Global Warming Skeptics Vs. Science [Pic]

Submitted by: lisalezah 6 years ago in

Where do you stand, I-A-B?
There are 228 comments:
Female 1,101
??? Shows up for me on page 5. Ha ha, kind of makes me feel trolley to be debating 5 pages back!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
I can`t find the link to this page on the homepage.

What happened?
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Aquaeous Yep that sounds about right! LOL and thank you ;-D
0
Reply
Male 425
*Checks back in*

So in summary, CrakrJak continues to engage loudly in sophistry without seeming to have a basic understanding of the science, and a few idiots seem to go along with it, presumably impressed by his ability to copy and paste uncited, unverified quotations.

...and @NotTHATbored, I think I love you.

0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]the contention I have is to what degree we are responsible[/quote]

I`ll certainly agree that is the issue right now. But who knows maybe this won`t be an issue 30 yrs after we`ve taken real steps to address it.

I for one chose an energy power plan that is 100% renewable energy over a plan that was a dollar cheaper per kilowatt-hour and is only 3% renewable energy (according to the state of Texas). Specifically the price ratio was 8.50/7.50. So I figured for the extra buck it was well worth it. I certainly hope there a LOT of people who have/are/will follow(ed/ing) my example because every drop in the bucket counts.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote">All species become extinct, but Earth carries on regardless.[/quote">

We could very well be one of those species.

Hell 2.4 billion years ago there was species of bacteria which killed itself by over-producing oxygen.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Especially since the ice caps are melting (and the glaciers, which are both fresh water).[/quote]

Unfortunately that`s just going to get mixed in with salt water. :-(
Which, granted, could REALLY dilute it significantly which would negatively effect aquatic life throughout the world. :-( :-(
Furthermore, wildlife on land is VERY dependent on the oceans. :-O
0
Reply
Male 936
theres no need for me to refute your arrangements, they already have been. CrakrJak did a great job at that. It`s too bad that we wont know each other in 20 years when all of this global warming forgery really comes to pass. I`d love to see the logic you come wp with then.
0
Reply
Male 1,164
TL;DR

Greenhouse is bunk.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
** You`re **
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Skullgrin Also I just want to say that your @$$ kissing makes me sick. You haven`t said one thing that contributed to this conversation. Your just here. Let me and Crackr have our disagreement and butt out. If you want to lick Crackr`s @$$ please get a room somewhere else.

0
Reply
Female 1,101
(continued) ESPECIALLY when you take deforestation into account.

I hope you get it now!
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Skullgrin I`m just going to ignore you because you yourself have nothing to say, so there`s no point in communicating with you any further. I tried to converse with you but it appears that you may not be intelligent enough to have a conversation with.

@Crackr who are you to say that the EPA and the U.S. Energy Information Administration put out false data? Give me one reliable source that says we only put out 2.9 million tons of Co2! You`re full of crap!

Further you can say that the ice cores readings taken in the 1700`s are unreliable BUT what about the increasingly high readings we`ve seen just since the 1950`s? According to your theory shouldn`t plants have been able to absorb our current Co2 output?

Perhaps given time that extra Co2 would be absorbed by plants that would then die trapping Co2, however it seems quite clear that plants and algae are not able to compete with the massive amount of Co2 we are putting out. ESPECIALLY when you take into acc
0
Reply
Male 17,511
CO2 is only a `greenhouse gas` in a closed system, like in an actual greenhouse for growing food, and it helps us grow that food, That`s why we build them.

Excess CO2 does not just float around in our atmosphere forever, Plants absorb it, and the more of it there is the faster and better plants grow, again this is why we build greenhouses for food and grow flowers.

Do you get it now ? I sure hope so.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
NotTHATbored: Perhaps you are unaware but that data, from the 18th century, comes from ice cores. Ice cores are taken from glaciers, under that much pressure ice squeezes out all sorts of dissolved solids and gases. That is why glacier water is some of the purest natural water in the world. Those can not be taken as being an accurate snapshot of what the atmosphere was like back then.

For one thing we burned wood for fuel back then and it produced far more soot per pound than the same pound of coal burned in a modern power plant. What you see rising from power plant stacks is mostly water vapor, The EPA requires all coal fired power plants to have "Scrubbers" to capture most all of the carbon (aka soot).

Even if your claimed figures were correct, Which they aren`t, That`s still nothing compared to the trillions of tons of suspended carbon on earth.
0
Reply
Male 936
theres no need for me to refute your arrangements, they already have been. CrakrJak did a great job at that. It`s too bad that we wont know each other in 20 years when all of this global warming forgery really comes to pass. I`d love to see the logic you come wp with then.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Skullgrin Yea well your a name caller, and in my experience name callers aren`t that bright, which is why they resort to name calling.

The earth is warming.

We know that Co2 traps and holds heat in. NO ONE disputes that Co2 holds in heat. We put Co2 into the atmosphere. Co2 does not lose its properties once it is in our atmosphere. Excess Co2 is not absorbed by plants. Excess Co2 stays in the Atmosphere. We put 30 million metric tons of Co2 into the atmosphere per year. Co2 traps heat. Humans contribute to global warming.

Don`t tell me that I just repeat things from the global warming "scam" REFUTE MY LOGIC FOOL. YOU CAN NOT!
0
Reply
Male 936
CrakrJak is the only one in this thread right now who knows anything they are talking about. NotThatBored, I`m sorry but you sound like an idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about. You`re simply repeating what you have been told to believe by the people behind the global warming scam.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Bottom line.

-The earth is warming causing the glaciers to melt. The glaciers are melting.

- Co2 is proven to trap heat, it does not lose it`s properties once it reaches the atmosphere.

-You are wrong about how much Co2 we emit each year. Check the link I provided if you don`t believe me. It is much more than you think.

-There is 36% more Co2 in the atmosphere today than in 1750, so excess Co2 emissions are not able to be neutralized by "more plants".

- Humans produce over 30 million metric tons of Co2 a year.

- Co2 traps and holds heat

- HUMANS CONTRIBUTE TO GLOBAL WARMING!
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Crackr Nice try, and we`d believe it too, if we were all a bunch of idiots.

"Any excess of CO2 is eventually absorbed by the algae and plants on earth"

If the excess Co2 is being absorbed then why is their now 36% more in the atmosphere since 1750 according to the EPA? Where are all these plants and all this algae that is supposed to be absorbing it?

"Since 1750, atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4 and N20 have increased by over 36 percent, 148 percent and 18 percent, respectively" - EPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Also you are way way off on how much Co2 we emit each year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration in 2008 alone we emitted over 30 million metric tons. Check your facts. 2008 - Co2
0
Reply
Male 17,511
trudenter: It`s been estimated that humans produce 2.9 million tons of CO2 per year, That`s minuscule compared to the amount of suspended carbon already in our oceans, landmass, and atmosphere.

That`s 1/9th of what Mount Pinatubo spewed out in a few days. Even then the earth did not warm, It cooled. The earth absorbed all that CO2 and all the other `greenhouse gases` (Many far far worse for our planet) as well. And guess what ? We didn`t die, the poles didn`t melt, and the oceans didn`t rise.

