Great trolling man, between this and the unemployment benefits thread you are on a roll. Not terribly original, but hey I still give you 7.5/10.
Great trolling man, between this and the unemployment benefits thread you are on a roll. Not terribly original, but hey I still give you 7.5/10.
nicely wrote:
I'll go with the humongous majority on this one.
that's fine. I don't have an opinion on that one way or another.
but it is wrong that "climate change" has become an all-encompassing reason for politicians and activists to claim anything they want and discredit the serious scientists who do raise legitimate concerns about the majority view.
if you can't show that the enormously expensive measures that are sought after by activists will make a bigger difference than spending that money in other ways to help people who need it, then cut the crap.
Blowing.Rock Master wrote:
Some climatologists who dispute the theory of anthropogenic warming:
Dr. Roy Spencer - University of Alabama - Huntsville, formerly of NASA.
Dr. Fred Singer - University of Virginia.
Dr. William Gray - Colorado State University, former head of CSU's Atlantic Hurricane Forecasting Group.
Dr. Tim Patterson - Carleton University, main research area is paleoclimatology.
Dr. George Kukla - retired professor of climatology at Columbia University.
If I wanted to stay up all night I could make the list much longer. Also, Dr. John Christy, one of the lead authors of the 2001 IPCC report, disputes the predictive ability of the models used when creating the report. He also disputes the dire predictions of climate catastrophe.
Turns out there are a lot of climatologists who dispute the theory that people cause global warming.
Why is it that most scientists that dispute global warming is from the US? Easy: you´re terrified that you might have to change the American way of life.
You'll recall that responsible governments acted swiftly to reverse ozone level loss by banning aerosols. No such action has been taken on global warming. Have you not been reading the stories in the papers about increased melting in Greenland and Antarctica producing even greater flooding in this century than expected? Did you not read the story about the deltas at risk around the world, in part from higher sea levels? I formed my opinion by reading the stories over the years, all of which support the global warming theory. Why stick your heads in the sand? The quicker we work on this, the less damage.
Ticktock wrote:
Do you deny that significantly more climatologists hold the opposite view? How do you respond to this fact?
I don't dispute that, but science isn't based on polls.
so much for that nonsense that global temperatures are falling:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://www.oceanleadership.org/2009/in-hot-water-world-sets-ocean-temperature-record/
NASA says no different.
if you look at the actual data, he's right look at the "negative effects" of aerosols (with the error bar from kingdom come like all the rest of the data should have but since it agrees with what's getting them paid, they invoked the Millikan effect), aerosols if you didnt know are those "chloro fluoro carbons" which supposedly are the worst contributors to global warming (thats from Susan Solomon, Al Gore's biggest butt buddy in that "Nobel Prize"... you should look into the things she's said/ who she is......)
It turns out that cloud formation prevents radiation from entering better that "black body radiates"... (and no that isnt a racial slur, its an idea Gorey boy throws around without knowing what it means...)
Most of the southern U.S. experienced a severe drought for the last few years. All the chicken little's told us it was due to global warming. They claimed Atlanta would run out of water by next spring due to the low levels of Lake Lanier. Oh, what were we going to do?! Oh, the sins against nature we'd pay for!
The draught is over. Yes, there's a lot of flooding but Lanier's levels are up and we're all going to be fine.
I'm gonna go back to burning all my old tires now!
Savannah's got none of that, so maybe here we are affected? Local fluctuations mean nothing in most cases.
excellent good wrote:
.. About the crisis, yes, the media and politicians are the cause of that talk. I said no scientists use the word...
You also said the OP was the one calling it a crisis. I was simply pointing out that he was not the source of the crisis talk, in fact he was saying it's not a crisis. Besides, if as you no say no scientists think it's a crisis why is there such a rush to do something about it?
I agree we are not plants, but since there is no danger of CO2 reaching toxic levels in the atmosphere, it's not a pollutant. In fact, because plants can't survive without it, atmospheric CO2 is essential to your survival. Too much water can also kill you, does that make it a pollutant?
Regarding government regulation and the abuse of power; you need to start paying attention. The financial meltdown last year is directly attributable to government regulation abuse. The Great Depression was caused by government regulation abuse. US Japanese-American concentration camps during WW2 was the result of government regulation abuse. Seizure of private land to build shopping centers and hotels is the result of government regulation abuse. The high cost of health insurance is the result of government regulation abuse. The list goes on and on, what makes you think this would be different?
government regulation abuse caused the financial meltdown? You mean, LACK of government regulation was a significant enabling factor. The precipitating event was the government's doing nothing to prevent the Lehman Brothers collapse (since Paulson was a Sachs guy).
Mean global tempertures are strongly inversely correlated with the number of pirates in the world.
http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php
Increase the number of Pirates and we will see a cooling trend.
ilgore wrote:
Al Gore warned us about the hole in the ozone layer in Earth in the Balance. That was a huge crisis. Turned out to be nothing.
When temperatures drop, people will forget about the crisis, and a new one will take its place. And so it goes. . .
Out.
This is absolutely correct. The fascist movement didn't stop after WW2, it merely morphed into the general banner of progressivism. In order for the state to assume control of a free society, it needs to be given that ability by the masses. This can only be accomplished if people are SCARED. Progressives have invented one "TEOTWAWKI" scare after another in order to garner support.
