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.
I wasn't asking you to prove a negative. I only asked for you to find one internationally recognized professional scientific organization that rejects the science behind global warming.
The debate over global warming ended a decade ago. Money infused by the energy sector, intended not to illuminate but to obfuscate, has kept the topic alive much longer than its best before date because the media (and the general population) aren't as science-savvy as they should be.
And I've asked for peer reviewed LABATORY TESTING to show that man's carbon emmisions are causing this.
And I've asked for peer reviewed LABATORY TESTING to show that man's carbon emmisions are causing this.
Statistical "evidence" isn't proof.
I'll put up when you do.
And I stated before that it is impossible to replicate something as complicated as the climate of a planet within a laboratory. We do not have a duplicate earth to run experiments upon. There is sufficient evidence to convince the world's leading scientists to a 90% certainty that our carbon emissions are accelerating global warming.
You have to be kidding ;if that is your proof. This season has tied the record for least storms in all the years records have been keep. kind of proofs the opposite ;if anything.Only seven time has there been no stroms by the end of july.
And I stated before that it is impossible to replicate something as complicated as the climate of a planet within a laboratory. We do not have a duplicate earth to run experiments upon. There is sufficient evidence to convince the world's leading scientists to a 90% certainty that our carbon emissions are accelerating global warming.
No it is not too complicated or impossible to show that man-made carbon emissions are causing global warming/climate change, whatever.
This is a clear cop-out.
BTW, if a majority in Congress can be convinced that Saddam had huge stockpiles of WMD and was going to use them on the US shortly, scientists can be lies to, and believe it, as well.
Statistics that are not only self-contradictory, but are proven wrong as future estimates do not come to fruition.
While statisics are a science unto themselves, they do not participate in the scientific method.
For something as serious (and potentially costly) as human-created/accelorated global climate change, the sientific method MUS be utilized, and that involved repeatable tests being developed and run, and the results/testing peer reviewed.
I gave you peer-reviewed evidence earlier and you ignored that because it wasn't in a laboratory. Then I explained that you can't fit the entire earth into a laboratory and you asked for something peer reviewed. You are setting impossible conditions. There is sufficient evidence to convince the world's leading scientists to a 90% degree of certainty. There is peer-reviewed evidence. Every internationally recognized professional science organization in the world backs global warming.
Even if you wait a few decades until corn production in South Africa is down 49% and a host of other changes have already occurred then we still won't be 100% sure. Those conditions will never be met. That is a recipe for ignoring the problem and frankly that is a very selfish position to take. Sure, the bulk of the population from OECD countries will be able to adapt to changing conditions but the world's poor will take it fully on the chin (again). Plus, there will be animal and plant species lost that we will never get back. Some of them have yet to be identified and could still offer medicinal hope to suffering people. It's the whole bomb shelter mentality. Who cares about the rest of the neighborhood because I have my own bomb shelter. They can all go to pot.
I gave you peer-reviewed evidence earlier and you ignored that because it wasn't in a laboratory. Then I explained that you can't fit the entire earth into a laboratory and you asked for something peer reviewed. You are setting impossible conditions. There is sufficient evidence to convince the world's leading scientists to a 90% degree of certainty. There is peer-reviewed evidence. Every internationally recognized professional science organization in the world backs global warming.
Even if you wait a few decades until corn production in South Africa is down 49% and a host of other changes have already occurred then we still won't be 100% sure. Those conditions will never be met. That is a recipe for ignoring the problem and frankly that is a very selfish position to take. Sure, the bulk of the population from OECD countries will be able to adapt to changing conditions but the world's poor will take it fully on the chin (again). Plus, there will be animal and plant species lost that we will never get back. Some of them have yet to be identified and could still offer medicinal hope to suffering people. It's the whole bomb shelter mentality. Who cares about the rest of the neighborhood because I have my own bomb shelter. They can all go to pot.
I asked for peer reviewed laboratory testing, not statistics.
BTW, global warming would INCREASE food production, not decrease it, as the growing seasons would become longer.
Statistics that are not only self-contradictory, but are proven wrong as future estimates do not come to fruition.
While statisics are a science unto themselves, they do not participate in the scientific method.
For something as serious (and potentially costly) as human-created/accelorated global climate change, the sientific method MUS be utilized, and that involved repeatable tests being developed and run, and the results/testing peer reviewed.
I asked for peer reviewed laboratory testing, not statistics.
BTW, global warming would INCREASE food production, not decrease it, as the growing seasons would become longer.
1. I already explained why your question was impossible. You might as well ask for a square circle.
2. If you have read anything on climate change you would know that all of the yield projections are down. A few degrees will be enough to stop corn from developing properly and will lead to 49% lower yields in South Africa. You can't always move crops further north either. The Canadian mid-west may not have the same soil conditions as the U.S. mid-west.
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.