I know where you are getting your info, and it`s a poor source. CO2 is not pollution, It`s a natural part of life on earth and you, I and every human on earth exhales 2lbs, of it daily.

So unless you are advocating the removal of billions of people from earth, along with the removal all cars, fossil fueled power plants and billions of animals as well, There will be no appreciable change in the earth`s temperature.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
NotTHATbored: CO2 was only recently deemed a `greenhouse gas` by those very people involved in the `global warming` scam.

I know a hell of a lot more and have read more than I care to mention about `global warming`. The problem is that science has revealed that we have been a lot warmer and a lot colder in the past and that those trend seem to coincide with solar cycles, particularly sunspots or the lack thereof (Magnetic pole reversals have had an effect as well)

Without a doubt the sun fuels our planet and conducts and orchestra of cycles of both flora and fauna. Any excess of CO2 is eventually absorbed by the algae and plants on earth, which then provides the oxygen and food for the animals and us as well. The earth balances itself, repairs itself, humans can do very little to alter that balance even if we wanted too.

You`ve been fooled into believing that the earth is as fragile as glass, To the contrary it is very robust and strong.
0
Reply
Male 69
@Crackr
i don`t know where you got your info, but mankind produces a much greater yearly output of emissions than volcanoes
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Crackr you know, and not to be mean, this is just in my opinion, but it is people like you who are the problem. People who think their opinion must be right when they don`t even know what they`re talking about. You didn`t even know that Co2 is a greenhouse gas! How can you honestly have an opinion on global warming?! You can look up a bunch of quotes to support your "side" all you want and paste them in, but you still won`t know anything about global warming! You have no idea what is really going on or what the argument is even about! So why then do you have an opinion?!
0
Reply
Female 1,101
(continued) We are not volcanos, we put massive amounts of heat trapping gasses into the atmosphere not once every ten years when we erupt, but continually!

No effect? Really?
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Crackr "CO2 is necessary for all plant life on earth, It being called a `greenhouse gas` is like pure oxygen being called a poison."

No duh. FYI greenhouse gas is not a derogatory term. It is a term for a gas that traps heat which Co2 does. And yes, you are correct, Co2 and other greenhouse gasses are essential to all life on earth because without them the planet would FREEZE.

THAT SAID GREENHOUSE GASSES DO TRAP HEAT AND WE ARE PUMPING THEM INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. IT IS GOING TO HAVE AN EFFECT, UNLESS YOU BELIEVE THAT THE GAS WE PUMP OUT MAGICALLY LOSES ITS PROPERTIES ONCE IT REACHES OUR ATMOSPHERE.

What pollution a volcano pumps out is not relevant, not all kinds of pollution are green house gasses. The reason it caused cooling is obvious, the volcano`s smoke, ash, and other miscellaneous debris blocked out some of the suns rays. The amount of Co2 it put out is relevant but most certainly negligible to the amount we put into the atmosphere EVERY yea
0
Reply
Male 17,511
NotTHATbored: CO2 is necessary for all plant life on earth, It being called a `greenhouse gas` is like pure oxygen being called a poison.

Perhaps you are unaware that volcanoes spew far more pollutants into our atmosphere than we do. In fact when Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines it spewed more pollution into the atmosphere in that single event than mankind has since we`ve lived on planet earth. It injected a 20+ million tons of sulfur dioxide and caused what is believed to be the largest aerosol disturbance of the stratosphere this century. Now did that heat us up ? No, In fact the earth`s surface cooled in the three years following the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees. It ejected tens of millions of tons of water vapor, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen chloride, and hydrogen fluoride.

Human effects on atmosphere pale in comparison to that. So please step back and seek some perspective.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@Crackr

If that is what you propose, and you think it is not the greenhouse gasses which we released warming the planet then what is? Or do you think that the planet is not warming and the ice caps have suddenly just melted for no reason? Maybe ice changed it`s melting point like those gases changed their properties and lost their ability to trap heat eh?
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@CrakrJak Blah. BLAH. Blah.

I don`t care who says what. There are plenty of liars and Charlestons that want to get their name out there in anyway possible.

Is or is not Co2 a greenhouse gas which has been proven to trap heat? It is. It is a gas that traps heat. WHICH HAS BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN AGAIN AND AGAIN. No one disagrees that Co2 is a greenhouse gas.

Now. Have we or have we not released Co2 and other heat trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in enormous quantities? We have.

"Since 1750, atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4 and N20 have increased by over 36 percent, 148 percent and 18 percent, respectively" - EPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions

So, do you now propose that gasses scientifically proven to trap heat released into the atmosphere will all of a sudden loose their scientific properties and their ability to trap heat and have NO effect whatsoever on our atmosphere? DO YOU?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]When I was in grade school, the big scare of the time was the coming ice age and the impending shortage of water. That was in the late 70s.[/quote]

More importantly, it was in the mainstream media and ONLY the mainstream media. If you read what scientists who knew the subject were saying about ice ages in the late 1970s, it was very different.

Comparing the two just shows that you don`t understand.
0
Reply
Male 55
In one of my climate lectures, the professor showed us a graph representing expected climate change without human impact, and the actual data, over the last 150 years. There was definitely an increase.

This was obviously used with estimated data from various models. To allow for model error, the data from each end of the spectrum was shown alongside. The human impact still caused a large variation.

As far as I`m concerned, climate skepticism achieves nothing.
0
Reply
Male 936
@mildcorma

the problem is that they are lying, have been caught in their lie, but refuse to admit it. There is nothing wrong with finding renewable energy sources, what is wrong is the way they went about it.

Yes, the ends justify the means - but the means were unnecessary
0
Reply
Male 496
@Skullgrin

And that conspiracy is negative and bad how? I mean really, how can living off renewable resources and lowering pollution be a "omg government conspiracy" when it`s a -good- thing? People like you amaze me, really.

We are being conned into doing something beneficial for mankind as a whole! But we should rebel against this as it means we are pawns and sheep! Grow up mate, really.
0
Reply
Female 546
i`m not reading this. too many words about science. maybe one day when i`m really bored i`ll give it another try...till then, i like my picture books ;)
0
Reply
Male 936
[quote]Really?
I happen to know a former professor of conservational science who stands behind the numbers quite firmly.I should probably let him know he has some government funding coming his way. He thought he was just doing it for free![/quote]

He obviously isn`t a very good professor.
0
Reply
Male 936
Anyone who falls for this global warming is caused by human co2 emissions is a sheep. The world`s leaders knew that there was an oil shortage and they knew they had to do something to kick people into gear on finding alternate forms of fuel. What better way than to scare them into developing them. Thats what this global warming myth is all about. It is just a conspiracy to develop alternate fuels which we desperately need. There is literally no proof that human co2 emissions have ANYTHING to do with global warming....if you have this proof (that doesnt exist) I urge you to give the founder of the weather channel a call - he has a cool million dollar reward for whoever can provide this proof.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Commentator: You first.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Ozmose: I did not say every scientist that believes `Global Warming` is paid for their belief. Nice try, but you fail at reading.
0
Reply
Male 20
The debate is not whether or not there is global warming occurring, it`s whether human`s have a big / harmful (or any) effect on it.

