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.
Some of us, who have actually done research on our own, not paid by oil companies, have other conclusions. Why is it that you people cannot accept that?
People like you continue to spout the party line. People like me call you on it. and all you can do is continue to spout the party line. There is no discussion with you folks. Your way or the highway. Well .... I know the highway .... to truth, justice, and the American way. Too bad you Canadians dont know the difference.....
I accept the science and I am not and never have been a member of any political party. In any case this is a global issue, not a political one...I know that you are a creationist, but are you a climate scientist? If so please show your published research.
Some of us, who have actually done research on our own, not paid by oil companies, have other conclusions. Why is it that you people cannot accept that?
People like you continue to spout the party line. People like me call you on it. and all you can do is continue to spout the party line. There is no discussion with you folks. Your way or the highway. Well .... I know the highway .... to truth, justice, and the American way. Too bad you Canadians dont know the difference.....
because they want everyone to fall in line like good little sheep and do what the good government tells them to do because the government only has the best interests of the people at heart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
I accept the science and I am not and never have been a member of any political party. In any case this is a global issue, not a political one...I know that you are a creationist, but are you a climate scientist? If so please show your published research.
you say you accept the science, but you only look at the science your side offers up. i have looked at both sides, and i have looked at the past, and realized that we are all being lied to by the so called scientists, because NONE of them will tell us the whole truth, and a lie of omission is also a lie.
and yes global warming IS a political game. you cannot prove that anything we do to curb emissions will have any real effect over the next century, or more. you also keep spouting at how global warming is killing the planet, but fail to recognize the fact that the earth has been much warmer in the past, and yet it was not only here, but thriving with both higher temperatures and CO2 levels more than triple what they are now.
so what we have now, even if it is human driven is nothing. humans will adapt as they always have. in fact humans tend to like warmer climates than colder ones.
and before you go into "we are killing the planet" mode, just remember that the worst thing humans can do is pop every nuclear warhead that has ever been created. if we did that the planet would be forced again into an ice age, this one a nuclear one, and when it was over the planet would just move on like nothing happened. remember that this planet has suffered through meteor strikes, comet strikes, planetary strikes, gamma ray bursts, run away global cooling that resulted in planet snowball, and it has survived all of that. do you really think that humans can do more harm to the planet than the things i just mentioned? if so then you are truly too arrogant to continue this discussion.
because they want everyone to fall in line like good little sheep and do what the good government tells them to do because the government only has the best interests of the people at heart.
you say you accept the science, but you only look at the science your side offers up. i have looked at both sides, and i have looked at the past, and realized that we are all being lied to by the so called scientists, because NONE of them will tell us the whole truth, and a lie of omission is also a lie.
and yes global warming IS a political game. you cannot prove that anything we do to curb emissions will have any real effect over the next century, or more. you also keep spouting at how global warming is killing the planet, but fail to recognize the fact that the earth has been much warmer in the past, and yet it was not only here, but thriving with both higher temperatures and CO2 levels more than triple what they are now.
so what we have now, even if it is human driven is nothing. humans will adapt as they always have. in fact humans tend to like warmer climates than colder ones.
and before you go into "we are killing the planet" mode, just remember that the worst thing humans can do is pop every nuclear warhead that has ever been created. if we did that the planet would be forced again into an ice age, this one a nuclear one, and when it was over the planet would just move on like nothing happened. remember that this planet has suffered through meteor strikes, comet strikes, planetary strikes, gamma ray bursts, run away global cooling that resulted in planet snowball, and it has survived all of that. do you really think that humans can do more harm to the planet than the things i just mentioned? if so then you are truly too arrogant to continue this discussion.
What science by the denier's side? As far as I know there is next to none. Why don't you show me the skeptics science? What the hell is all your crap about nuclear warheads, gamma rays, planetary strikes, snowball earth, etc. other than a deflection from the topic? You have nothing but straw men.
What science by the denier's side? As far as I know there is next to none. Why don't you show me the skeptics science? What the hell is all your crap about nuclear warheads, gamma rays, planetary strikes, snowball earth, etc. other than a deflection from the topic? You have nothing but straw men.
we have given you plenty of science, you just refuse to accept it. your mind is so closed off that you wont accept anyone elses point of view.
we have given you plenty of science, you just refuse to accept it. your mind is so closed off that you wont accept anyone elses point of view.
No, you have not presented any science that supports your denialist views. All I see from you are right wing and fossil fuel inspired blogs...No real science at all.
Sorry but these posts show up over and over and over. Theres NOTHING constructive about them at all.
The vast majority of people who have dedicated their lives to this say denying climate change is foolish.
