Most deniers (or the somewhat intelligent ones at least) don't deny that the world is getting warmer, just that it is caused by human action. Unfortunately, it is harder to prove that humans are causing global warming than it is to prove that cigarette smoke causes cancer. We will never truly prove cigarettes cause cancer until we physically see a chemical from a cigarette mutate a lung cell. But we can still say with 99.99% accuracy that there is a causal relationship, just as we can say with 90% accuracy that there is a causal relationship between carbon emissions and global warming.
Oh the huffington post, the paragon of journalistic excellence.
True. The Earth has been warming since the peak of the ice age 20,000 years ago because of our fossil fuel consumption over the past 100 years. And all the oscillations in the Earth's temperature (including one period that saw the entire Earth encased in glaciers) that occurred prior to the most recent ice age were also due to our activity over the past 100 years.
I voted for Captain Zero, too.
Fishologist wrote:
True. The Earth has been warming since the peak of the ice age 20,000 years ago because of our fossil fuel consumption over the past 100 years. And all the oscillations in the Earth's temperature (including one period that saw the entire Earth encased in glaciers) that occurred prior to the most recent ice age were also due to our activity over the past 100 years.
I voted for Captain Zero, too.
Wow, such really good points. I am certain none of this was ever considered by the 10,000 scientists studying this topic.
jfdsioahner wrote:
Wow, such really good points. I am certain none of this was ever considered by the 10,000 scientists studying this topic.
Keep in mind that anyone who disagrees with global warming is consider to be an immoral person. The debate is the equivilant to the Earth revolving around the Sun when the church said otherwise.
It's not wanting to be percieved badly by their peers, that is swaying the global warming debate within the scientific community. Not the science itself.
Right, because there's absolutely nothing to be gained by presenting evidence that overturns existing dogma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_peptic_ulcer_disease_and_Helicobacter_pylori
Honestly who the F cares about global warming and why are there so many threads on the topic??!!!
There wasn't an immorral element to the ulcer debate that prevented the free-flow of ideas. It is a good point, though, I guess with regards to global warming, you could say we're living in the acid-only causes ulcers age.
I actually am skeptical that man is causing GW. I believe we are warming, however. I'm not a greenie by any stretch. I routinely through batteries in the garbage can.
After I'm done with my DDT I pour it down the storm sewer.
CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!!!!!
jfdsioahner wrote:
Wow, such really good points. I am certain none of this was ever considered by the 10,000 scientists studying this topic.
Or these 31,000 scientists.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Global warming alarm is modern day alchemy. Instead of turning iron into gold these modern fraudsters are turning opinion into cold cash. Lots of it.
Again, I ask, WHY are there so many threads on global warming on lets run? I mean, get over it, move on, no one really cares.
I'd be more impressed if that list set their standards for "scientist" higher than "bachelor's degree is something outside the humanities".
Global Warming Hoax wrote:
jfdsioahner wrote:Wow, such really good points. I am certain none of this was ever considered by the 10,000 scientists studying this topic.
Or these 31,000 scientists.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Global warming alarm is modern day alchemy. Instead of turning iron into gold these modern fraudsters are turning opinion into cold cash. Lots of it.
Just because someone is a "scientist" doesn't mean they are an authority on global warming. You wouldn't ask for a marine biologist's opinion on neuroscience, just like you wouldn't ask a physicist about climate change.
The only people who's opinions matter are climate scientists. Not other scientists, and not politicians.
Also, if you want to talk about global warming being a "moneymaker," then maybe you should consider the oil companies who pay scientists $10,000 an article to deny that global climate change. They are scared sh*tless of losing money over this. See here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/27/environment.science
and feel free to Google it for yourself.
Certainly there are people who have profited over advocating anthropogenic climate change, but the main motivation behind denying it certainly fiscal.
I'm no scientist. However if you think about all the exhausted chemicals, toxic waste, synthetically made/enhanced pesticides, chemicals, pollution, plastics, trash, etc I don't believe there could NOT be some element of human contribution. Too what degree is really the only question. For the record I believe we are a heavy contributor.
Snort!
geez123 wrote:
Oh the huffington post, the paragon of journalistic excellence.
There are a bunch of MDs in the list ... my proctologist is great at shoving a garden hose up my derriere, but has no business signing a global warming "consensus" petition or pawning himself off as a scientist. Pure rubbish!
Global Warming Hoax wrote:
jfdsioahner wrote:Wow, such really good points. I am certain none of this was ever considered by the 10,000 scientists studying this topic.
Or these 31,000 scientists.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Global warming alarm is modern day alchemy. Instead of turning iron into gold these modern fraudsters are turning opinion into cold cash. Lots of it.