Why would government spend money on it if it didn`t exist? Special interests comes to mind. I don`t trust politicians and even if their act is benevolent, they still blow money left and right. Look at the debt.
0
Reply
Female 115
If there was no such thing as global warming then why is it shown as scientific fact in college textbooks? Why has the government made such a big deal about it? You know that a lot of this research is GOVERNMENT FUNDED. Why the f*ck would the government be funding something if it didn`t exist? Especially with the economy the way it is. Northeast Ohio has had one of the worst winters in years. Why is this? This is because temperatures are not cold enough to freeze lake Erie as much as it should. This creates lake effect snow. Lake effect snow occurs when moisture from a large lake rises into the atmosphere and freezes creating lake effect snow. And know that some of you will say "well it`s cold enough to freeze the moisture in the atmosphere." Well yeah, but those are tiny droplets of water Lake Erie is larger than the state of New Jersey! It needs to be VERY cold for it to freeze completely, and it needs to be colder than it is for more of the lake to freeze.
0
Reply
Male 20
Hey CrakrJak...

Respect.
0
Reply
Male 270
If you doubt climate change, go to the closest mirror and yell "You are an idiot!!"
0
Reply
Male 269
"what kind of terrible "science" believes it has proved something yet answer so many questions with "well we can`t explain that part...." or "we think that`s just an anomaly". "

well, nearly every science does this. There are ALWAYS unknown fields. Every good scientist has more questions than answers. Thats why they are scientists and not politicians.
0
Reply
Male 537
Still... after something like this is posted, republicans still feel the need to deny it. Do you guys really hate Al Gore that much? I`m sure if bush had talked about the "hockey stick" charts, every hick from Texas to Tennessee would all be lined up to lick his balls. Right after Rush Limbaugh tells them to.
0
Reply
Male 72
SapphireHart has it, population rise is a much more imminant threat.

And to the pro `humans have an effect people` this means more people to use more fossil fuels making more CO2.
0
Reply
Male 2,229
I`d like to point out that the occurrence of snow(vast amounts at that) are indication of a warmer atmosphere. It has to to do with condensation of water in the air. It not necessarily colder (which it should be)
0
Reply
Female 136
If i was a scientist and wanted to scam the government out of money i would say that we need loads of money to build a new type of nuclear bomb or soemthing onlines of that, and you could get loas considering trident in the uk costs like 70bn and we have pretty much next to nothing. I deffinatly would not come up with global warming.
0
Reply
Male 2,893
This is the first time I say, f*ck you science, you don`t know sh*T.
0
Reply
Male 450
@CrakrJak

Really?
I happen to know a former professor of conservational science who stands behind the numbers quite firmly.I should probably let him know he has some government funding coming his way. He thought he was just doing it for free!
0
Reply
Female 412
It was actually colder in medieval times but the Victorians had picnics in February yada yada yada.

Forget global warming, our latest problem is solving the ever growing population of the world. Look at those stats and tell me you aren`t scared!
0
Reply
Male 714
if you want to cut down the co2 produced by humans, get sterilized. if all liberals who bleat on about us destroying the earth did that it would greatly decrease the co2 emmisions that the next generation would make.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
I could go on and on and on with these quotes, but I believe I`ve made my point.

There is no "Consensus" among those not getting direct governmental funding or not profiting from this scam.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity...In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” -- Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” -- Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock.

“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC`s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it`s fraud.” -- South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith...My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” -- Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia`s CSIRO.

“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” -- Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” -- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.

“Those who call themselves `Green planet advocates` should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere...Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content...Al Gore`s personal behavior supports a green planet - his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” -- Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences...AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” -- Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino.

“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what `science` has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” -- Research Chemist William C. Gilbert.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate...The planet`s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” -- Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin.

“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn`t happen...Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” -- Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” -- NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist.

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn`t care about governments or their legislation. You can`t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone`s permission or explaining itself.” -- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin.

"I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” -- Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
"I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple," said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin.

UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones "should be barred from the IPCC process...They are not credible anymore."

A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been "captured" and demanded that "the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed."

“We`re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” -- UN IPCC`s Tom Tripp.
0
Reply
Male 1,360
we will all die soon anyway
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Also...

You can have snow on days that are 10 degress and on days that are 28 degrees. MORE SNOW DOES NOT EQUAL COLDER.

SNOW DOES NOT EQUAL COLDER! AH AH!
0
Reply
Female 1,101
MORE SNOW DOES NOT MEAN THAT A WINTER IS COLDER. IT MEANS MORE WATER CAME OUT OF OUR ATMOSPHERE. IT CAN BE COLD WITH OR WITHOUT SNOW. LAST YEAR WAS NOT WARMER, IT JUST SNOWED LESS. THE END.

-Sorry just had to say that one more time.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"After this harsh winter, If any of you still believe in `global warming` you`re complete morons."

This is so sad it actually makes me laugh. Literally. MORE SNOW DOES NOT EQUAL A COLDER WINTER. The amount of percipitation (snow) that we got this winter has nothing to do with whether or not this year is colder than last year. It has to do with how much water came down out of our atmosphere. It could very well have been colder last year we just had less percipitation, but because we got a lot of percipitation this year people think it must be colder. WTF people. GROW - A - BRAIN. It can be cold with or without snow. Just because it snowed this year doesn`t mean it`s colder than last year. IT MEANS MORE WATER CAME OUT OF OUR ATMOSPHERE.

If the average global temperature hadn`t gone up, the glaciers would not be melting! DUH!
0
Reply
Male 2,402
@davymid
LOL! Professor went on a diatribe. Anyhow Davy 2 things.

1) Are you that geologist who was with Dan Rather on TV about a year ago talking the basically the same thing with core samples from the Arctic ocean floor?

2) What do you think of T. Boone Pickens Plan?
0
Reply
Male 93
This isn`t a scientific debate; it is a political debate. When you realize that, the rest falls into place.

0
Reply
Male 590
what kind of terrible "science" believes it has proved something yet answer so many questions with "well we can`t explain that part...." or "we think that`s just an anomaly".
0
Reply
Male 1,744
why`s the "scientific consensus" the pro-warming side. there are plenty of scientist on the other side too, that`s why it`s still a DEBATE!
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"even amidst the locally harsh winters in the UK and ALL of America and Southern Asia and Russia and western Europe."

Edited for accuracy. Record snow occurrences in these places this winter. I wonder how it is gonna be for the southern hemisphere?
0
Reply
Male 425
"After this harsh winter, If any of you still believe in `global warming` you`re complete morons."

Or perhaps it`s slightly moronic to use local conditions as an argument of what is happening globally. The World Met Organisation recorded another net increase in GLOBAL temperatures this past year, even amidst the locally harsh winters in the UK and parts of America.

There are a number of potential explanations for this, but for someone who is suggesting that Penn & Teller know more about climate science than climate scientists, I really don`t think it`s worth the effort of trying to convince you. Good day sir.

0
Reply
Male 425
This is one of the best inforgraphics I`ve seen on here. Sadly the media still like to portray it as a 50/50 divide in the scientific community, rather than the overwhelming consensus that it is.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Good God Davy![/quote]
I know. I should be shot.