Nothings changed yet, all I hear is armchair generals or people being paid to espouse a specific idea screaming about it.
In other words, its ecological birtherism.
Being that climate scientists who have predicted with certainty that we would be seeing significant warming right about now have failed to produce this warming, the ball seems to be in your court.
"The models had predicted that the average global surface temperature would increase by 0.21 of a degree Celsius over this period, but they turned out to be off by a factor of four, Zwiers and his colleagues wrote. In reality, the average temperature has edged up only 0.05 of a degree Celsius over that time — which in a statistical sense is not significantly different from zero."
Right winger who holds B.S in Business Administration and PhD in American History with hobby of following monster truck rallies writes anti AGW opinion piece for right wing rag Weekly Standard.
Right Wing Climate denier on C-D agrees with his piece.
Color me impressed.
Any comment on the failure of predicted warming to materialize?
Can you explain the need to modify recorded temperatures from 100 years ago per GHCN v3?
Being that climate scientists who have predicted with certainty that we would be seeing significant warming right about now have failed to produce this warming, the ball seems to be in your court.
"The models had predicted that the average global surface temperature would increase by 0.21 of a degree Celsius over this period, but they turned out to be off by a factor of four, Zwiers and his colleagues wrote. In reality, the average temperature has edged up only 0.05 of a degree Celsius over that time — which in a statistical sense is not significantly different from zero."
You should read the entire article, then you will realize that it does not support your denialist views...The atmosphere's temperature has increased only 0.21 degrees since the denier's cherry picked year of 1998 (A year when the temperature was influenced by a strong El Nino), but the oceans temperature has continued to rise.
What science by the denier's side? As far as I know there is next to none.
There is "next to none" in your view because you are so attached to your ideology and your cult that when presented with some, you immediately look for excuses to discount it.
You asked for science from the skeptical side, here you go. I predict that you and the other usual suspects will immediately start Googling and attempting to dig up whatever dirt you can find on the authors, while
you hypocritically refuse to the same for the warmist scientists. So, while I don't expect the cultists to open your minds to other possibilities and points of view, perhaps the people on this forum who can think for
themselves will appreciate the studies….
Climate stability: an inconvenient proof
David Bellamy, Jack Barrett
"This paper demonstrates that the widely prophesied doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from natural, pre-industrial values will enhance the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ but will amount to less than 1°C of global warming" ICE Virtual Library: Climate stability: an inconvenient proof
Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
Willie Soon1,2,*, Sallie Baliunas1,2, Sherwood B. Idso3, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev4, Eric S. Posmentier5
1Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA 2Mount Wilson Observatory, Mount Wilson, California 91023, USA 3US Water Conservation Laboratory, Phoenix, Arizona 85040, USA 4Research Centre for Ecological Safety, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg 197110, Russia 5Long Island University, Brooklyn, New York 11201, USA
"A likelihood of disastrous global environmental consequences has been surmised as a result of projected increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. These estimates are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy despite recent substantial strides in knowledge.
We further conclude that the incautious use of GCMs to make future climate projections from incomplete or unknown forcing scenarios is antithetical to the intrinsically heuristic value of models. Such uncritical application of climate models has led to the commonly held but erroneous impression that modeling has proven or substantiated the hypothesis that CO2 added to the air has caused or will cause significant global warming."
Global warming and long-term climatic changes: a progress report
L. F. Khilyuk Æ G. V. Chilingar
Abstract The authors believe that recent global warming of Earth’s atmosphere is not due to an increase in anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission but rather to long-term global factors. The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission. Discussed in this paper are sources, avenues of migration, and the amounts of naturally produced carbon dioxide and methane (greenhouse gases) and long-term changes in the Earth’s climate, which are necessary for understanding the causes of current temperature trends.
This paper argues that the IPCC has oversimplified the issue of uncertainty in its Assessment Reports, which can lead to misleading overconfidence. A concerted effort by the IPCC is needed to identify better ways of framing the climate change problem, explore and characterize uncertainty, reason about uncertainty in the context of evidence-based logical hierarchies, and eliminate bias from the consensus building process itself.
Nature of observed temperature changes across the United States during the 20th century
Paul C. Knappenberger1,*, Patrick J. Michaels2, Robert E. Davis2
1New Hope Environmental Services, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903, USA
2Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903, USA
In contrast, the warming during the most recent period, often used as evidence of human- induced climate change, is characterized by temperature moderation—the pattern of temperature rise exhibits a strong, preferential warming of the coldest days of the year.
Last edited by voiceofreazon; 06-13-2014 at 07:07 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.
