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.
Fixing this catastrophe doesn't have to be some draconian government takeover. It could be the greatest period of innovation in human history if you people would simply stop fighting science.
I think this thread topic has been thoroughly discredited. Probably best to move on at this point.
Bluefly, I fail to understand why this isnt the greatest period of innovation in human history right now?
"fighting science" is a misdirection. It seems there is a growing number of scientists who are now opposed to AGW...NOT GW...
So if Scientists are opposed, then why is it "fighting science?
What is really odd, is no one on this side is saying we should abandon things like Solar/Wind/Algae energy. In fact most of us feel these new energy sources are going to be the backbone of the "new" economy in years to come.
We just dont see a reason for draconian measures to "cure" something that is natural.
Bluefly, I fail to understand why this isnt the greatest period of innovation in human history right now?
"fighting science" is a misdirection. It seems there is a growing number of scientists who are now opposed to AGW...NOT GW...
So if Scientists are opposed, then why is it "fighting science?
What is really odd, is no one on this side is saying we should abandon things like Solar/Wind/Algae energy. In fact most of us feel these new energy sources are going to be the backbone of the "new" economy in years to come.
We just dont see a reason for draconian measures to "cure" something that is natural.
There is debate over how much influence humans are having, but not over whether humans are having an influence on climate. But, ultimately, you're mixing politics with science.
People, such as the OP, are looking for any reason whatsoever to deny human-influenced climate change because they fear the political repercussions.
What measures may or may not be taken are for another discussion. This thread is focused on the science and the claim that it has been refuted by an article that explicitly states global warming has not been refuted.
We are welcome to deny the overwhelming evidence correlating the industrial revolution with a significant increase in greenhouse gases with warming global temperatures, but our motivations should be science.
As it is, I have yet to see anyone without a political ax to grind attempt to refute the evidence.
Climatic change is a fact of life on this planet. Look it up: the "Little Climatic Maximum," which occurred in Medieval times, was responsible for relative warmth and the possibility of agriculture in Greenland--the Vikings called it that because there was appreciable greenery there at the time! When it ended in the 15th century, the weather got nasty and the Viking colony in Greenland packed up and went home.
So I don't find it hard to believe that we could be living through another age of climate change. The thing is, solid evidence is pretty scanty where I live. New York City happens to be located at sea level. Melting icebergs would have quite an effect around here (for which I deserve an Understatement of the Year medal), but I can tell you this: I was walking along the Boardwalk in Coney Island two days ago, and if the sea level has risen at all, it definitely was not apparent.
Actually, if you study the science, the natural cycles of climate change over the course of global history are nothing like what we are experiencing today.
Please, this is a ludicrous statement on it's face. The Arctic was a virtual paradise at one time, the glaciers covered half of the US at one time, Greenland was actually green at one time. How utterly preposterous.
Quote:
Look at the graphs for yourself - the undulations that create ice ages and warming spells have suddenly begun exponentially escalating to levels many, many times higher than anything nature creates.
If you're talking about Mann's debunked hockey stick that does not surprise me.
You say they have exponentially escalated - what is the result, right now, to the planet?
You claim we are now experiencing escalating extremes in the climate, many, many times higher than anything nature has created.
Do you realize what an absolutely ridiculous statement this is? What modern day catastrophe rivals the Ice Age?
The article is yet another glaring example of the erroneous predictions put forth by the GW alarmists.
Again, nothing fundamental about the process of global warming was erroneous. It was simply adjusted.
In your first post on this thread you stated:
Quote:
2008/2009 - the year the GL hoax was exposed.
I systematically proved, from the very articles you cited, that your claim was wrong.
I cited quotes from the scientists in the very articles you posted proving you wrong - that pushing estimates back 1-10 years and claiming that they could easily return to the original predictions with one warm summer is not "the year the GL hoax was exposed". Despite what you might have heard in arguments against Obama, it is not a sign of weakness to admit mistakes.
You seriously are out of arguments on this topic and clearly have no foundation in the science of this issue. You have been disproven and should be mature enough to admit it at this point.
Scientist have been wrong. It's much worse than they predicted only two years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Washington Post
Climate researchers now predict the planet will warm by 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century even if the world's leaders fulfill their most ambitious climate pledges, a much faster and broader scale of change than forecast just two years ago, according to a report released Thursday by the United Nations Environment Program.
The new overview of global warming research, aimed at marshaling political support for a new international climate pact by the end of the year, highlights the extent to which recent scientific assessments have outstripped the predictions issued by the Nobel Prize-winning U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007.
Robert Corell, who chairs the Climate Action Initiative and reviewed the UNEP report's scientific findings, said the significant global temperature rise is likely to occur even if industrialized and developed countries enact every climate policy they have proposed at this point. The increase is nearly double what scientists and world policymakers have identified as the upper limit of warming the world can afford in order to avert catastrophic climate change.
Some people think that acquiring that information is unreasonable. But I haven't heard yet why it is unreasonable.
If they will be relying on the same defective models that are proving to be inaccurate and misleading, what's the point?
The notion that we can predict what the environment/climate will look like in 40 years is a fantasy - yet they base their agenda - wealth distribution, taxes, curtailing consumption and ending dependence on fossil fuels, on these defective and highly biased computer models.
If they will be relying on the same defective models that are proving to be inaccurate and misleading, what's the point?
The notion that we can predict what the environment/climate will look like in 40 years is a fantasy - yet they base their agenda - wealth distribution, taxes, curtailing consumption and ending dependence on fossil fuels, on these defective and highly biased computer models.
So you think the government should spend money on helping scientists develop climate models that are more accurate, that can handle more variables and have a higher degree of success in terms of predictions?
Of course it is a completely different thing...for the alarmists.
No, they are entirely different things for everyone, as an even passing familiarity with the science would have confirmed. Yet you have perhaps half a dozen posts in this thread alone contending that climate change as observed today is some inseparable and indistinguishable part of natural cycles that occur over millions and billions of years. Each of these betrays your failure to grasp what is an elementary distinction.
Last edited by saganista; 09-25-2009 at 10:55 AM..
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.
