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.
Instead of arguing about the cause, I think these "scientists" on both sides need to come up with a way to continue growing food and feeding people in spite of the change.
Actually, higher levels of CO2 will increase food supplies. It's cooling that you should be worried about.
NOAA provided a lovely graph to illustrate their erroneous claim, which I’ve annotated and included here as Figure 1. The original is here. Unfortunately for NOAA, they must’ve conveniently forgotten that they revised their Oceanic NINO Index (ONI) in 2012, and that now 2006 is now considered a La Niña year. Oops!! According to the NOAA graph, 2006 was considerably warmer than 2012. And we can confirm that by looking at the annual global temperature anomalies presented by NOAA here.
A scam to some, a reality to others. Do you really think that all the pollutants we put into the air doesn't affect the atmosphere. I'm sorry but I want to protect the earth for future generations.
They have no suspicions as to why the oil lobby pours millions into spreading propaganda that attempts to debunk cilmate science. Every article that spews anti-science propaganda can be traced back to a right with source with a biased agenda.
They have no suspicions as to why the oil lobby pours millions into spreading propaganda that attempts to debunk cilmate science. Every article that spews anti-science propaganda can be traced back to a right with source with a biased agenda.
Would the Sierra Club be a propaganda machine with a biased agenda?
From 2007 to 2010, the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign accepted more than $26 million from Chesapeake Energy, one of the country's largest natural gas producers. When new executive director Michael Brune learned of the donation in 2010, he turned away an additional $30 million that Chesapeake had promised and ended the Club's relationship with the company. Sierra editors spoke with Brune to clarify the Club's position on natural gas.
Despite Seven Years of Documentation, Groups Fund Climate Change Denial
NASA has documented indications of the earth’s changing climate using satellite images. The GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) Mission measured the amount of ice lost from earth’s glaciers and ice caps from 2003 to 2010 due to atmospheric warming. GRACE is the first comprehensive satellite study of its kind, providing scientists with valuable data to help them understand the effects of climate change on our world. Despite the overwhelming evidence accumulated by the NASA research project, many groups are still funding the spread of climate change denial propaganda.
It is hard to believe that with such scientific research and evidence there are still many who wish to deny climate change. Recently two groups, Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund were brought into the spotlight for donating millions of dollars to anti-environmental and climate change denial groups.
Organizations like the Heartland Institute, a conservative think-tank and one of the recipients of the Donors Trusts’ funds, contribute to the spread of climate change science denial propaganda by targeting children. Last year some Heartland documents were leaked to the public, revealing plans for their “global warming curriculum project,” which would distribute unscientific global warming material for elementary school and anti-climate change science programs.
The US government and spicifically the EPA spend hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars funding research. the EPA is on record (as is the president) that they believe human caused climate change is real and a real threat to America and the world...
and you dont think there is bias in the research funded by this source but you do think there is bias in the research funded by the likes of Exxon...
Over 25 years ago, I was one of the original founders of the National Center for Science Education... a grassroots response to the effort to teach creationist pseudoscience in the Public school classroom. Like AGW denial, creationism has always found its arguments primarily in trolling the margins of science for the purpose of misrepresenting legitimate scientific debates regarding details, and pretending that they were debates about the objective reality of evolution itself.
AGW denial follows the same pattern, but is far better funded and further aided by having a mouthpiece in Fox News. Its tactics are the same as that of creationism. It depends entirely on misrepresenting the marginal debates, and using that as a mechanism to ignore what cannot be objectively denied. And what cannot be objectively denied is this:
1. The earth's climate is changing in a specific direction and at a pace that is unprecedented in all of earth history, outside of the major cosmic catastrophe of asteroid impact.
2. This is a persistent secular change, not a seasonal or short term climatic fluctuation like "The Little Ice Age" or "The Year Without Summer," both of which are well understood as the results of short term vulcanism... wait for it... increasing the greenhouse gas content of the atmoshpere.
3. All competing natural explanations for the change fail to account for it, to include the mechanisms widely understood for causing past large scale climate changes such as the ice ages. All of them work on a geologic or cosmic timescale, and what we are experiencing is not occurring at those scales.
4. The only potential cause that has been identified and that also correlates with the data and that actually possesses a theoretical mechanism (alterations to the composition of the atmosphere) is human generation of greenhouse gases. The only one.
5. Among those who have actual expertise in the fields of climate and historical climate change, there is no genuine debate on any of the above four facts. Even a recent study of scientists and engineers employed by the petroleum industry shows that more than a third of them also accept that AGW is real, in spite of that conclusion being a direct threat to their livelihood. This alone would account for the "2.5%" of dissenters that some find so compelling. I really don't need to go into the fact that you can find 2.5% dissenters on almost scientific issue, from the germ theory to Copernican astronomy to plate tectonics to Newton's law of universal gravitation.
6. To this point, I can find no rational explanation for a scientific consensus on this issue that could account for it being "a hoax" or a "political agendum." Climate scientists as a rule do not depend for their employment on a rising (rather than falling or static) global temperature. They are not 90 plus % "liberal" or "Democratic." They do not appear to have supported Obama at any higher rate than the general populace.
My twenty cents.
Last edited by HistorianDude; 08-15-2013 at 10:38 AM..
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.