And Ukelele, thanks, I had no idea where that notion came from.
0
Reply
Male 129
@davymid: The reason we Christians don`t hold to the man-made global warming thing, or at least, the terrible, planet-destroying effects purported, is because the Bible says that the seasons, all of them, will continue as long as the earth remains, and according to that same Bible it won`t be global warming that destroys the earth, but the Lord Himself, and not for at least 1007 years.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Good God Davy!
0
Reply
Male 1,292
Go Packers! oh wait wrong post.

@davymid
information and education is not spam
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Sh*t, now I have to ban myself for spamming. Damn.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Also (still on a roll), I can understand why (some, I said some) right-wing Conservative religious Christians rail against gay marraige, marijuana use, Stem Cell research, sensible abortions, Evolution is a lie perpetrated by leftist commie hippies, lax gun control, the earth`s only 6000 years old, etc. I get that. It`s more or less in your Bible. I can at least see where you`re coming from. However, I never understood why the same people I described above are all about denial that we`re having an effect on the global climate. Not a challenge, just an observation. Where in the Bible does it say "Oppose Climate Change, in all its forms".

Never understood that one.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
As for those saying that oil comes from dead things, so we have lots, you are hugely and retardedly over-simplifying the science of oil and gas extraction. If you think there`s vast deposits of hydrocarbons just waiting to be tapped because lots of stuff died there, please go and tell BP. Cause if they had your expert scientific knowledge in advance, they might have gone to find your easier sources of oil rather than drill to depths we`ve never done before, just to satiate the beast. You know, instead of f*cking up the ocean. We`re pushing the technological envelope every day, and if you think the oil companies are just playing coy, with tons of hydrocarbon reserves just up their sleeve, waiting to be played? You`re wrong. Oil is money, and money today is better than money tomorrow. Believe me, if there was easy oil, it would be out there by now. Skepticism is easy. Science is hard. And the people that find your oil are scientists.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Also, surely securing energy (renewable or not) is preferential to relying on oil from the Middle East, which mostly hates you America. Under every scenario, doesn`t it make sense to reduce reliance on what makes your civilization function from the Middle East?
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Having said all that, I do NOT believe that simply capping fossil fuels in western nations is the answer. As Angilion alluded to earlier, other powers are rising, mainly India and China (for now). China alone is building coal-fired power stations at the rate of one per week to supply energy to their 1.3 Billion population. Of what use is a few million people in the US, the UK, France or Germany installing solar panels in favour of oil-fired heaters in the face of such overwhelming carbon-pumping? It`s a stick thrown into the river (which costs us, doesn`t cost the river) in the hope of stopping the torrential oncoming flood. The real problem is simple, it`s glaring, and the remedy is unpleasant. Too many f*cking people on the planet right now. It`s simply not sustainable.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
There is no controversy. Just as the vast majority of professional scientists agree that Evolution is real, 97% of professional scientists agree that man-made Climate Change is real. . And of the 3% of scientists that remain unconvinced, the same study showed that their average scientific expertise was far below that of their colleagues, based on publication and citation rates, which is the standard measure of the quality of any individual scientist.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Climate Change Deniers, to me, are in the same camp as Evolution Deniers. They`re mostly scientifically illiterate, deeply religious, and far-right conservative. They like to preach that there`s some kind of controversy going on in the scientific community between the deniers and the scientific consensus, which there is not. It`s the "Teach the Controversy!" bullsh*t all over again.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
So, Earth`s climate changes, mainly due to evolution of various organisms on our planet through geological time through the gasses they spew into the atmosphere, though volcanic activity and solar activity have an effect too. However, what we are seeing, from the best of our scientific research (anyone got any better ideas how to advance as a species?) is that the RATE of climate change we are seeing right now is unprecendented. Nature has an effect on our climate. So do 7 Billion humans. Debate if you like how MUCH of an effect people are having on our climate, but to say there is no effect is retarded. Retarded in the extreme.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Quite a lot to get through here, but I hope some might find my input interesting (kinda the point of this website). Sorry in advance for the incoming spam of multiple posts. To set the scene, I`m a professional geologist working in the oil industry, PhD, taught a few undergraduate courses on palaeoecology (climate changes in the past). Trying my best not to be an ass here, not "telling it like it is", just stating where I`m coming from, hopefully some food for thought.

Fact: Earth`s climate has changed dramatically in the past. In the Mid-Cretaceous period (c. 90 million years ago) geological evidence suggests we had tropical conditions on earth from pole to pole, with no polar icecaps. Conversely, just before the Cambrian at about 650 milllion years, we had the inverse, a "Snowball Earth". If you could step back in time and observe our planet from a satellite, it would look like a pearl. Icecaps all the way to the equator.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
Global warming is occurring. However not all due toward man alone. It`s a natural change that occurs over millenniums. It will happen eventually with, or without us. There is nothing no one, or any society can do about it even if you killed off the human race. Get used to it. It`s another gimmick to get corporations to make profit off peoples fears.

Soil samples pulled from the Arctic seafloor has shown that global warming has occurred four times before, and then the earth cooled four times before man showed his face on the planet.
0
Reply
Male 195
Meh, I am in Indiana, could use some warming. And finally I just do not care. Scarcity will rule the day and decide the issue many many years after I am long gone.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
mitha: [quote]NOT acting would spell certain doom for 90% of mankind.[/quote]

That`s the same scaremongering we`ve heard for a hundred years or more about many things. Not too very long ago in the 60`s the scares were `New Ice Age` and `Over Population`. Science just knew for a fact that were were cooling and knew for a fact that our planet couldn`t support 5 billion people (We have over 7 billion people now, and now it`s `Global Warming`)

The sooner you learn that people can invent `facts` out of thin air and call them science and scare you into taking drastic actions that will enrich their buddies, The better off you will and the rest of the world will be.
0
Reply
Female 32
This is assuming that neither side stands to make any money out of saying what they`re saying...
0
Reply
Male 269
CrakrJak:
confusing the terms weather and climate is the first reason you should stop calling people morons. The second: We are talking about mid-term effects here. Just because we get 1 cold year this doesn`t mean the whole theory is crap.


On the topic at large: I believe most of the scientists involved with this will agree that there are HUGE gaps in their knowledge. And that much of the now accepted facts may be wrong. Thats how science works. But the essential point was pointed out by alikabul: Without being certain of our non-involvment, the risk is simply too high. NOT acting would spell certain doom for 90% of mankind. Not that I care, the internet has made me a misanthrope after all.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
kingpong: Ah, The name change game... It`s just a pile of crap by a different name, and it still stinks.

The so called `consensus` is changing, Many are now worried that we could be entering another minimum solar cycle. `Cold` is a lot worse than `Warm`, when it comes to the climate. I really do wish that it was warming, It would be better for farming, livestock, and humans as well.

Not to mention my car, Which is `plowed in` with over two foot of snow right now. :-(
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"The impending shortage of water is still a threat."

Especially since the ice caps are melting (and the glaciers, which are both fresh water).
0
Reply
Male 639
CrakrJak, how about Climate Change, instead? Because that`s the accepted term now, since there are significant climate changes and more extreme weather patterns than usual.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
bigbangbilly: We are likely to have record flooding this spring from all the snow melt, A quick glance at the drought index map shows few areas of D4 or D3 drought and the overall index country wide has improved greatly the past two years.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
After this harsh winter, If any of you still believe in `global warming` you`re complete morons.

