Why the planet continues to get hotter (Rush Limbaugh, myths, rating)
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.
Yes, the initial warming in ice ages was not triggered by CO_2 (generally thought to be orbital changes). However, once you warm the planet, CO_2 gets released (for many different reasons, for example, the oceans hold less CO_2 when warmer). The CO_2 then causes additional warming and then amplifies the warming.
I can only hope they come up with an anti ageing drug so I can stay around long enough to not have to move to rid myself of these freezing New England winters.
I can only hope they come up with an anti ageing drug so I can stay around long enough to not have to move to rid myself of these freezing New England winters.
LOL We oppose none another sometimes, as I am waiting for the return of the Great Wooley Mamoth
It's bound to happen if we can just wait it out ya know..
It's amazing what one can do when you combine a weak mind with anti scientific propaganda.
One has to prove nothing, only to further confuse those already confused. What could be easier, especially when you have unlimited funding available and your very own mainstream television network to launch this barrage of disinformation, combined with talk radio and the internet? The reach of the anti science drivers is almost limitless.
We certainly have no shortage of confused people, nor does the disinformation face any shortage of funding from people like the Koch Bros., Exxon, BP, etc..
The Dumbing Down rolls on, very ably represented on this thread.
The problem with arguing climate science with people who are working at others behest, who tell their followers that their eyes are lying, is you cannot persuade an idiot or someone compromised for personal benefit to believe in something that takes reason, effort, and concentration (or, at least very rarely).
This blowhard having an argument is like all science deniers having an argument: They have NOTHING to prove, no science, no models, no forecasts to rely on, and no scientific measurements to back their opinion.
They have a singular purpose: To create CONFUSION, and this is what happens when those worlds collide: (thanks to the previous poster for this)
The problem with arguing climate science with people who are working at others behest, who tell their followers that their eyes are lying, is you cannot persuade an idiot or someone compromised for personal benefit to believe in something that takes reason, effort, and concentration (or, at least very rarely).
This blowhard having an argument is like all science deniers having an argument: They have NOTHING to prove, no science, no models, no forecasts to rely on, and no scientific measurements to back their opinion.
They have a singular purpose: To create CONFUSION, and this is what happens when those worlds collide: (thanks to the previous poster for this)
This is the problem with people who have no experience in the area of science debating science. Unless you have published in the literature, understand the design and implementation of a valid study, the statistic involved, and the interpretation of those results, it is somewhat pointless to press a debate.
The only valid "data" that we have for "climate change" is the fossil record. For political reasons, the proponants of global warming choose to ignore that data. The antithesis of science is gathering data only to support your initial premise- that is religion. Science is indifferent and makes valid conclusions on the available factual data, regardless of the "outcome".
Does the church of global warming have holidays, like Christmas and Easter for the Christian religion?
This is the problem with people who have no experience in the area of science debating science. Unless you have published in the literature, understand the design and implementation of a valid study, the statistic involved, and the interpretation of those results, it is somewhat pointless to press a debate.
The question I have for you is that since your viewpoint is in contradiction to the overwhelming scientific consensus, does spreading doubt constitute legitimacy?
Of course it doesn't. And since merely spreading doubt/confusion is all the anti science crowd can resort to (there is no scientific, peer reviewed evidence to support their conclusions) I will wait for some model or forecast that backs up their conclusions that has legitimacy. I've seen none. Nada. Zilch.
I'm too smart to believe my eyes are lying. Alot of other people are not.
The question I have for you is that since your viewpoint is in contradiction to the overwhelming scientific consensus, does spreading doubt constitute legitimacy?
Of course it doesn't. And since merely spreading doubt/confusion is all the anti science crowd can resort to (there is no scientific, peer reviewed evidence to support their conclusions) I will wait for some model or forecast that backs up their conclusions that has legitimacy. I've seen none. Nada. Zilch.
I'm too smart to believe my eyes are lying. Alot of other people are not.
1. There IS NO CONSENSUS REGARDING THE THEORY OF MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. The "consensus" is only in the minds of politically bent liberals. That is the point.
In a true scientific endeavor, one proposes a hypothesis and collects data to prove or disprove the hypothesis. One has no vested interest in the outcome, only in determining the truth, one way or another. In the church of global warming, the liberals have CONCLUDED THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS TRUE, THEN SOUGHT DATA TO SUPPORT THIS CONTENTION, WHILE IGNORING FACTS TO THE CONTRARY. This is not science- it is a religion.
2. In the world of science, global warming is an unproven contention. That is it. Until it is proven, it is not real. That is true of any issue in legitimate science. This is not politics, it is science. Again, this is why discussing this with people not familiar with true science is very frustrating.
Here is an analagous argument to your firm evidence that global warming is real-
"Elvis is alive and well on the surface of Jupiter. As you cannot visit Jupiter and dispel my hypothesis, it is true."
You see, you have science COMPLETELY BACKWARD. If one proposes a hypothesis, it is incumbent upon the scientist to PROVE, WITHOUT A DOUBT, THAT THIS CONTENTION IS FACT. In the absence of these absolute facts, the contention is false.
The only long term data regarding "climate change" suggests very strongly, but does not 100% dispel, the notion of man made global warming. What is the actual data?
1. Cyclical major temperature changes every 20,000 years corresponding to the wobble of the earth's orbit around the sun. This is demonstrated in pollen counts in ice cores as well as layered fossil evidence in dry lake beds.
2. CO2 does not increase temperature. The converse is true. CO2 levels rise about seven hundred years after temperatures increase.
3. CO2 is not the major "green house gas". Water vapor and methane have a much greater impact on temperature, which dwarfs any effect by CO2. If we are alarmed about temperature, we should plan on sending all the water on planet earth into outer space.
4. There are tropical plant and animal fossils in the arctic which post date continental drift. Now how the hell did that happen? Did mischevious cave men, 10,000 years ago, dig up fossils of tropical plants and animals and transport them north of the arctic circle just to play a big joke on modern man thousands of years later? These areas used to be TROPICAL and are now arctic zones.
5. Coal and oil (fossilized plant material) is found north of the arctic circle in great quatities. Where did it all come from if plants did not flourish in these regions in the past?
You will never believe that any of the above is true, as it rocks the foundation of your religion. However, do understand that from a scientific standpoint, your contention is complete bunk until PROVEN to be true. Otherwise it is just an unproven contention. An analysis of the peer reviewed literature, not the political literature, actually suggests that global warming is completely untrue.
Here is a site which shows a large body of the peer reviewed literature (not the political literature) which refutes your religion. You will never read any of the abstracts, as facts which refute the basis of the religion will be ignored by the faithful.
Since obama clearly has zero interest in taking a leadership role on the issue, why should the average citizen take it seriously? Before he was president almost 2/3 thought it was a problem; now it's a little over half. What happened? How can the clownish Al Gore still be the only face of the movement?
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.