Smarter Cracker wrote:
Ummm...ever heard of greenhouse gases?
Ever heard of, cow flatulence? Leading greenhouse gas FTW.
Smarter Cracker wrote:
Ummm...ever heard of greenhouse gases?
Ever heard of, cow flatulence? Leading greenhouse gas FTW.
Creepy Cracker wrote:
People, People...
I think the evidence over time has shown a clear enough trend of warming across the globe. Although it is small in terms of its rise year over year, it is verifiable nonetheless. However, What is NOT clear or even provable yet, is that the Global warming trend is "Man Caused". .... To attribute this warming to mankind's activity in order to force a political agenda with limitations on behavior and control measures for society at large is reprehensible! THIS is the real war of the climate debate, NOT whether the Climate is warming.
"Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming"
An international panel of scientists has found with near certainty that human activity is the cause of most of the temperature increases of recent decades,
The 2007 report found “unequivocal” evidence of warming, but hedged a little on responsibility, saying the chances were at least 90 percent that human activities were the cause. The language in the new draft is stronger, saying the odds are at least 95 percent that humans are the principal cause."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/science/earth/extremely-likely-that-human-activity-is-driving-climate-change-panel-finds.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0Um, come again? No "clear" evidence that the warming is mostly caused by man??
oh wait, some right wing blog told you differently. Got it.
Hasn't the world been in a general warming trend since the Last Glacial Maximum 20,000 years ago? Sea levels were 410 feet below current levels, the British Isles were connected to mainland Europe, there were ice sheets down to the Ohio River, and even mountain glaciers in Hawaii! To me this alone is incredible. Then the world started warming without manmade smokestack industries even existing until about 200 yrs. ago. How can we be sure the world won't continue to warm for 10,000-20,000 more years no matter what we do? Could we stop the ice sheets from advancing if they were on the move like 30,000 years ago?
5k in the morning at 8 wrote:
Hasn't the world been in a general warming trend since the Last Glacial Maximum 20,000 years ago? Sea levels were 410 feet below current levels, the British Isles were connected to mainland Europe, there were ice sheets down to the Ohio River, and even mountain glaciers in Hawaii! To me this alone is incredible. Then the world started warming without manmade smokestack industries even existing until about 200 yrs. ago. How can we be sure the world won't continue to warm for 10,000-20,000 more years no matter what we do? Could we stop the ice sheets from advancing if they were on the move like 30,000 years ago?
I'm sort of hoping that you are not serious.
No, the world has NOT been in a general warming trend since the Last Glacial Maximum 20,000 years ago.
Educate yourself. Or not. Up to you.
If you want to be slightly less ignorant, you could start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_recordFirst of all, idiot.What is a climate scientist doing publishing in a medical journal. And where is the citation so I can check EBSCO and read it for myself?02. The would suppose the cost of alarmism mentioned here has to do with social cost of waiting to act? Or perhaps something else? Can't tell BECAUSE THERE'S NO FREAKING CITATION TO THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE. You can cite with a DOI or use APA, Chicago, or AMA style if you want. I'll find it. Just give us the title of the peer-reviewed piece.03. If the paraphrasing here is correct, and that's doubtful since the Dailycaller is not noted for its journalism, then it what Lindzen is talking about here is a self-reinforcing culture of hysteria amongst activists who take it too far, to almost a religion; and alarmist politicians. Lindzen is calling for modulation. He is not debunking climate science.04. It might be useful for you to improve your critical reading skills with maybe a graduate level education. Just saying.
baby boomers = fail generation wrote:
Throughout history, governments have twisted science to suit a political agenda. Global warming is no different, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions,” writes Lindzen in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
According to Lindzen, scientists make essentially “meaningless” claims about certain phenomenon. Activists for certain causes take up claims made by scientists and politicians respond to the alarmism spread by activists by doling out more research funding. — creating an “Iron Triangle” of poor incentives.
“How can one escape from the Iron Triangle when it produces flawed science that is immensely influential and is forcing catastrophic public policy?” Lindzen asks.
Lindzen compares global warming to past politicized scientific movements: the eugenics movement in the early 20th Century and Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union under Stalin. However, the MIT professor argues that global warming goes even beyond what these past movements in terms of twisting science.
“Global Warming has become a religion,” writes Lindzen. “A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint.”
“There may be a growing realization that this may not add all that much meaning to one’s life, but, outside the pages of the Wall Street Journal, this has not been widely promulgated, and people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal,” he added.
President Obama announced his plan to tackle global warming this summer.
“I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing,” Obama said. “And that’s why, today, I’m announcing a new national climate action plan, and I’m here to enlist your generation’s help in keeping the United States of America a leader — a global leader — in the fight against climate change.”
A recently leaked report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims there is a 95 percent chance that human activity — mostly from burning fossil fuels — is the main cause of global warming.
However, there has been no rise in global temperatures for the past 15 years.
Read more:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/mit-professor-global-warming-is-a-religion/#ixzz2dUJzXyCM
The worst case scenario is we don't do anything and (if you are right) earth life perishes including humans. Why does it matter since we all die anyway? Chances are that our star, the sun, will not burn forever either. Don't mention the future because what does it matter to the unborn? Humans!