NOAA foretasted a warmer than usual winter this year, Instead we`ve had one of the coldest on record with record snowfalls in the northern hemisphere and record rain and flooding in Australia in the southern hemisphere.

I highly suggest you all go watch the Penn & Teller: Bullpoo! show on the scam of "Global Warming".
0
Reply
Male 698
The impending shortage of water is still a threat.
0
Reply
Male 186
When I was in grade school, the big scare of the time was the coming ice age and the impending shortage of water. That was in the late 70s. Wonder what the big scare is going to be in another 20 years?
0
Reply
Male 695
I`ll set it up like this...

if global warming is a scam we have two options - "do something" and "do nothing about it".
Whatever option we choose here we`re 100% good.

Fine and dandy... BUT

if global warming is NOT a scam:
"do something" = good
"do nothing about it" = disaster.

So if we pick "do nothing about it" we have a 50% chance of not f`ing up the world, but if we pick "do something" then in both cases we`ll be 100% GOOD.

It`s simple logic.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@trojan:

If you would read the god damn comments, you would see that I was fuseeking around.
0
Reply
Male 1,931
The scientific community is no longer even discussing whether or not some type of climate change is happening. How much human affect it is, or if it is part of a natural cycle, I am not sure they have settled on that. But it is happening. The only people disputing that are idiots. They believe what they want to believe, they don`t listen to facts. Where as scientists only believe what the facts tell them, not what their misconceptions force them to. That`s why religious people, and those against global warming, fight so hard to protect their viewpoint. They need to defend it, shelter it. If it was true, it should be able to stand against any criticism. But it doesn`t.
0
Reply
Male 511
@auburnjunky You sound as stupid as Michelle Bachmann did trying to explain away CO2 levels. Oh wait...

auburnjunky
Male, 30-39, Southern US

Yep, that explains it.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@ghud:

It was a response to something I said earlier. Those who saw understand.

Pay no mind.
0
Reply
Male 75
i hate the ignorant pooes that simply brush off the ACTUAL data
0
Reply
Male 2,988
tl;dr
0
Reply
Female 1,515
Too little too late unfortunately. Soon we`ll have Malaria infected mosquitoes in Canada.
0
Reply
Male 182
@auburnjunkie

Are you trying to be funny or are you really that ignorant?
0
Reply
Female 1,101
"Are there way more important things going on in the world today? Yes"

What could possibly be more important than our environment changing? We do kind of rely on it for food and a habitable place to live. Plus polar bears are f`ing awesome!
0
Reply
Female 1,264
Climate change is real. It`s also influenced by human activity. But not only by human activity.
0
Reply
Male 266
Discobiscuit, you feel that consequences will fall in the later than nearer future. How does that make it any less important? If someone told me I`d be hit by a car and die in 5 minutes, I`d flip. If someone told me that car would hit me in 5 years, I`d still flip. More importantly, I`d flip and make sure I did whatever possible to avoid said event. How is this "overhype," then?
0
Reply
Male 234
tl;dr
0
Reply
Male 1,021
Ever since scientist became political activists, I no longer know what I can trust or believe.

0
Reply
Male 542
I believe global climate change is influenced by human activity. I also believe it`s massively over-hyped, but not with bad intentions.. Consequences can be very real, for much later generations.
0
Reply
Male 312
I`m one of those people who realizes that to some degree Global Warming is happening, but doesn`t see it as all that big of an issue.
Is it important to help out the Earth? Yeah.
Are there way more important things going on in the world today? Yes
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]global warming believers think the world is going to end in 50 years due to climate change. that puts them right next to the 2012 dumbasses[/quote]

I hate to break it to you, but "My big red book of silly propaganda" is not a reliable source of information.

There may be a few nutjobs claiming that the world is going to end in 50 years, but they are nutjobs. It isn`t a mainstream view.

Even in an apocalyptic greenhouse scenario, the world doesn`t end. All species become extinct, but Earth carries on regardless.
0
Reply
Male 1,116
tl;dr

There ain`t sh*t we can do about it anyway.
0
Reply
Male 2,855
global warming believers think the world is going to end in 50 years due to climate change. that puts them right next to the 2012 dumbasses
0
Reply
Male 176
I think everyone who read this came out of it with the same opinion they started off with.....
0
Reply
Female 25
scientists are biased and consensus is not equal to fact.
0
Reply
Male 244
1.Scroll down to last sentance.
2.Read last sentance.
3.Come with conclusion.
Damn.
0
Reply
Male 987
"The plants did well long before humans got on the track"
Zing.
We wouldn`t have a rise if the plants "ate" it all
0
Reply
Male 639
I`m going to repeat something I said earlier because apparently it was ignored. With high CO2 levels and warmer temperatures we get more diverse ecosystems and bigger plants and animals. This is what happened during the late Cretaceous period and immediately before our Ice Age. Then all the cool stuff died off and we get left with all the boring ones, like squirrels and domestic cats. We need to quit thinking so exclusively about what`s good for us and start thinking about what`s good for the biosphere. I say kick it up a notch and torch everything so we get to this better earth. Maybe humanity`s ecological role is to facilitate this process, did anyone ever think of that? No, because y`all are selfish bastards who want to keep what`s good for you, regardless of the cost.
0
Reply
Male 44
@auburnjunky
The plants did well long before humans got on the track
0
Reply
Male 5,314
tl;dr
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"because CO2 emissions isn`t really contributing to peoples` general health."

If we don`t create CO2, the plants will suffocate and die.

There. Redeemed. (those who saw earlier will know lol)
0
Reply
Female 407
TL;DR
0
Reply
Male 44
So what if global warming isn`t caused by humans? We should be trying to make a change anyway, because CO2 emissions isn`t really contributing to peoples` general health. For example, would you want to stand in the middle of a highly trafficed crossroad surrounded by el-cars or noisy, smoke-puffing SUVs?
0
Reply
Male 12
I don`t think we should be going all green gungho because global warming due to humans will destroy the world. But there are plenty of good reasons to "go green"

Less reliance on fuels that will run out, ultimately cheaper, mainstream-ing of electric cars would get a dangerous and highly explosive fluid out of peoples hands and off every other block. Also, say what you will about temperature but pouring exhaust and chemicals and harmful chemicals in the air and water isn`t very healthy for us...
0
Reply
Male 2,372
Lol at the word "consensus"
0
Reply
Female 1,356
why can`t we just say "God did it."?
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@SPrinkZ volcanos actually release way way more than mankind, we`re talking about a pretty high ratio (see here)

But that`s not the point, the point is we`re adding extra CO2 into the atmosphere, thus making the process more cumbersome for natural cycles, which results in warming. I`m still a little skeptical about the "alarmism" shown in many places, but not about the fact itself
0
Reply
Male 2,372
Looks like the warming alarmists are still trying to hammer that round peg into that square hole...
0
Reply
Male 639
Thank you crucible, your comment was topically relevant and humorous.
0
Reply
Male 1,815
Hey kingpong, your comment was TL;DR
0
Reply
Male 743
I believe it`s something we SHOULD be concerned about, But I don`t believe it`s as bad as it`s put out to be.
0
Reply
Male 639
Is having no attention span a badge of honor? There`s really no other reason to let us know that you didn`t read the article. If you have nothing significant to contribute to the discussion, then don`t bother. I read the comments for intellectual and entertaining posts. 4 letters and a semicolon doesn`t really help alleviate my boredom.
0
Reply
Female 751
TL;DR

boring
0
Reply
Female 10
TL, DR
0
Reply
Male 1,547
@auburnjunky
As far as I`m aware, energy companies don`t do that. The corporate espionage between companies forces them to put new things in production as soon as they`re viable so they can get some profit off of it before a competitor reverse engineers it. The problem is, the average person has no idea what a viable technology looks like. That`s where the conspiracy theories come in. The best example is in hydrogen fuel technology. It`s so remarkably inefficient to produce Hydrogen fuel, but the public got word of it and had a collective orgasm just because they`ve been told that fossil fuels are bad and anything else would be better. A few companies kept Hydrogen pet projects around because people would pay them for it, but it`s not a serious investment.

