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.
can you prove global warming is man made? please do not give me any information that comes from any groups that receive any government funding at all, as their motives are then put up for question.
Of course he can't...Proof is not a requirement for denial.....Avoidance of evidence is a denialist's only requirement.
neither can you prove that man is the cause of global warming. oh btw, how is the global warming going? how about all those people freezing their butts off with -40 below weather lately.
NORDEN, Calif. — Cattle ranchers have had to sell portions of their herd for lack of water. Sacramento and other municipalities have imposed severe water restrictions. Wildfires broke out this week in forests that are usually too wet to ignite. Ski resorts that normally open in December are still closed; at one here in the Sierra Nevada that is open, a bear wandered onto a slope full of skiers last week, apparently not hibernating because of the balmy weather.
On Friday, Gov. Jerry Brown made it official: California is suffering from a drought, perhaps one for the record books. The water shortage has Californians trying to deal with problems that usually arise in midsummer.
there is no such thing as man made global warming. any global warming that is going on, is natural and not caused by man.
If there were substantial evidence to refute AGW, there would surely be many many Journal articles with the evidence published by now. Where is it all?
neither can you prove that man is the cause of global warming. oh btw, how is the global warming going? how about all those people freezing their butts off with -40 below weather lately.
Right....We have had no winter here this year...No snow for the fourth year in a row, record high temperatures and record low rainfall, and some fruit trees are already in full bloom.
Witnessing the warmest January on record?
The above-seasonal weather witnessed in parts of Alberta may land the first month of 2014 in the weather record books.
To answer the topic of the thread...Yes, deniers are stupid.
can you prove global warming is man made? please do not give me any information that comes from any groups that receive any government funding at all, as their motives are then put up for question.
So this is the standard of truth? Scientists, who conduct their research with no federal or state funding? And scientists who are funded by private, corporate interests are beyond reproach? Give me a break. If you look at the massive body of evidence from all sources, the consensus is very clear. With a few exceptions, scientists are driven by intellectual curiosity, which fuels a quest for truth. The exact opposite of partisan posters who claim to be experts on topics they know almost nothing about.
there is no such thing as man made global warming. any global warming that is going on, is natural and not caused by man.
I will say this. I think everyone is effectively wrong in how they look at the problem.
As you burn fossil fuels and clear forests, you would see a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. A rise in CO2 should see a rise in temperature. Thus, I think any sane person would recognize that humans most likely have an impact on the Earth's climate. The question isn't whether or not we impact the Earth, its how much of an impact we actually have, and whats its effects would actually be.
In my view, the problem with the discussion about global warming, is that we seem to be effectively broken down into polar opposite camps.
On one end you have the people who deny that human activity could possibly affect the Earth. And so any change in climate must necessarily be a result of natural changes over time.
On the other end, you tend to have climate alarmists, who declare that if we don't do something about global warming today, within a very short time we are going to see catastrophic changes which will be irreversible.
Now, had the discussion about global warming stayed rational and fact-driven from the beginning. We might be able to handle any of the potential problems associated with climate-change in a reasonable way. But since one side doesn't even want to talk. While the other side has been predicting catastrophic runaway global warming, which was supposed to cause sea-level rise of several feet by now. And we were supposed to see tens of millions of "climate refugees" by now. We were supposed to see excruciating heat. And a severe melting of the ice on Greenland and Antarctica, which would contribute even more to global warming. We were supposed to see more and bigger storms.
The problem is, yeah the Earth warmed slightly over time. But the temperature change has been almost entirely isolated in the arctic. There has been a reduction in the number of tornadoes, there have been fewer hurricanes. At least in the United States, we keep seeing record snowfall and record cold. We haven't seen anything remotely close to climate-refugees fleeing their homes. The ice on Greenland and Antarctica seem to either be relatively stable, or they seem to be growing. And even more, sea-level rise has not been nearly as severe as what was predicted. If you were to take the sea-level rise data from only the last six years for instance, we have actually seen a relatively sharp decline in sea-levels.
The problem is that, the more wild predictions the global warming alarmists make. The easier it is for the other side to ignore you as just a bunch of crazies. If you would simply make appropriate predictions, instead of trying to scare everyone. Maybe people would take you more seriously.
Here is my prediction. As long as we don't suddenly fall into an ice age, warming will continue at a very slow rate for the next couple decades, with almost all warming happening in the polar regions. Within a decade or two, you might see an acceleration of warming, but warming will generally slow down over the next 100 years compared to the last 100 years, and then "plateau". After which, you would see a moderate reversal, as biomass and other renewables begin to replace fossil fuels more and more(simply because they will become more cost-effective).
Sea-levels will rise at a slower rate over the next two decades than over the last two decades. Sea levels will most likely rise about 10 inches over the next century. As sea-levels will generally follow the same pattern as temperature rise. This sea-level rise will practically be unnoticed by most major coastal areas. But you will see large-scale projects in certain cities to create more "sea walls", or other "dams". Not to directly hold back 10 inches of sea-level rise. But rather, to prevent "storm surges" from damaging the cities. I would say, we have a few hundred years before any major city risks "being lost". And that is assuming that the current patterns basically hold over that long of a period of time.
Basically, I'll probably still be alive in 2050. And by 2050, the climate will be about as different from what it is today, as the climate is different today compared to what it was in 1980. You know, slightly different but practically unnoticeable by anyone who isn't a scientist.
But even after decades of almost unnoticeable changes, you'll still have alarmists running around saying basically the same crap they are saying now.
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.