Smarter Cracker wrote:
If, on the other hand, the warming trends of the past century are primarily caused by human activity (which most serious climate scientists believe and whose specific cause we believe we know) then attempting to slow down or reverse these known causes is far more likely to end up doing good than harm.
So, yes, indeed it does matter.
You should have called yourself ignorant cracker. The warming trend has not been over a century. It has been over the last few decades. Your appeal to authority by saying "most serious climate scientists...blah blah blah"... Is fallacious. For example: "we believe we know". What you didn't say is "we KNOW". Why is that??? Because you don't KNOW. And..."is far more likely..." again, not very definitive! Not very confident! Not provable!!! If the warming is coming from the sun, which is far more likely and most serious climate scientists will admit is the true cause, (see what I did there??I employed your ignorant style) is a change in the sun cycle. It doesn't matter what you do to limit man's influence, it will not change the end result. So what it comes down to...again...as I said in the former post... Is a system of controls. Please learn something while you can!
Octa wrote:
The worst case scenario is we don't do anything and (if you are right) earth life perishes including humans. Why does it matter since we all die anyway? Chances are that our star, the sun, will not burn forever either. Don't mention the future because what does it matter to the unborn? Humans!
The explicit goal of the environmentalist movement is to destroy mankind by reversing the industrial revolution. It wants to wipe out humanity.
fan of the flagpole wrote:
No Way wrote:Well for one, there has definitely been warning over the last 15 years...
Actually it has been COOLING or staying the same for the last 10 years.
You do realize that it's 2013 and this kind of information is available to the public right? Saying it's cooling doesn't make it true.
Creepy Cracker wrote:
Smarter Cracker wrote:If, on the other hand, the warming trends of the past century are primarily caused by human activity (which most serious climate scientists believe and whose specific cause we believe we know) then attempting to slow down or reverse these known causes is far more likely to end up doing good than harm.
So, yes, indeed it does matter.
You should have called yourself ignorant cracker. The warming trend has not been over a century. It has been over the last few decades. Your appeal to authority by saying "most serious climate scientists...blah blah blah"... Is fallacious. For example: "we believe we know". What you didn't say is "we KNOW". Why is that??? Because you don't KNOW. And..."is far more likely..." again, not very definitive! Not very confident! Not provable!!! If the warming is coming from the sun, which is far more likely and most serious climate scientists will admit is the true cause, (see what I did there??I employed your ignorant style) is a change in the sun cycle. It doesn't matter what you do to limit man's influence, it will not change the end result. So what it comes down to...again...as I said in the former post... Is a system of controls. Please learn something while you can!
Wow, what a remarkable public display of ignorance. OK, I'm game.
"The warming trend has not been over a century. It has been over the last few decades."
Really now? Perhaps you would care to take a look at reality if it is not too painful for you. Here's just a glimpse so you don't hurt your eyes too much:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2012.svgHow does that look to you? Because to my eyes it looks like a pretty strong trend since at least 1910. How many years would that be? Hmmm...let's see 2013 - 1910...carry the one...oh yeah, = 103. Math is really tough.
"Your appeal to authority by saying "most serious climate scientists...blah blah blah"... Is fallacious. For example: "we believe we know". What you didn't say is "we KNOW". Why is that??? Because you don't KNOW. And..."is far more likely..." again, not very definitive! Not very confident! Not provable!!!"
You don't seem to have any real concept of science do you? Here's a quick tip for you - The best that science can ever provide is a theory, on this or any other topic. Said theories are never provable!!! All of them can be proven to be false, if indeed they are false. But not one of them can ever be proven to be true. (hey, quick time out to note that I just love your exclamation marks. Let's do a few more !!!!!!!!!!!!! Ahh, now we feel better, don't we?)
The best scientific theories simply represent the best explanation for observed phenomena developed to date. The theory of global climate change happens to be pretty well supported by mountains of evidence. But you are right, we "don't KNOW". (I also love those ALL CAPS SPASMS OF YOURS. LET'S DO A FEW MORE BECAUSE IT IS SO MUCH FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ahhhhh). We also don't KNOW whether evolutionary theory is correct, or the theory of gravitation, Newton's laws of motion, Einstein's relativity theory,...
"If the warming is coming from the sun, which is far more likely and most serious climate scientists will admit is the true cause, (see what I did there??I employed your ignorant style) is a change in the sun cycle."
Yes, I definitely see what you did there. You lied. Because it is a simple fact that most serious climate scientists think that human activities are responsibly for the vast bulk of the climate change over the past century and that such changes will get substantially more pronounced over the next century.
Just in case you want to be a little less ignorant (which I highly doubt):
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/science/earth/extremely-likely-that-human-activity-is-driving-climate-change-panel-finds.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23854904Now please, ignorance and lies do not become you. Although your ALL CAPS ATTACKS AND FLOURISHES OF EXCLAMATION MARKS ARE VERY ATTRACTIVE SO PERHAPS IT IS ALL A WASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
