC was driven from a political perspective and alot of good science was left out. References and disclaimers included - although I can't wait to hear responses....
A simple question, with no answers.....I was hoping for something a bit more constructive, and intellectually stimulating....and we get name calling...funny....
Name calling? I see reading comprehension, along with climate change, are not your best subjects.
Ha, ha...spot on in my opinion. Although me thinks another angle is being taken to redistribute the wealth, perhaps through calls of rationing and more Govt control....will see what comes out of Cancun this week and next....
And eating beans lentils, seeds and nuts, make for terrorist-quality farts, jam-packed with Co2.
Burn more, eat more, fart more, eat more.
actually its Methane and Methane is an actual real life bonafide greenhouse gas.
Co2 has limited greenhouse impact...scientifically speaking of course.
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.
Science vs. Politics
