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.
While this is fun and all, you're citing research from one side of the argument. Research from the experts who are skeptics strongly suggests that the AGW crowd are exaggerating and cherry picking stats to make global warming seem way bigger than it really is.
What I'd rather see is completely unbiased research.
Take a look at the ice in and around Greenland. We have good pictures for the past 30 years or so. The ice is going away. That is big trouble if you live close to sea level. And a big % of our world's population does just that.
Take a look at the ice in and around Greenland. We have good pictures for the past 30 years or so. The ice is going away. That is big trouble if you live close to sea level. And a big % of our world's population does just that.
..... and ice in Antartica is increasing.......
Isolated observations do not constitute collective "data", nor does one assume that the ONE AND ONLY CAUSE of any changes in ice is....................... you guessed it................. CO2!
The CO2 response for the AGW crowd is the "explanation" for everything. It is like saying that "Satan" is causing the changes.
Isolated observations do not constitute collective "data", nor does one assume that the ONE AND ONLY CAUSE of any changes in ice is....................... you guessed it................. CO2!
The CO2 response for the AGW crowd is the "explanation" for everything. It is like saying that "Satan" is causing the changes.
Would you please stop and listen to me for a moment.
Here is an effective counter argument for the AGW crowd.
1, it is warming up so
2, Greenland's ice sheet is going to go into the ocean,
3, this will continue to happen even as the northern latitudes cool off.
4, the ice going into the North Atlantic will cause the northern latitudes to cool off. (Ice age)
Take a look at the ice in and around Greenland. We have good pictures for the past 30 years or so. The ice is going away. That is big trouble if you live close to sea level. And a big % of our world's population does just that.
But are we the underlying cause? That is still the matter of considerable debate amongst the experts. It goes without saying that our planet's climate has changed radically over time. It is realistic to presume that it will continue to do so. It is also important to understand that there's a ton of information we simply don't know or understand yet.
Now that doesn't mean I'm in denial. I'm all in favor of converting over to the safest and cleanest source of electricity: Nuclear power. I'm all for getting us off of oil, coal and fossil fuels. Life just gets better for people when fewer people die from power sources and less smog chokes our air. And whatever our impact on the climate, it's certainly the safest way to go.
But I'm not at all convinced that global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it is as big or as real as it is claimed to be.
I hate to break it to you, but temps were much higher during the time of the Roman Empire, yet CO2 levels were much lower.
I hate to break it to you yet again, but you are wrong.... yet again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
It is truely amazing when the AGW cult members are presented with information that should cause anyone with half a brain to question the whole hypothesis. Yet, the cult members are conditioned to know one thing- CO2 is the enemy and a killer- and cannot understand anything else.
What's 'truly amazing', is that you gullibly and non-sceptically accept any 'information' that you find on some layperson's junk-science blog that supports your ideology rather than check the facts from valid sources of information - like published research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
The AGW cult is the opposite of science, yet they cover themselves in the false veil of "science" to "explain" thier religion.
It seems it is you who tries to cover yourself in a false veil of 'science'. Your extreme confirmation bias and lack of scepticism of junk-science 'information' is the opposite of science.
You are involved in a car accident. Who's fault it is doesn't matter. What matters is cleaning up the mess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
That is still the matter of considerable debate amongst the experts.
Again it doesn't matter. The problem is this, unless we do something, and that something is damming the fjords, sea level will go up several feet in 50 years. Not only that but global temps will start to plummet with the fresh water added to the North Atlantic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
It goes without saying that our planet's climate has changed radically over time. It is realistic to presume that it will continue to do so. It is also important to understand that there's a ton of information we simply don't know or understand yet.
Yes. it is but... Sea level going up. Damming the fjords will slow it. The fresh water feed back loop will stop it. If we keep the warm sea water from attacking the base of the glaciers that is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Now that doesn't mean I'm in denial. I'm all in favor of converting over to the safest and cleanest source of electricity: Nuclear power. I'm all for getting us off of oil, coal and fossil fuels. Life just gets better for people when fewer people die from power sources and less smog chokes our air. And whatever our impact on the climate, it's certainly the safest way to go.
But I'm not at all convinced that global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it is as big or as real as it is claimed to be.
I hate N power. I've had too many family members die from radiation exposure to like it.
Why do people try so hard to discredit the greenhouse effect of burning fossil fuels? It shows a peculiar pathology, a combination of ignorance and selfishness that is unique in this country whenever this subject is discussed.
I doubt they even know they are rejecting the laws of physics.
Cliff Harris is not a 'climatologist'. He has no qualifications or background or published research in any field of science, despite claiming that he is "one of the top climatologists of the past 4 decades".
He believes he can 'predict' the climate using the Bible.
That is quite incorrect (yet again). Ice core and tree ring data shows that the GLOBAL TEMPS during the era of the Roman Empire were WARMER.
This is a problem with the AGW cult- when confronted with information they cannot explain (without abandoning the cult), they just make things up. This, of course, is consistent with liberal revisionist history. In fact, one can see (as is shown over the history of earth) very little correlation between temps and atmospheric CO2.
CO2 increases AFTER TEMPS INCREASE and this lag is usually a couple hundred years. Why? Take a bottle of Coke and heat it up. The dissolved CO2 (ocean CO2) will be released (atmospheric CO2) as the bottle is warmed. In fact, the vast majority of CO2 is held in the oceans, not the atmosphere.
To say that CO2 increases temps is like saying that lung cancer causes smoking. While smoking and lung cancer are linked, smoking causes lung cancer, not the other way around. This is the error of the AGW cult (one of many) and a simple refusal to acknowledge multiple inconsistencies with the premise.
Blog post by a layperson posting a fake graph by Cliff Harris. Cliff has no qualifications or expertise or publications in any field of science. He is a layperson nutter who claims to be a 'top climatologist' and believes he can 'predict' the climate using the Bible.
Principia Scientific International are a handful of cultish "Sky Dragon Slayers" who even reject the physics of the earth's natural 'greenhouse' effect.
While this is fun and all, you're citing research from one side of the argument. Research from the experts who are skeptics strongly suggests that the AGW crowd are exaggerating and cherry picking stats to make global warming seem way bigger than it really is.
What I'd rather see is completely unbiased research.
What 'research' from 'experts who are skeptics' are you referring to?
Please post the published Journal articles.
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.