Fortunately in the USA, we have resisted the subversives but it appears the tides are turning with the current administration.
There are plenty of regulations in place that would have prevented this mess, but they were enforced on a preferential basis. There was also massive fraud going on in the mortgage market, but the government did nothing about it because it went against their agenda. As you just pointed out, the government acted preferentially in the Lehman case. Isn't that an abuse of power?
I dont understand what is going on here. I work and study in the field of climatology at a very respectable institution. Among my peers who I dont agree with on many topics including global WARMING, there is no question that we all agree the Earths atmosphere and surface has been warming as a trend over the last 50 years.
Look closely at the positions of the opponents to global warming. Often you will see that while they refute global warming as a predictable and somewhat linear event, they STILL acknowledge that global warming has and IS occuring.
Truly it is hard to find a respectable source saying global WARMING is NOT occuring. Its just that what they are saying about global warming is interpreted by people incorrectly.
I ran 13:54 also
I've never said at any time that the planet isn't getting warmer. I've said there's no evidence (that I've ever seen) that the warming is driven by humans. If you're in the field point me to some empirical evidence. Also, can you explain the climate variations that occurred prior to worldwide industrialization, or that that occurred prior to the existence of humans?
grif wrote:
Al Gore is taken very seriously in climate circles
Wrong. You of course have obtained all your information from one sided anti-science sources on the internet. No need to deny, it's obvious.
In the same way that a Discovery special on sharks isn't taken seriously in scientific circles, a popular movie starring Al Gore isn't taken seriously in climatology. Do you think that climatologists just sit around and watch An Inconvenient Truth?
Blowing.Rock Master wrote:
Some climatologists who dispute the theory of anthropogenic warming:
Dr. Roy Spencer - University of Alabama - Huntsville, formerly of NASA.
Dr. Fred Singer - University of Virginia.
Dr. William Gray - Colorado State University, former head of CSU's Atlantic Hurricane Forecasting Group.
Dr. Tim Patterson - Carleton University, main research area is paleoclimatology.
Dr. George Kukla - retired professor of climatology at Columbia University.
If I wanted to stay up all night I could make the list much longer. Also, Dr. John Christy, one of the lead authors of the 2001 IPCC report, disputes the predictive ability of the models used when creating the report. He also disputes the dire predictions of climate catastrophe.
Turns out there are a lot of climatologists who dispute the theory that people cause global warming.
Thank you. Now could you please point me to their papers and data on the subject? I'd be interested to see what they're basing their opinions on.
I'd also be interested in your opinion on humans' impact on the environment in general, because there are reasons other the climate change to reduce pollution and preserve natural resources.
Dr. Spencer: ttp://www.drroyspencer.com/
Dr. Fred Singer: ttp://www.sepp.org/about%20sepp/bios/singer/biosfs.html
Dr. William Gray: ttp://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/
Dr. Tim Patterson: ttp://http-server.carleton.ca/~tpatters/research/research.html
Dr. George Kukla: ttp://www.earth.columbia.edu/eidirectory/displayuser.php?userid=453
Dr. John Christy: ttp://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html
As I pointed out earlier, Christy does believe humans have contributed to climate change, but he doesn't agree with the predictions of dire consequences.
Do I think human's have an impact on the environment? Of course they do, that's unavoidable. In fact every living thing has an impact on the environment. I have no problem with cleaning pollution from the air, water, or land when you can identify an actual pollutant and come up with a solution that actually fixes the problem. This has been done in the past with soot, sewage, and as someone pointed out earlier, cfc's. But in all these cases an actual problem and cause was identified, and solutions that actually fixed the problem were implemented.
None of this has been done with global warming.
1 - How do you know that a warmer planet is a problem? It's been warmer before during man's time on earth.
2 - How do you know the warming will be indefinite?
3 - How do you know the current warming is caused by humans? Where's the evidence to back these claims?
4 - What evidence is there that cutting back on CO2 will stop the climate from warming?
5 - How will trading carbon credits or taxing carbon reduce CO2 in the air?
6 - Making CO2 more expensive will make everything more expensive. How many lives will be lost because food, medicine, and water now cost more?
7 - What life saving solutions that could solve readily identifiable life threatening problems will be crowded out by the spending to solve the climate change "problem"?
These are questions that should be answered before we dive headlong into fixing a problem that may not be fixable and and not even be a problem.
Ha. I was about to say something very similar. Thanks.
To the other person:
What I was saying about the "crisis" word was that it is used primarily by people who DON'T believe in anthropogenic change. It is not a crisis yet, and we have a chance to avoid it ever becoming one. I don't listen to politicians when it comes to science and the environment because they have no idea what they're saying and they have an agenda -- bad combination. I do listen to scientists, and I've already said why their observations lead me to believe climate change is anthropogenic. There is, literally, nothing else to look to.
Also, you have a very distorted understanding of what is and is not pollution. CO2 is necessary for the atmosphere, of course, but when its levels are out of whack, we have a problem. You say water is not a pollutant: If there was too much water in the world, it would be considered pollution because of its ability to destabilize the environment. Since we are raising levels of CO2 not to deadly levels but to levels at which the ecosystem is destabilized, then it is considered pollution.