In almost every case, corporations make the most money by doing what`s most efficient and best for the consumer.
0
Reply
Male 2,307
@Bigbaddave

Okay. You realize when that volcano went off in Iceland that we actually had lower CO2 emissions because we stopped plane travel in Europe for a while? A volcano puts out less than us on an AVERAGE DAY. We clearly are doing more than Earth `intended`.
0
Reply
Male 15,510
So, we agree that we disagree?
0
Reply
Male 2,307
How is Africa useless?...If you only knew what Africa contributes to the world, and has, and did.
0
Reply
Male 586
Zzzz
0
Reply
Male 639
@madest, from fossils isn`t the best wording, but hydrocarbons, which are what most fuels are, generally come from living sources. The more complex ones that we dig up require massive amounts of pressure to make, so these are generally found underground where large organic deposits are found. The deposits wouldn`t necessarily be fossils but they were definitely alive at one point. Fossil in the term fossil fuels refers more to the age of the material and not the actual material.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
There is no scientific consensus that oil is from fossils.
0
Reply
Male 639
Auburn, you do realize that we use oil faster than dead things are converted to fuels?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"we still need to find an alternative power supply that doesn`t involve burning up a finite resource that will ultimately run out."

You realize Oil comes from dead things right?

I was not aware there was a time in history things stopped dying.
0
Reply
Male 182
I don`t care which side of the fence is correct, we still need to find an alternative power supply that doesn`t involve burning up a finite resource that will ultimately run out. Climate change or not, that -is- a problem that we need to solve sooner rather than later and it has the added benefit of killing two birds with one stone; if, it turns out, that there actually is a second bird to kill.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@volsunga:

So that`s why they buy more efficient ideas, patent them, and lock it away so they can pull it out next time the people get pissy?
0
Reply
Male 2,796
I think if we were to systematically murder 90% of the world population, resources and such will be able to play catch up.

I say we think about killing everyone in Africa first, only because most of the countries there are useless. Then we pick out the next useless countries and so on.

Ready... GO
0
Reply
Male 72
tldnr
0
Reply
Male 1,547
@ragebot
The measure of reducing humanity`s impact before the technology to do so is mature would cause an enormous burden on the economy that everybody would feel. If you haven`t noticed, it`s those "big, evil oil companies" that are the biggest investors in clean and renewable energy. Why wouldn`t they be? They stand the most to gain from more efficient technologies. That`s why almost all of them have changed their names from "oil companies" to "energy companies".
0
Reply
Male 14,331
That and China.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
We need to kill all volcanoes they`re not abiding to the kyoto protocol.
0
Reply
Male 807
well, I know emphatically that my cats breath smells like cat food-the connection is there and it is undeniable
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Secondly, I`m for more CO2 and higher temperatures. When these go up we get mega-flora/fauna as well as more diverse ecosystems. It may not be the best plan for what we have now, but I know I want to see some megatheriums and terrorbirds.

^^^^^^THIS!^^^^^^
0
Reply
Male 214
Climate change is real and happening... and been going on for millions of years. While I think we as humans shouldn`t go and purposely do things to hurt the environment, I don`t believe that we have caused so much damage to have caused a real change in how the earth naturally does things.

Global warming and cooling has happened repeatedly since the beginning of time and will continue to do so until our sun starts turning into a red giant and global warming will be terminal for the earth.

Every time I see the term "a consensus of scientist", I laugh a little.. in reality its only a consensus of scientist that agree. For every scientist that agrees with the theory of global warming, there is a scientist that will disagree with it. The only consensus is that there is no actual consensus.
0
Reply
Male 639
First off, we need to quit calling it global warming, because it`s not an accurate description and causes dumbasses to think that it must not be happening.

Secondly, I`m for more CO2 and higher temperatures. When these go up we get mega-flora/fauna as well as more diverse ecosystems. It may not be the best plan for what we have now, but I know I want to see some megatheriums and terrorbirds.
0
Reply
Male 51
I lie somewhere between these two. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That`s a demonstrable fact. However, I`m not convinced that humans are causing any significant acceleration to our already naturally warming planet.
0
Reply
Male 2,700
What is really sad is that if somehow, someone finds the perfect scrubber design, or cheap enery with no pollution, and suddenly its cheap enough anyone can use it. The climate chhange that will come from the reduction of these chemicals in the air would result in massive animal dieoffs and weather anomolys. We are screwed no matter how we do things.
0
Reply
Male 1,378
*fart* what.
0
Reply
Male 120
lets see. it is i-a-b, so where are the comments about how this is all the dumbass rednecks causing this, hurr hurr hurr.
0
Reply
Male 2,700
Real simple analogy:

Think of a glass bong, or the inside of a car that gets smoked in alot, or even a house. How fast and how much does that change color due to residue buildup.

Our earth is not so different. Its not like the pollution goes out into space, it collects here.
0
Reply
Male 32
Okay Skeptics, if you`re so sure of yourselves, answer me this: What could be the downside of attempting to reduce humanity`s impact on the biosphere? Someone besides the oil companies might make a lot of money? How horrible.
0
Reply
Male 64
"Record snowfall disproves climate change" is equivalent to "There is ice in my freezer, so the air conditioning is working". Weather != Climate, dumbass!
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@silverthread:

Best retort yet. Bravo.

@aquaman:

James Spann disagrees with you.
0
Reply
Male 3,431
I don`t contest that the climate is changing. My contention is the idea that the climate would ever remain stable. That does not happen. The climate is in a constant state of flux moving in a cyclical and predictable pattern and just like during the spring time thaw on a seasonal level, we are experiencing a thaw on a climatological level too.

We are still experiencing an Ice Age.

I do believe that humans are altering out planet, there is no mistaking that, the contention I have is to what degree we are responsible, more importantly, global warming via greenhouse gasses might actually be staving off a glacial advance (global cooling). Take a look at the eastern half of the United States. All that snow out yonder is making life mighty hard, now imagine that sticking around all year.

Glacial advances are *inevitable*. Global warming is our window of opportunity to prepare for the next time there is a 2 km thick sheet of ice over the Northern Hemisphere.
0
Reply
Male 683
I should participate in these arguments since I`m majoring in Meteorology but, hey, I`m too lazy right now. Global warming is real, there`s my two cents.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@volsunga:

Thanks for showing that my frak up produced SOMETHING relevant.

