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 so-called scientist that Al Gore based his position on has already had to retract at least three of the statements that went in to that movie. Doesn't matter though because Al had already got his cut while continuing to fly around in private jets.
I don't disagree that the world is changing. I disagree that we humans are the biggest contributor and that tax increasing policies will solve the problem while the politicians such as Gore continue to make outrageous profits on so-called "green" technology.
Goes to show how well you read. I said Gore was echoing the words of scientists, he is not a scientist himself.
And I never said "I think 'An Inconvenient Truth' is an amazing film and it's the bible on climate change"...I've never even seen it...or Sicko, or Fahrenheit 9/11 or any of those other movies. I have instead relied on science classes when I was in school/university, reading Scientific American and other science magazines and following the science news religiously. I also am the son of someone who has worked as an energy/environmental consultant for the past 30 years.
I am just saying that anyone who denies that there's any global warming is an idiot. And anyone who believes that there is global warming, but we somehow have nothing to do with it (ignore the fact that we divert rivers, create massive lakes and change ecosystems through agriculture, and that we burn tons and tons of materials into our air every single second) is not only stupid, but probably delusional too.
How can you possibly see the pollution of LA and say "we don't contribute to climate change"? You don't think that Smog causes the temperature to rise? You don't think the fact that massive ice shelves are melting off is a sign of something? What about the vanishing ice caps on many mountains worldwide? Wow.
97% of climatologists believe in man-made global warming (CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.
A survey of more than 3,000 scientists found that the vast majority believe humans cause global warming.
Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous.
However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.
Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Um, global warming does not simply mean 'its warmer everywhere', just like the right to bear arms does not mean everyone is free to grizzly front legs. Its a title to something more complex. To try to make a simplified title into a complete definition is pretty silly.
My thoughts, does it exist (as in created by humans)? I dont know. But I do know I trust unbiased (as in not working as PR for a political party) actual scientists who know what they are talking about more than some radio pundit who wants to get more listeners.
When someone tells me GW (or its modern name, climate change) is a myth, I ask them first 'where did you get your Ph D in climatology?' If their answer is "I dont have one", I give them the same level of acceptability that I would my mechanic giving me medical advise. "Thanks, Ill look to the experts".
I also trust that most of the world seems to thing its a human issue. Could they be wrong, sure? Is there any benefit to what they claim? Not that I see.
On the other hand, is there a benefit (monetarily) to those claiming its not human cased? Most definitely (since environmental regulations and restrictions force companies to spend more).
Goes to show how well you read. I said Gore was echoing the words of scientists, he is not a scientist himself.
And I never said "I think 'An Inconvenient Truth' is an amazing film and it's the bible on climate change"...I've never even seen it...or Sicko, or Fahrenheit 9/11 or any of those other movies. I have instead relied on science classes when I was in school/university, reading Scientific American and other science magazines and following the science news religiously. I also am the son of someone who has worked as an energy/environmental consultant for the past 30 years.
I am just saying that anyone who denies that there's any global warming is an idiot. And anyone who believes that there is global warming, but we somehow have nothing to do with it (ignore the fact that we divert rivers, create massive lakes and change ecosystems through agriculture, and that we burn tons and tons of materials into our air every single second) is not only stupid, but probably delusional too.
How can you possibly see the pollution of LA and say "we don't contribute to climate change"? You don't think that Smog causes the temperature to rise? You don't think the fact that massive ice shelves are melting off is a sign of something? What about the vanishing ice caps on many mountains worldwide? Wow.
The Heritage Foundation is usually loony and they don't have any respect for validated scientific evidence.
Most conservatives don't concern themselves with scientific evidence, they reduce a scientific problem into a political one, thereby reverting to the more familiar territory of propaganda.
AUCKLAND, New Zealand (March 28, 2002 - Agence France-Presse)---International environmentalists might have it wrong -- global warming is not drowning the Pacific atoll nation of Tuvalu beneath a rising Pacific .
Its fate may be much more prosaic and all local: severe over-population, profound pollution and an unusual World War II legacy .
Experts even believe that if the threatening El Niño event occurs in the next six months, the sea level around Tuvalu will actually fall a by a dramatic 30 centimeters (11 inches). It did during the last big El Niño .
huh. this must be one of those 'idiots' pug life was talking about
here's another 'idiot,' this time from sweden:
Quote:
The Maldives have a uniquely position in sea level research (as discussed in Integrated Coastal Zone Management, No. 1, 2000, p. 17-20). In the last decade, they have attracted special attention because, in the IPCC-scenario, the Maldives would be condemned to become flooded in the next 50-100 years. Our research data do not lend support to any such flooding scenario, however. On the contrary, we find no signs of any on-going sea level rise. Our results comes from visits to numerous islands including extensive work on Hulhudoo and Guidhoo in the north, in Viligili and Loshfuchi (the site of “the reef woman”) in the middle, and in Addu in the south. This includes coring, levelling, sampling and dating (35 C14-dates). Present sea level was reached at about 4500 BP. In the last 4000 years, sea level oscillated around the present in the last 4000 years. At 3900 BP, there was a short and sharp sea level high-stand at about +1.2 m. For the last millennium, a detailed sea level record is established: +0 m 1000-800 BP, +60 cm 800-300 BP, 0 to just below 0 in the 18th century AD, +30 cm 1790-1970 AD, fall to 0 in ~1970 up to today. At about 1970, sea level fell by 20-30 cm (presumably due to increased evaporation). This is recorded in storm level, high-tide level, mean sea level and in lake and lagoon levels (from the north to the south). In the last decade, there are no signs of any rise in sea level. Hence, we are able to free the islands from the condemnation to become flooded in the 21st century.
Most conservatives don't concern themselves with scientific evidence, they reduce a scientific problem into a political one, thereby reverting to the more familiar territory of propaganda.
And in the meantime, climate change marches on...
In the case of global warming though, there is not a strong consensus among the scientific community as to how much man made emissions are responsible for the net impact, but it may be much lower than anticipated. There are natural solar cycles and we just happened to be in a long period of extensive solar activity... it is dying down now and has been since 2005 and we may start to see a cooling trend. My guess is that you are going to see an increase in scientific evidence for this including a possible mini ice age closer to the end of this century.
In the case of global warming though, there is not a strong consensus among the scientific community as to how much man made emission are responsible for the net impact. There are natural solar cycles and we just happened to be in a long period of extensive solar activity... it is dying down now and we may start to see a cooling trend. My guess is that you are going to see an increase in scientific evidence for this including a possible mini ice age closer to the end of this century.
Thats BS. They know that man made pollution acts as a reflective blanket in the atmosphere, and have known this for decades. The 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports say as much, all the other science whor*s are working for a paycheck from Exxon.
Just because no one can pinpoint the relationship between man made pollution and the amount of warming is not an argument it is taking place. We know its taking place, because science can measure carbon levels in the atmosphere and compare them to ice cores carbon levels.
We don't get a free pass for pollutiing the earth, and we can't bury our heads in the sand and pretend its all "cyclical" and will eventually stabilize itself.
It's appalling the stupidity of conservatives in denying the obvious, but after two terms of George W. Bush, should anyone even be surprised?
I'm not.
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.
