by who's standards ? would a farmers almanac work so we could go back and look at weather patterns
starting way back when ? serious question, I think that would be interesting to check out.
Godfather.
i'm not sure what you're asking ... but you can look at all the historical weather related data all you like - it may or may not show what you are looking for ...
at the end of the day ... global warming is the biggest threat to life on this planet as we speak ... and when i talk about life - i am talking about all life ... not just humans ...
the only people that would have you believe otherwise are the people who are most likely benefitting from the cause ... these are your oil executives and the like ... don't let your disdain for inefficiently run gov't distract you from the issue at hand ...
it's all very confusing when I hear debate from both sides,they both seem to have good points but I should get off my lazy ass and research this myself and come up with my own answer (thanks cosmo).
it's all very confusing when I hear debate from both sides,they both seem to have good points but I should get off my lazy ass and research this myself and come up with my own answer (thanks cosmo).
Godfather.
...
I really believe that shit you hear and read about has to be taken with a TON of salt, these days. Especially, shit on television and AM Talk Radio. Journalism in America is dead. It is not longer about just giving us the facts... it's all about giving us THEIR opinions.
I mean, I am pretty certain that if you had a staff of people and told them to find predictions of environmental disasters that came true... you could come up with a set of predicitons and try to sell us them as FACTS that proves that man-made Global Warming IS true. That isn't journalism... it's a manipulation of data to fit the outcome you wish to project.
That is WHY we are now being FORCED to find the truth ourselves. We have to take in data and information from several sources (on both sides of the debate) and hash through them to figure out what is more likely to be true, than false. That used to be the role of the media... to give us the facts, not their opinions on what the truth should be. Nowadays, the truth takes a backseat to the sensationalist stories that will attract the advertisement dollars of companies trying to sell us boner pills.
To sit there and take the shit we see on T.V. as fact is exactly where they want us to be. Easily manipulated.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
it's all very confusing when I hear debate from both sides,they both seem to have good points but I should get off my lazy ass and research this myself and come up with my own answer (thanks cosmo).
Godfather.
...
I really believe that shit you hear and read about has to be taken with a TON of salt, these days. Especially, shit on television and AM Talk Radio. Journalism in America is dead. It is not longer about just giving us the facts... it's all about giving us THEIR opinions.
I mean, I am pretty certain that if you had a staff of people and told them to find predictions of environmental disasters that came true... you could come up with a set of predicitons and try to sell us them as FACTS that proves that man-made Global Warming IS true. That isn't journalism... it's a manipulation of data to fit the outcome you wish to project.
That is WHY we are now being FORCED to find the truth ourselves. We have to take in data and information from several sources (on both sides of the debate) and hash through them to figure out what is more likely to be true, than false. That used to be the role of the media... to give us the facts, not their opinions on what the truth should be. Nowadays, the truth takes a backseat to the sensationalist stories that will attract the advertisement dollars of companies trying to sell us boner pills.
To sit there and take the shit we see on T.V. as fact is exactly where they want us to be. Easily manipulated.
First of all its not called Global Warming anymore, because calling that scam by that name was not working out so well, they're now selling the scam under the term "climate change". Either way its a way for the government and people like Al Gore make more money.
and a way to keep everyone bickering instead of DOING anything about it. is the planet warming? cooling? going through natural cycles? we can debate this forever but what CAN'T be debated is our negative impact on the planet, which is why they don't focus on the effects of pollution, deforestation.... but rather if the planet is warming up or not.
Nah, saying its a scam just means we can all feel less guilty about idling our big fuck off ford f150s and drink bottled water every day.
Don't drive f 150 or drink bottled water.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
it's all very confusing when I hear debate from both sides,they both seem to have good points but I should get off my lazy ass and research this myself and come up with my own answer (thanks cosmo).
Godfather.
...
I really believe that shit you hear and read about has to be taken with a TON of salt, these days. Especially, shit on television and AM Talk Radio. Journalism in America is dead. It is not longer about just giving us the facts... it's all about giving us THEIR opinions.
I mean, I am pretty certain that if you had a staff of people and told them to find predictions of environmental disasters that came true... you could come up with a set of predicitons and try to sell us them as FACTS that proves that man-made Global Warming IS true. That isn't journalism... it's a manipulation of data to fit the outcome you wish to project.
That is WHY we are now being FORCED to find the truth ourselves. We have to take in data and information from several sources (on both sides of the debate) and hash through them to figure out what is more likely to be true, than false. That used to be the role of the media... to give us the facts, not their opinions on what the truth should be. Nowadays, the truth takes a backseat to the sensationalist stories that will attract the advertisement dollars of companies trying to sell us boner pills.
To sit there and take the shit we see on T.V. as fact is exactly where they want us to be. Easily manipulated.
WOW !!! well said and true.