Embarrassed.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Here how bout this.

Humans soak up oxygen and release CO2.

OMG KILL THE PEOPLE THEY ARE KILLING US! lol
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@madest: Yeah that`s right. WTF I got too excited hahaha.

Post deleted for dumbassedness.
0
Reply
Male 1,547
"Also, plants soak up oxygen, and produce CO2.

KILL THE AMAZON OMG IT`S KILLING US! ;)"

You got that ass backwards, man. However the Amazon DOES produce more methane and other greenhouse gasses than it converts CO2 into O2. We would be better off without it from a purely "global warming" viewpoint.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]Also, plants soak up oxygen, and produce CO2.[/quote]
--------------
Plants soak up C02 and produce oxygen dimwit.
0
Reply
Male 684
If you are too lazy to read something, why bother commenting that you are too lazy to read something? I simply cannot grasp that feeling people get to express their bad qualities.
0
Reply
Male 575
I`m going to go ahead and believe in global climate change. What with the majority of scientists on earth backing it. Also I`m a follower of the "better safe than sorry" line of logic.
0
Reply
Male 39,880
[quote]"Tell that to people in America, who are experiencing the worst snowfall in the last 100 years NATIONWIDE right now."
[/quote]

There`s a record "something" every 100 years. Last year as mild, this year it snowed. And it`s only snowing in a few states. Here in San Diego... lovely and sunny. A tad bit warmer than usual.

so global warming is the cause of both hot and cold weather ? make up your minds Science Guys!
0
Reply
Male 10,338
What madest meant to say, was "to improve scientific funding on things like alternative energy, and thus making it easier for them all to get funding increases."
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]So if that`s the case the real question is, why would scientific bodies, be it independant or government or whatever, try to convince us it`s mankinds fault?[/quote]
---------
Because the worlds scientists have gotten together to screw with your simple mind.
0
Reply
Male 2,619
Bollocks
0
Reply
Male 13
Studies show the earth is warming up and it`s due to CO2. However the CO2 we produce artifically is hardly anything compared to how much CO2 is produced collectively by every other animal on the planet. So even if we stopped producing CO2 entirely, it would make little difference to climate change. Statistically mankind is not the cause of global warming, it is a natural process. So if that`s the case the real question is, why would scientific bodies, be it independant or government or whatever, try to convince us it`s mankinds fault?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"Anyone who`s been alive for 30years has seen climate change first hand."

Yes. I remember when summers were hotter and it rarely snowed. (here in the south)
0
Reply
Male 25,416
doesnt change what crazy people think
0
Reply
Male 2,688
Anyone who has watched the series called How the Earth Was Born can easily discredit most of the findings involved in Global Warming research. All the climate changes are easily explained by typical cycles that the planet has been going through since it was created.

In the beginning, this was a ball of molten rock and it just HAPPENED to get hit by a meteor, which created the moon. This massive snowstorms we`ve been seeing in the US is just proof that those 4 or 5 years we went without a lot of snow are coming back to bite us. There isnt a single place on earth that can`t claim they`ve seen some form of bizarre weather pattern at SOME point. Its nature, and its NOT man caused...
0
Reply
Male 6,693
I call shenanigans.
0
Reply
Male 795
I`m sure global warming is happening, but isn`t it true that Earth naturally follows a cycle of temperature changes? These types of fluctuations are always going on. Perhaps we are speeding up the process with our pollutants, yes, but how can we be sure we are not just speeding up the inevitable anyways?
0
Reply
Male 79
here`s the bottom line, i think the government has other technology that doesn`t even need fuel or what ever produces "C02." why would they release that technology and stop making TONS of money in the fossil fuel industry? i think its a scam all around. but thats just me.
0
Reply
Male 3,745
""North America & Europe have cut back as much as we can.

------------
So long as neighborhood housewives drive themselves to jazzersize in their Hummers the quote above is untrue."

^

"Tell that to people in America, who are experiencing the worst snowfall in the last 100 years NATIONWIDE right now."

we are? well damn...
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I am in favour of pushing cleaner energy sources, though, including from taxes to a reasonable degree. Firstly, fossil fuels are not infinite and what`s left is increasingly difficult and expensive to extract. Secondly, it`s really not a good idea to have your civilisation dependent on countries hostile to it.

What narks me is waste. For example, solar power in the UK, especial photovoltaic, is ridiculously impractical. At best, it would take at least 50 years to generate enough electricity to recoup the cost of the panels...which is longer than the life of the panels. That`s a very generous estimate - many estimates are never because you`d get a better return from putting the money in savings.

The government is spending shiploads of public money paying for the panels and installation. Money that could be spent on developing renewable power that would work here, like wave and tidal.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Until the highly populated "emerging" nations that relly mostly on coal with NO emission standards are brought into check, {China, India etc} there`s just nothing we can do. So quit nagging the developed nations.[/quote]

That`s one of the elephants in the room.

If the UK suddenly stopped all internal combustion engines and jet engines and fossil fuel power stations, it would only be about 10 years before the continuing increases in emissions from China alone outweighed the reduction from the UK in this impossible scenario.

To be blunt, they`re the problem.

I`m convinced that humanity is worsening climate change. Given how bad it has been in the past, that`s a genuine cause for concern. We could potentially unbalance it enough to really screw ourselves.

But there`s no point in some countries skimping while others continue to worsen their pollution.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]North America & Europe have cut back as much as we can. [/quote]
------------
So long as neighborhood housewives drive themselves to jazzersize in their Hummers the quote above is untrue.
0
Reply
Male 1,237
Denying the existence of global warming is just ridiculous.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Tell that to people in America, who are experiencing the worst snowfall in the last 100 years NATIONWIDE right now.[/quote]

Severe changes in weather...but not at all related to climate change, no, not at all, not in the slightest, isn`t happening, can`t happen, no, not at all, never.
0
Reply
Male 591
0
Reply
Male 39,880
I`m tired of being nagged about this.
North America & Europe have cut back as much as we can.

Until the highly populated "emerging" nations that relly mostly on coal with NO emission standards are brought into check, {China, India etc} there`s just nothing we can do. So quit nagging the developed nations.

I`m more concerned over the plastic-island floating in the ocean from all the bottles and bags we throw into the oceans every day.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
Volsunga: I think she doesn`t like the ones that plug into the wall, because they waste electricity.
0
Reply
Male 663
"A thickening layer of carbon dioxide pollution.."

Good grief who wrote this?
0
Reply
Male 573
Don`t argue with thermometers.
0
Reply
Male 40,728
The right-hand side of this infographic is full of poo. Where does it once mention solar cycles? Which is, you know, the cause of ALL weather on Earth? The Sun!

