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 you go again, using the first play from the Left wing/tree hugging manual: "If they don't agree with them, insult them by comparing what they are saying to that of a child. It doesn't matter how silly this makes you look, just do it!"
My argument is that what the Earth is experiencing is normal. Mankind has nothing to do with the current climate changes, the Earth is doing it all on its own with the help of that friendly ball of gas we call the sun.
And you keep going back to the scientist who support your side of the argument, but you never bother to understand that the people who are paying their salaries believe in GW. If I was a scientist who needed money, hell yes I would say there was global warming, anything to get that grant and make sure my kids got new shoes for school!
In case you are wondering, that is call a conflict of interest.
Your "argument" is not based on any scientific data whatsoever. You're making claims based solely on unsupported denial.
The idea that the world's climate scientists are perpetrating a hoax simply for "grant" money is ludicrous. The U.S. is not the world. Not every country runs its science programs on "grants."
I gave you links with the data. You've chosen to ignore them--which is what most people on the far right choose to do with actual facts.
Your "argument" is not based on any scientific data whatsoever. You're making claims based solely on unsupported denial.
The idea that the world's climate scientists are perpetrating a hoax simply for "grant" money is ludicrous. The U.S. is not the world. Not every country runs its science programs on "grants."
I gave you links with the data. You've chosen to ignore them--which is what most people on the far right choose to do with actual facts.
And all of you ignored my link showing that at one time the Earth's oceans were much warmer than they are today. In fact at one time the Arctic Ocean was as warm as 73 degree F. Back when we still had dinosaurs, the average temperature of the world ranged from 60 degrees to 70 degrees F. Currently our average is 50 degrees F.
The world is indeed warming up, but not because of mankind and its actions, but because it is getting back to where it normally runs. Earth got cold because of the impact down in Mexico, you know the one that killed off all the dinosaurs?
My argument is stop hampering technology today that might help mankind in the future, we can survive what the Earth has in store for us, if and only if, we have the means. This mankind is killing the world garbage that is currently being used as a means of political power here in the United States is not helping anything except a few people who will gain financially and politically from it.
Many scientists agree, however, that hotter times are ahead. A decade of level or slightly lower temperatures is only a temporary dip to be expected as a result of natural, short-term variations in the enormously complex climate system, they say.
This paragraph taken from the same article that the OP provided. Just run with the ball and cherry pick whatever suits you to advance a point, right?
"It's easy to 'cherry pick' a period to reinforce a point of view."
Also taken from the article. Sounds a lot like your last sentence... (I sure am getting sick of people posting here who literally parrot whatever they're told!)
It also sums up nicely most of the pro-AGW crowd, most notably Al Gore. His famous graph is a pristine example.
Many scientists agree, however, that hotter times are ahead. A decade of level or slightly lower temperatures is only a temporary dip to be expected as a result of natural, short-term variations in the enormously complex climate system, they say.
This paragraph taken from the same article that the OP provided. Just run with the ball and cherry pick whatever suits you to advance a point, right?
They've turned a scientific argument into a political one.
They are clueless sheep. We must ignore them and continue to work towards lessening pollution. They instead think that somehow climate change started with Al Gore. Let's face it, people who voted for Sarah Palin are anti intellectual and actual statistical research is something they find much too intimidating and confusing.
Of course, none of these sheep paid any attention when one of the Gods they worship, the Pentagon, said last week climate change is a threat to national security.
PS. As for the warming in the Arctic, most don't know that while the ice is melting on one side of Antarctica, the ice sheet on the opposite side is growing and thickening. This points more to the possibility of a slight shift in our axis or crustal slippage.
An axis shift would easily be noticed by astronomers since well-documented positions of stars would change as a result. Are there reports of this?
How would a shift in the earths' axis affect result in such a change in thicknesses of Antarctic ice on the opposite shores of Antarctica - what argument are proponents of this theory using? I can see why it would affect difference in the thicknesses of ice between one pole and the other - but not one shore or the other of the same pole (the earth does rotate after all, so the angle of the sun on one shore will be the same angle of the sun on the other shore 12 hours later). That argument doesn't sound like it makes sense to me.
Including 2007, seven of the eight warmestyears on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmestyears have all occurred since 1997. The global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6°C and 0.7°C since the start of the twentieth century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend.
McClatchy is owned by someone, and that someone does not want the public to know the truth.
A very common scenario since Akre V Fox News removed all sanctions against domestic sources lying in their news reports, for financial reasons..
And all of you ignored my link showing that at one time the Earth's oceans were much warmer than they are today. In fact at one time the Arctic Ocean was as warm as 73 degree F. Back when we still had dinosaurs, the average temperature of the world ranged from 60 degrees to 70 degrees F. Currently our average is 50 degrees F.
The world is indeed warming up, but not because of mankind and its actions, but because it is getting back to where it normally runs. Earth got cold because of the impact down in Mexico, you know the one that killed off all the dinosaurs?
My argument is stop hampering technology today that might help mankind in the future, we can survive what the Earth has in store for us, if and only if, we have the means. This mankind is killing the world garbage that is currently being used as a means of political power here in the United States is not helping anything except a few people who will gain financially and politically from it.
First, are you a climate scientist? If not, what makes you think that your wholly unscientific "observations" should trump the findings of climate science? You're simply in denial. You don't WANT to believe it, so you WON'T. Again, petulant and childish.
Second: Once again, the United States IS NOT THE WORLD. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that this is a GLOBAL issue. Are you suggesting that American environmentalists have infiltrated and influenced all GLOBAL scientific findings?
Let's face it, people who voted for Sarah Palin are anti intellectual and actual statistical research is something they find much too intimidating and confusing.
See, here is another tactic taken from the Democrats handbook, when comparing Republicans to Democrats remember to always say the following:
They voted for Palin, and we voted for Obama.
Amazing how McCain somehow disappeared from the entire conversation.
First, are you a climate scientist? If not, what makes you think that your wholly unscientific "observations" should trump the findings of climate science? You're simply in denial. You don't WANT to believe it, so you WON'T. Again, petulant and childish.
No, and neither are you. At least I link legitimate sources, not news reports. And yes, I deny the fact that mankind is causing our global climate change, and have yet to see ANY proof that shows me that what is happening now is not just natural correction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovingForward
Second: Once again, the United States IS NOT THE WORLD. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that this is a GLOBAL issue. Are you suggesting that American environmentalists have infiltrated and influenced all GLOBAL scientific findings?
What happens in the United States effects the entire world, I know you don't like it, but that is the fact. What we do, the world either lives with or follows our actions. Yes, we are still a super power, and as such the world may not tremble when we speak, but they damn well listen!
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.
(I sure am getting sick of people posting here who literally parrot whatever they're told!)
