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.
...
The problem is, global warming alarmists who believe that somehow mankind has control over the climate of the planet. Mankind can work to keep the air cleaner of pollution and waters cleaner by doing the same, but as far as making floods, hellish rainstorms, etc. Humans simply aren't that clever, powerful or lucky.
Actually, those of us who believe in global warming do not believe that "mankind has control over the climate".
Also note all the scientific data by climatologist have been either made up from models or proved to be purposefully falsified to get the conclusions they want. Nobody has been around a million years to tell us if there is a 20,000 year cycle going on that we are not aware of.
I find the scientists who have been pushing this are a cult.
They act like many young people do regarding history. People look at their short lived life spans and think we are in the last days of Revelations in the Bible and that everything will happen in the current living generation. Happens every generation.
People have to get over themselves and detach themselves emotionally from science.
They place 75% of the monitoring stations wrong to favor warming temperatures and we KNOW the main scientists involved were caught lying and fabricating results.
This has been snake oil sales, not dependable science.
Hell, Al Gore made a billion on idiots buying his BS.
1. But somehow you know more than scientists. How exactly?
2. Al Gore has a net worth of about one-fifth of what you said. What happened to the other four-fifths?
You might find this piece interesting, since it posits a quite-plausible root cause for why so many such people liken AGW denial to Holocaust denial so readily (scroll down to the part about Timothy Snyder).
Well, it would take an awful lot of warming to make Canada and Siberia, which combined constitute a very large part of the Earth's real estate, too hot to be habitable by humans. Iqaluit, for example, would need to warm by 72F to reach the annual average mean temperature of Mecca (obviously "habitable" since millions of people live in that region). The most wacko climate model I've seen shows an 8C warming over present norms by 2150; the likes of Iqualuit are projected to warm by 10C in one 4.6C warming scenario, so if we assume a proportional warming for the 8C scenario that suggests 18C or so of warming for Iqaluit. That happens to be less than half the warming required to bring them up to Mecca's temperatures; in such a scenario, Iqaluit's average annual mean temperature would rise to 47F, which is comparable to Chicago.
So even in the most far-out scenario for global warming that to my knowledge has ever been put out (thus a highly improbable one to say the least), the entirety of the planet's current polar and subpolar lands would retain indisputably habitable climate, with temperatures similar to the current main population centers to boot. This is an enormous amount of habitable real estate for a planet supposedly uninhabitable for humans. Now, such a change in climate would cause adjustments that might be very adverse to the advancement of civilization or to human well-being, but you should know better than to claim that it would make the Earth "uninhabitable for humans".
I suggest you read about "the Little Ice Age". It doesn't take a lot to tip the balance.
The vast majority of climate scientists, people with PhDs in the field believe in climate change. Do you think they're lying? Serious question.
I can tell you this with a straight face, as I work in biomedical research: any scientist worth his weight is driven by the quest to tell the truth. To get a paper published in a major scientific journal is a pain in the but, as it should be.
The vast majority of climate scientists, people with PhDs in the field believe in climate change. Do you think they're lying? Serious question.
Serious answer. They could be wrong.
It isn't a poll of layman or scientists that matters. It is the quality of the scientific research.
Anyway...here's a recent case of the majority of scientists getting it wrong.
From Wilkipedia:
"In the summer of 1922, and for the next seven years, Bretz conducted field research of the Columbia River Plateau. Since 1910 he had been interested in unusual erosion features in the area after seeing a newly published topographic map of the Potholes Cataract. Bretz coined the term Channeled Scablands in 1923 to describe the area near the Grand Coulee, where massive erosion had cut through basalt deposits.[3] The area was a desert, but Bretz's theories required cataclysmic water flows to form the landscape, for which Bretz coined the term Spokane Floods in a 1925 publication.[4]
Bretz published a paper in 1923, arguing that the channeled scablands in Eastern Washington were caused by massive flooding in the distant past. This was seen as arguing for a catastrophic explanation of the geology, against the prevailing view of uniformitarianism, and Bretz's views were initially discredited. However, as the nature of the Ice Age was better understood, Bretz's original research was vindicated, and by the 1950s his conclusions were also vindicated.
Bretz encountered resistance to his theories from the geology establishment of the day. The geology establishment was resistant to such a sweeping theory for the origin of a broad landscape for a variety of reasons, including lack of familiarity with the remote areas of the interior Pacific Northwest where the research was based, and the lack of status and reputation of Bretz in the eyes of the largely Ivy League-based geology elites. Furthermore, his theory implied the potential possibilities of a Biblical flood, which the scientific community strongly rejects.[5] The Geological Society of Washington, D.C invited the young Bretz to present his previously published research at a 12 January 1927 meeting where several other geologists presented competing theories. Bretz saw this as an ambush, and referred to the group as six "challenging elders". Their intention was to defeat him in a public debate, and thereby end the challenge his theories posed to their conservative interpretation of uniformitarianism.
Another geologist at the meeting, J.T. Pardee, had worked with Bretz and had evidence of an ancient glacial lake that lent credence to Bretz's theories. Pardee, however, lacked the academic freedom of Bretz (he worked for the US Geological Survey) and did not enter the fray.
Bretz defended his theories, kicking off an acrimonious 40 year debate over the origin of the Scablands. As he wrote in 1928, "Ideas without precedent are generally looked upon with disfavour and men are shocked if their conceptions of an orderly world are challenged."[6]
Both Pardee and Bretz continued their research over the next 30 years, collecting and analyzing evidence that eventually identified Lake Missoula as the source of the Spokane Floods and creator of the Channeled Scablands. Research on open channel hydraulics in the 1970s further vindicated Bretz's and Pardee's theories."
There are several books on Bretz and the "geological establishment". It might be the same with man-caused climate change.
In the end, we will know the answer, but to say a consensus of scientists agree. Well, you have a brain....go ahead and use it. Form your own opinion.
In my case, I am still unsure.
However, I do know building windmills and destroying millions of acres of wildlands is probably not a good idea.
BTW....I did go through the Spotted Owl issue up close and personal. There the "scientists" managed a two for. The Spotted Owl is headed for extinction and the public land timber industry is extinct. REALLY, couldn't the "scientists" pick one or the other??
Those scientists that said the Clinton Forest Plan wasn't going to work.........were ignored.
In fact, scientists are just as inclined to be corrupt, dishonest, incompetent, self-serving, or just plain wrong as lawyers, politicians, journalists, religious leaders, business executives or anyone else.
Deny that if you feel like you must.
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.
The main question on the issue is not whether the Earth has warmed or cooled in the past but is mans use of 100 million barrels of fossil fuel per day causing an abnormal rise in global temperatures resulting in extreme weather conditions?,
Scientists seem to be unanimous in their scientific findings, what Data do you use to refute their findings?
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.