Godfather.
Godfather, the truth is in science reports. But there are false scientific websites out there with a slant. If you keep your research limited to authentic science data, you will find the truths regarding climate change.
it's all very confusing when I hear debate from both sides,they both seem to have good points but I should get off my lazy ass and research this myself and come up with my own answer (thanks cosmo).
Godfather.
most definitely ... one thing i would like to point out tho is that your original position is that global warming is a fraud ... you have to ask yourself why you started with that position before studying it yourself ...
it's all very confusing when I hear debate from both sides,they both seem to have good points but I should get off my lazy ass and research this myself and come up with my own answer (thanks cosmo).
Godfather.
most definitely ... one thing i would like to point out tho is that your original position is that global warming is a fraud ... you have to ask yourself why you started with that position before studying it yourself ...
t.v and a few things I've read, after some of the things I have read on here I'm wondering..for now I'm on the fence at least until I find some creditable reports as Jeanwah as pointed out.
I'd say it's wise to do your own research, and also question the credibility of those both for and against the hypothesis that man is directly responsible for climate change. There are people on both sides of the fence that stand to gain monetarily if either argument proves to be true.
t.v and a few things I've read, after some of the things I have read on here I'm wondering..for now I'm on the fence at least until I find some creditable reports as Jeanwah as pointed out.
Godfather.
exactly ...
and sure, there might be some companies out there developing "green" technology that might gain from this but c'mon - we're talking oil companies, mining companies, etc ... these guys are the industry that has brought about in 2010 alone ... massive oil spills, mining deaths, polluted watersheds ... they have far more to lose in this debate than there is to gain for those on the other side ...
Nah, saying its a scam just means we can all feel less guilty about idling our big fuck off ford f150s and drink bottled water every day.
That's about as fucking ignorant as saying all white people are trailer trash redneck racists, or all black people are violent hoodlums. It goes without question that certain elements of the climate change argument have been skewed to help push the agenda. You only have to look at some of the headlines last year, the emails, Al Gore, etc. Do a little research into carbon credits, and tell me there aren't huge profits just waiting to be had there.
Just because people don't lock onto something as gospel, when there has not been anywhere near enough consistent long-range data to prove it one way or the other, does not mean those people sit around and just shit all over the Earth. I love how a few people on here who slob all over this topic, try to hold themselves up on a pedestal, as if they are somehow doing more to protect the Earth than those uncivilized heathens who aren't completely sold. I can't think of one person within the community where I live that subscribes to the belief that man is causing the climate to change. However, I bet you ANY amount of money, that these people, along with myself probably do more to conserve, protect and renew our part of the planet than everyone else on this board combined. I'm not saying that to brag, I'm just saying we aren't sitting around in idling trucks drinking bottled water, so it's not smart to make such generalizations. My belief is simple, we should be stewards of this planet for the short time we are here, and I believe it is our responsibility to leave this place better than it was when we got here. That goes for everyone, whether you believe in the climate change business or not.
That's about as fucking ignorant as saying all white people are trailer trash redneck racists, or all black people are violent hoodlums. It goes without question that certain elements of the climate change argument have been skewed to help push the agenda. You only have to look at some of the headlines last year, the emails, Al Gore, etc. Do a little research into carbon credits, and tell me there aren't huge profits just waiting to be had there.
Just because people don't lock onto something as gospel, when there has not been anywhere near enough consistent long-range data to prove it one way or the other, does not mean those people sit around and just shit all over the Earth. I love how a few people on here who slob all over this topic, try to hold themselves up on a pedestal, as if they are somehow doing more to protect the Earth than those uncivilized heathens who aren't completely sold. I can't think of one person within the community where I live that subscribes to the belief that man is causing the climate to change. However, I bet you ANY amount of money, that these people, along with myself probably do more to conserve, protect and renew our part of the planet than everyone else on this board combined. I'm not saying that to brag, I'm just saying we aren't sitting around in idling trucks drinking bottled water, so it's not smart to make such generalizations. My belief is simple, we should be stewards of this planet for the short time we are here, and I believe it is our responsibility to leave this place better than it was when we got here. That goes for everyone, whether you believe in the climate change business or not.
i don't think it's that ignorant ... it speaks to the power of guilt ... people in general do not want to feel guilt because it compels people to act when they otherwise would not ...
the reality is that regardless of whether or not you believe in global warming - we are NOT good stewards of the planet ... and for MANY people, not believing in global warming is their excuse for continuing to waste and pollute ...
as for the debate itself - feel free to list specifics and i will gladly address them ... global warming is anthropogenic ... the science is clear ...
just because there are groups that seek to exploit the crisis - doesn't mean it does not exist ... especially if you are refering to carbon credits and cap and trade ... things that most environmentalists don't support ... when an issue is politicized - it often gets hijacked by groups ...
the fundamental science behind global warming is sound ... i am pretty sure that you are not able to cast any doubt on it ... sure, if you google "global warming is a fraud" - you'll get a lot of hits but they pretty much have no backbone to it ...
