Scientists connect global warming to extreme rain events. The "debate" is over.

The East Anglia e-mails implied that certain journal "gatekeepers" were keeping the climate deniers out of the peer reviewed journals. I don't think certain segments of climate research are open and honest science.

Nobel MF Prize wrote:

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

I am a scientist. My field is not so mired in controversy, but scientists who rock the boat on politically and socially sensitive issues (race, climate, certain medical issues) are thoroughly abused and ostracized.

tom waits wrote:

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.

Right.....so they don't lose money.

It has nothing to do with whether it actually exists, but simply the fact that whether true or not, they don't want that coverage because they lose money.

runKSrun!! wrote:

[quote]tom waits wrote:

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.[quote]

Right.....so they don't lose money.

It has nothing to do with whether it actually exists, but simply the fact that whether true or not, they don't want that coverage because they lose money.

Plus the idiot has cited a 6 year old article that no where supports his claim that scientists are being paid $10,000 per article.

Go to you tube and type in "Global Warming Commercial." See who is actually funding the propaganda behind the new religion. I'll give you a little preview, you won't have to go back six years to learn what I already know.

I have chosen to connect global cooling with the increase of clouds in the sky.

see how easy that was?

big bird wrote:

I have chosen to connect global cooling with the increase of clouds in the sky.

see how easy that was?

Actually, that is provable and is referred to as global dimming. The vapor trails left behind from planes are blocking the sun's intensity and causing the daily highs and lows to merge towards the average.

"How could you prove this?", you ask. After September 11th when all commercial flights were banned, the changes in lows and highs were dramatic. If I remember correctly, they drifted further from each other by about 2 degrees.

The biggest problem with global dimming is that it reduces the amount of water that gets evaporated into the atmosphere, which then results in less rain.

I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, cheap. Just let me know if you want it.

Global warming is not connected to:

temperatures which are hotter than average

temperatures which are lower than average

snowfall which is above average

snowfall which is below average

rain that is above average

rain that is below average

an increase in hurrican activity

a decrease in hurricane activity

etc., etc., etc.

you gotta give it to them. They picked the PERFECT scam, it can work no matter what the situation (like religion). It floods, must be global warming, there's a drought some where, gotta be global warming, crazy hot summers- global warming fer sher, too much snow and cold spells- yep climate change alllll the way.

It's the ONE thing very few people are happy with and the central cause of mankinds development of a civilized society. Al picked a good one, it's the second biggest scam next to organized religion.

You mean these 32,000 scientists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ

The gist of it is that anybody who CLAIMS to have a bachelor of science can sign that petition. By the organizers of that petition's own admission: "little effort was made to verify credentials." I guess these peoples' opinions are more relevant than the opinions of those who actually have PhDs and study climate science.

Do any of you remember what happened to after all planes were grounded during/as result of 9/11????????.

Forgot link

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-08-07/tech/contrails.climate_1_contrails-cirrus-clouds-david-travis?_s=PM:TECH

And humans dont effect global temperatures...LOL

the reason there are so many threads is it's an easy thing to troll.

anyone who has researched it for more than 30 minutes can't believe it's a hoax (outside of true morons)

So suppose the global war,ing conspiracy was réal. Why should i care? It is about 25 degrees hotter right now where I live than usual. If this is global warming, I could get used to it.

No, the true morons are the ones who gobble up the anthropogenic conspiracy nonsense. CO2 is currently at about 380ppm (only 4% anthropogenic) of the atmosphere. During the Early Carboniferus period it was at about 1500ppm of the atmosphere. Current levels are thus way below what is naturally possible. CO2 increase does not cause temperature increase, it is the other way around. Water vapor (clouds) is the biggest greenhouse gas. If we want the earth to stop warming up (which we don't) we better start geoengineering the clouds out of the atmosphere. Does anyone else here have a degree in atmospheric sciences? Or even climatology? If so, you would know that the sun, not the 4% of 380ppm of the atmosphere, is the driver of our climate.

The IPCC was formed to help Margaret thatcher's campaign for nuclear power (to make fossil fuels look bad, solar, wind inefficient). Many of those in the IPCC and most other conspiricists are not qualified to make climatic scientific claims (al gore). Scientists on the IPCC who disagree with the reports before they are finished are forced to resign, and their names are still included on the report.

THESE ARE ALL FACTS.

Yallaredumb wrote:

Does anyone else here have a degree in atmospheric sciences? Or even climatology? If so, you would know that the sun, not the 4% of 380ppm of the atmosphere, is the driver of our climate.

No sh|t, Sherlock. Next, you can coin the term "greenhouse gas".

yep. couldn't agree more.

Steve Shan wrote:

Forgot link

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-08-07/tech/contrails.climate_1_contrails-cirrus-clouds-david-travis?_s=PM:TECH

And humans dont effect global temperatures...LOL

you're citing cnn as a source...LOL

Nope. There are a couple facts in there but they're used in a decietful manner. Plus there are a few lies.

Early Carboniferus: the average global temperature was around 70 degrees, today it's around 54. You think things will be fine if the average global temperature increases 16 degrees?

CO2: It does cause temperature increase, it's a feedback loop. Don't give me that lag argument, it's been proven that Co2 causes temperature increase. It's honestly not even a debate.

Water Vapor and the Sun: Red herring. I assume you would agree that the only thing that matter in running is not getting sick the day before a race? Training and talent are irrelevant. Most things have multiple factors, but they can be controlled for.

IPCC: Dumb. Legitimately stupid argument.