Until this video is explained I remain a skeptic.
0
Reply
Male 52
TLDR
0
Reply
Male 70
@ IrishJesus: Let me get this straight. You`re from the south, and you`ve talked with "professors and scientists" on the issue? Reeeally? Professors of what, exactly? And what kind of "scientists"? (And no, the kids making baking soda volcanoes at the elementary school science fair don`t count.)
0
Reply
Male 11,739
It doesn`t matter, the world is going to end in 2012 anyway.
0
Reply
Male 31
funny how the presentation is skewed from the start by pitting "skeptics" against "scientists". as if the "skeptics" are unscientific. nobody is "for" pollution.
0
Reply
Male 388
tl;dr
0
Reply
Male 7,378
"Climate Change" has been hijacked by mouth breathers who renamed it "Global Warming" then every time it snows they claim proof that Global warming is a fallacy. Anyone who`s been alive for 30years has seen climate change first hand. Deniers merely pretend nothing has changed.
0
Reply
Male 1,547
@Madduck
Why do you hate air fresheners? We haven`t been using harmful aerosols in any American (and probably European) products since the `70s. Even then, they were killing the ozone, not contributing to the greenhouse effect. Most now are nothing but scented oils that get vaporized.
0
Reply
Female 728
I`m sick of the political bias on both sides. Many environmentalists will change their story to make the data fit and many skeptics aren`t versed enough in science to understand the data or point out where the scientists are really making BS claims. I`ve heard things about last winter being colder and snowier because of global warming. I realize that global warming is supposed to be a long-term things that will not be very visible on the small scale, but then some of the people who support it turn its claims into pseudoscience by thinking it will be dramatic and that every little thing is a function of it, regardless of the logical flaws involved. What we need is unbiased research, but this is such a political hot button that it`s probably not going to happen.

I do think that we should try to keep our air cleaner and try not to over-exploit our resources, but, as a skeptical person by nature, I have to say that I`m skeptical of the claim that humans are causing global warming.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
"It snows in winter, therefore global warming is a lie."

No... it`s been predicted that one of the results of global warming is an increased rate of precipitation.

Snow, it just so happens, is precipitation.
0
Reply
Male 483
Yeah, I`m a skeptic. I`ve talked with professors and scientists on the issue, and the consensus is actually on the skeptic side. Most of them agree that we haven`t release NEARLY enough CO2 emissions to do the warming, and that about 97% is all ocean water CO2 emission. I`m not saying we shouldn`t develop now, cleaner technology, I`m just saying I won`t listen to a ex-vice president who came to the conclusion that we`re making a giant oven.
0
Reply
Female 8,045
firstly, climate change pleae- not global warming. Secondly, yes I go with the majority and feel this is a real problem. however- even if you are a sceptic, surely you do not think it a good idea for us to go on using finite resources, to destroy habitats and drive animals and indigenous people out for our own greed? Our lavish lifestyles are simply not sustainable- so we should stop- no argument about that one surely?
Do you REALLY need plug in air fresheners for example. ( I hate those)
0
Reply
Male 391
This post says it as clearly as it gets: Man-made CO2 emissions are driving climate change AT THIS TIME. They are not the only driving force, but yeah, there`s an effect. To not realize that we`re doing at least some harm to the world would be idiotic.
0
Reply
Male 36
no patience for ignorance
0
Reply
Female 2,674
I didn`t like that. It made me hate both sides.
What I don`t get though, is why some people get so mad when others want to stop pollution? Global warming aside, don`t people understand that smart environmental planning is for the benefit of everyone, not JUST the libs/scientists/treehuggers/etc. etc.
0
Reply
Male 1,547
The scientists` facts are correct, but bitching about the end of the world is inaccurate and dishonest. There`s no scientific conspiracy except to over-hype incomplete models to scare people into giving them funding so they can complete them. The people who are the actual liars are not scientists, but the "geoengineers" that tell you that they have plans to stop global warming. They can`t. What does stop it, however is, ironically, pumping CO2 into the lower atmosphere to promote the growth of algae.
But seriously, why fight it? Even the worst possible scenarios are sea levels rising over a period of centuries (slower than buildings become obsolete, so cities flooding isn`t a problem). A few species that are evolutionary failures to begin with will go extinct (polar bears will be fine, since they do just as well in the taiga). Slightly more powerful weather patterns will develop (slower than the technology to keep people safe from them). There`s no real threat.
0
Reply
Male 229
If people would just stop farting we would all be ok!
0
Reply
Male 1,116
@BrimstoneOne
60 billion? )-|
0
Reply
Male 108
Skeptics vs science huh? Time will tell. I am skeptical as there are scientists who point out that our entire solar system is warming at similar rates. Possibly the friggin sun has something to do with it???? Think about the $$ to be made for upgrading, reorganizing and cap and trade. Scientists on both sides are funded via private and gov`t funding and can be coerced to give an opinion. I still say we must cut the emissions - it is not a bad thing but don`t act like there is no science supporting skeptics.
0
Reply
Male 73
tl;dr
0
Reply
Male 2,229
I`m siding the the science. Almost every instance of denial is funded by a corporation that has a vested interest in us people ignoring that we are the problem and that we keep buying what ever the sell us, lies included. 60 BILLION people on this world, You can`t expect me to believe that we`re not having an effect.
0
Reply
Male 32
True Captn- but water residence time in merely days(~1) compared to 50-100+ yrs for CO2 and and CH4. It`s science
0
Reply
Male 141
I`m standing on Mars, far away from all this bullpoo
0
Reply
Female 3,001
skeptic all the way
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Also, I don`t think it`s a myth. Global climate change is real.

The thing is, it would have happened anyway, regardless of what we are doing. We are only slightly adding to the effect, and it will not be enough to change the end result.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@afroasia:

Tell that to people in America, who are experiencing the worst snowfall in the last 100 years NATIONWIDE right now.
0
Reply
Male 1,678
"people who think global warming is a myth are morons, I didn`t need a chart to show me that."

Very few people say its a myth, people just disagree over whats causing it. If you can`t understand that then you are a moron.

In my opinion graphs like this do your cause more harm than good, when somethings so ridiculously biased it can be pretty hard to take seriously.
0
Reply
Male 684
I am by nature a skeptic. It`s not that i don`t trust science, I don`t trust people doing science. Not to say that scientist are evil or corrupt, and manipulate data to their own ends(which happens, as they are humans)but my lack of faith in scientist actually comes from understanding that we really don`t know the mechanisms that govern the universe. I have faith in the process of science, but not in all scientific findings. That being said, when looking at this question, I think its more important to look at what is at stake, and the motivation behind what we want to believe. Those that believe we may be orchestrating our own demise and seek to change that seem far more likable than those who say "what do you mean i can`t do what i want with no consequences." Sure they may be right, the universe may magically return ever altered substance back into its original form...but is it really worth the risk? and for what, to maintain a mostly hollow existence with materialistic valu
0
Reply
Female 525
Davymid can explain it much better than any picture.
0
Reply
Male 31
People like to forget that roughly 95% of greenhouse gas consists of water vapor.
0
Reply
Male 85
hm... didn`t the EPA say two months ago, that new findings indicated that carbon monoxide/di production by us Humans are only a very small percentage of what is found to cause green house gases?

0
Reply
Male 73
people who think global warming is a myth are morons, I didn`t need a chart to show me that.
0
Reply
Male 158
UUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHH
TO MUCH BRAIN
0
Reply
Female 255
Link: Global Warming Skeptics Vs. Science [Pic] [Rate Link] - Where do you stand, I-A-B?
0
Reply