What I see going on with global warming/Climate change, unlike any other scientific issue, is a lot of politics. Scientists complaining of being pressured to sign on with global warming and ostracized when they do not comply. Scientists complaining of having their names stated as approving findings they do not agree with. So on and so forth, along with all of the recent scandals brought to light, which doesn't seem to bother our resident pearl jam scientists because scandals are not science so who cares?
So you have politics mixing with science on an issue that stands to make certain people quite a lot of money, and that being the case you can't expect the average person to not smell something fishy. There has been absolutely no attempt by the scientific community, or anyone here, to come clean on this, just more hammering of 'there's a concensus".Which is a shame, because I think environmentalism is very important, but too much time gets spent on this heavily politicized issue instead of environmental concerns no one doubts are going to bite us in the ass, such as deforestation.
That's about as fucking ignorant as saying all white people are trailer trash redneck racists, or all black people are violent hoodlums. It goes without question that certain elements of the climate change argument have been skewed to help push the agenda. You only have to look at some of the headlines last year, the emails, Al Gore, etc. Do a little research into carbon credits, and tell me there aren't huge profits just waiting to be had there.
Just because people don't lock onto something as gospel, when there has not been anywhere near enough consistent long-range data to prove it one way or the other, does not mean those people sit around and just shit all over the Earth. I love how a few people on here who slob all over this topic, try to hold themselves up on a pedestal, as if they are somehow doing more to protect the Earth than those uncivilized heathens who aren't completely sold. I can't think of one person within the community where I live that subscribes to the belief that man is causing the climate to change. However, I bet you ANY amount of money, that these people, along with myself probably do more to conserve, protect and renew our part of the planet than everyone else on this board combined. I'm not saying that to brag, I'm just saying we aren't sitting around in idling trucks drinking bottled water, so it's not smart to make such generalizations. My belief is simple, we should be stewards of this planet for the short time we are here, and I believe it is our responsibility to leave this place better than it was when we got here. That goes for everyone, whether you believe in the climate change business or not.
i don't think it's that ignorant ... it speaks to the power of guilt ... people in general do not want to feel guilt because it compels people to act when they otherwise would not ...
the reality is that regardless of whether or not you believe in global warming - we are NOT good stewards of the planet ... and for MANY people, not believing in global warming is their excuse for continuing to waste and pollute ...
as for the debate itself - feel free to list specifics and i will gladly address them ... global warming is anthropogenic ... the science is clear ...
just because there are groups that seek to exploit the crisis - doesn't mean it does not exist ... especially if you are refering to carbon credits and cap and trade ... things that most environmentalists don't support ... when an issue is politicized - it often gets hijacked by groups ...
the fundamental science behind global warming is sound ... i am pretty sure that you are not able to cast any doubt on it ... sure, if you google "global warming is a fraud" - you'll get a lot of hits but they pretty much have no backbone to it ...
The only people that should feel guilty are people that knowingly pollute and are wasteful. Canada is a big country with cold winters, its unreasonable to expect people to not drive places, this country has a lot of farms, farmers need trucks, construction workers need trucks, contractors need trucks, people who hunt likes trucks. Public transportation in most places in this country is just not an option, it's not an option for me.
What solutions would make greenies happy? seriously!!!! Oil companies provide a product that Canadians need, we use gas for heat, to fuel our vehicles etc.
You make not like to hear this but people in the green movement are making plenty of money as well.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
The only people that should feel guilty are people that knowingly pollute and are wasteful. Canada is a big country with cold winters, its unreasonable to expect people to not drive places, this country has a lot of farms, farmers need trucks, construction workers need trucks, contractors need trucks, people who hunt likes trucks. Public transportation in most places in this country is just not an option, it's not an option for me.
What solutions would make greenies happy? seriously!!!! Oil companies provide a product that Canadians need, we use gas for heat, to fuel our vehicles etc.
You make not like to hear this but people in the green movement are making plenty of money as well.
i'm not sure what the point of your post was - is it to say it's ok for some people to drive trucks? ...
either way - we don't NEED oil as much as people want to seem to think ... you can heat a home with a couple of logs of wood for days if it's properly insulated in the winter in canada ...
the first thing that would make "greenies" happy is have people acknowledge there is a problem and stop using the same tired myths to detract from the issue at hand ... like i said in the other post, people seek to exploit and make money from everything ... you got cancer? ... well, guess what - there's a company looking to exploit that ... does it mean we shouldn't fight cancer?
what i find truly sad tho is that the people i know who basically get paid diddly squat to fight for the environment are being lumped in as believing in this only to make a buck ... just further proof how uninformed people really are on the subject ...
what i find truly sad tho is that the people i know who basically get paid diddly squat to fight for the environment are being lumped in as believing in this only to make a buck ... just further proof how uninformed people really are on the subject ...
