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.
There's just a wide range of skepticism about AGW. Some people think it's all a massive hoax and the only thing causing warming is the sun, or God. Some people think humans aren't to blame for absolutely all climate change.
well the fact is, the majority of the skeptics that have a basis in science do not suggest there is NO warming, nor do they deny the actual physics of CO2's warming effect.
Now there are people who say stuff on message boards. but show me a skeptical scientist that is saying what you are suggesting?
There aren't. That's the thing, 97% of climate scientists subscribe to human-caused climate change.
again with the 97% thing.
we simply have no bases for communicating. you are utterly ignorant of even the skeptics that are serious hard scientists who focus on this subject. I cant help you with that.
right, i am going to trust a government source on anything economic. how about a completely UNbiased source for those economic claims? a source that will full investigate AND report ALL findings completely without bias. my guess is that you wont find one.
and it isnt the lies you tell, its the lies you pass on from others that you are accepting as the truth.
Of course. Why would I be surprised that a conspiracy theorist such as yourself doesn't trust the government? You probably need to stop smacking yourself in the head and don your tinfoil hat instead.
Show me these hard scientists that are skeptical. Have you looked at their credentials? Have you looked at their publishing history? At what publications run their papers?
so..... now you are spouting a series of simi-connected random facts?
the average brain weighs 8 lbs?
lets get back to why you dont have a clue what skeptics actually believe.
I wonder if skeptics themselves have a clue what they actually believe, since they generally just parrot misinformation fed to them by the fossil fuel lobby.
To say that the oft-touted "30,000 Global Warming Petition" project stinks would be the understatement of the year.
0.1% of signers have a background in climatology.
When I think I'm having chest pains I don't go to the dermatologist, I go to a cardiologist because it would be absurd to go to skin doctor for a heart problem. It would be equally absurd to look to a scientist with a background in medicine (of which there are 3,046 on the petition) for an expert opinion on the science of climate change. With science broken down into very narrow specialties a scientific expert in one specialty does not make that person an automatic authority in all things science. Kevin Grandia: The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda
Tell me, do you dispute the topic of this thread? Do Republicans dispute that 0.00% CO2 would render Earth FROZEN?
This might surprise you, but livestock is actually a pretty big source of greenhouse gases. Cows produce a LOT of methane which is more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. It, well, comes from their poop.
Not sure if serious. Maybe the electric cars are being powered by coal power plants? Is that what you're getting at?
Well over half of electricity in the USA is produced by coal, natural gas, and oil fueled plants.
Then there are the raw materials for component parts, not to mention the cost of transportation of those component parts from source to point of assembly.
To say that the oft-touted "30,000 Global Warming Petition" project stinks would be the understatement of the year.
0.1% of signers have a background in climatology.
When I think I'm having chest pains I don't go to the dermatologist, I go to a cardiologist because it would be absurd to go to skin doctor for a heart problem. It would be equally absurd to look to a scientist with a background in medicine (of which there are 3,046 on the petition) for an expert opinion on the science of climate change. With science broken down into very narrow specialties a scientific expert in one specialty does not make that person an automatic authority in all things science. Kevin Grandia: The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda
Tell me, do you dispute the topic of this thread? Do Republicans dispute that 0.00% CO2 would render Earth FROZEN?
So you contend that a physicist or a chemist is incapable of looking at the climatologist's assumptions inherent in their computer models and evaluate those assumptions? Do you contend that a microbiologist is incapable of talking intelligently about disease and the spread of disease and the effect of viruses and bacteria on your health?
Do you and your fellow liberal left AGW true believers DENY that the sun has anything to do with climate change? Cuz you sure act like you do.
Show me these hard scientists that are skeptical. Have you looked at their credentials? Have you looked at their publishing history? At what publications run their papers?
It is important to distinguish between skeptic and denier. Skepticism in the practice of science is entirely beneficial to the practice of science.
Notably absent from that list is Lennart Bengtsson who the "settled science" crowd treated in an infamously unscientific manner. Dr. Bengtsson probably didn't make the Wikipedia list because his dissent comes down to expressing reservations about the weakness of numerical modeling for long term predictions. That is a large part of what scientific skepticism is - saying "hey, this doesn't add up" when it doesn't. It is not to deny a theory wholesale, it is to note that the predictions of that theory aren't working.
Tell me, do you dispute the topic of this thread? Do Republicans dispute that 0.00% CO2 would render Earth FROZEN?
Well, that shows the unscientific stupidity of your political argument.
What would 0.00% CO2 imply about the Earth's atmosphere? That there is none. Of course it would be frozen. Or more accurately, it would go from frozen to unbearably hot depending on where the sun shines.
If you want to say that the condition is 0.00% CO2 and all else the same, a serious climate scientist would say that that is not likely at all due to the natural sources of CO2 being common to other atmospheric gasses, greenhouse and not.
Why pose such a silly question? Because the only way to answer it is with your numerical model - and there is no way to corroborate that answer since 0.00% CO2 is a practical impossibility on Earth (being a living planet with volcanoes). So if you get no answer, you win, and if you get an answer you don't like, your model will disprove that answer and you can happily dismiss your critics in both cases.
You're no scientist, that's for sure.
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.