The same way people who question the hypothesis get the rep that they don't care about the Earth.
The only people that should feel guilty are people that knowingly pollute and are wasteful. Canada is a big country with cold winters, its unreasonable to expect people to not drive places, this country has a lot of farms, farmers need trucks, construction workers need trucks, contractors need trucks, people who hunt likes trucks. Public transportation in most places in this country is just not an option, it's not an option for me.
What solutions would make greenies happy? seriously!!!! Oil companies provide a product that Canadians need, we use gas for heat, to fuel our vehicles etc.
You make not like to hear this but people in the green movement are making plenty of money as well.
i'm not sure what the point of your post was - is it to say it's ok for some people to drive trucks? ...
either way - we don't NEED oil as much as people want to seem to think ... you can heat a home with a couple of logs of wood for days if it's properly insulated in the winter in canada ...
the first thing that would make "greenies" happy is have people acknowledge there is a problem and stop using the same tired myths to detract from the issue at hand ... like i said in the other post, people seek to exploit and make money from everything ... you got cancer? ... well, guess what - there's a company looking to exploit that ... does it mean we shouldn't fight cancer?
what i find truly sad tho is that the people i know who basically get paid diddly squat to fight for the environment are being lumped in as believing in this only to make a buck ... just further proof how uninformed people really are on the subject ...
Anyone who wants to drive a truck can, they have to pay for the gas!!! I'm not about to convert my home from natural gas, sorry, quite happy with natural gas!!!
You'll never be happy then, just as in debate there will always be people on both sides and those who are on the fence, as it should be, I would not want to live in a society without open debate.
Each side is allowed to form there own opinion.
Just to be clear, I believe all tax breaks and subsidies should end for all corporations, be it an oil company, manufacturer of windmill parts. Unfortunately that just not going to happen.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Anyone who wants to drive a truck can, they have to pay for the gas!!! I'm not about to convert my home from natural gas, sorry, quite happy with natural gas!!!
You'll never be happy then, just as in debate there will always be people on both sides and those who are on the fence, as it should be, I would not want to live in a society without open debate.
Each side is allowed to form there own opinion.
Just to be clear, I believe all tax breaks and subsidies should end for all corporations, be it an oil company, manufacturer of windmill parts. Unfortunately that just not going to happen.
uhhh ... do you debate that earth is flat? ... some things get debated and a consensus is reached ...
anyways - you do know that natural gas that heats home is different than using oil to heat a home right?
uhhh ... do you debate that earth is flat? ... some things get debated and a consensus is reached ...
anyways - you do know that natural gas that heats home is different than using oil to heat a home right?
I will post this again since you seemed to ignore it. What I see going on with global warming/Climate change, unlike any other scientific issue, is a lot of politics. Scientists complaining of being pressured to sign on with global warming and ostracized when they do not comply. Scientists complaining of having their names stated as approving findings they do not agree with. So on and so forth, along with all of the recent scandals brought to light, which doesn't seem to bother our resident pearl jam scientists because scandals are not science so who cares?
So you have politics mixing with science on an issue that stands to make certain people quite a lot of money, and that being the case you can't expect the average person to not smell something fishy. There has been absolutely no attempt by the scientific community, or anyone here, to come clean on this, just more hammering of 'there's a concensus".Which is a shame, because I think environmentalism is very important, but too much time gets spent on this heavily politicized issue instead of environmental concerns no one doubts are going to bite us in the ass, such as deforestation.
You can't just say concensus! with out providing proof, why all the scandals recently if its so concensus?
I will post this again since you seemed to ignore it. What I see going on with global warming/Climate change, unlike any other scientific issue, is a lot of politics. Scientists complaining of being pressured to sign on with global warming and ostracized when they do not comply. Scientists complaining of having their names stated as approving findings they do not agree with. So on and so forth, along with all of the recent scandals brought to light, which doesn't seem to bother our resident pearl jam scientists because scandals are not science so who cares?
So you have politics mixing with science on an issue that stands to make certain people quite a lot of money, and that being the case you can't expect the average person to not smell something fishy. There has been absolutely no attempt by the scientific community, or anyone here, to come clean on this, just more hammering of 'there's a concensus".Which is a shame, because I think environmentalism is very important, but too much time gets spent on this heavily politicized issue instead of environmental concerns no one doubts are going to bite us in the ass, such as deforestation.
You can't just say concensus! with out providing proof, why all the scandals recently if its so concensus?
sorry ... i ignored it essentially because you are talking out of one side of your mouth ... why don't you mention the "scientists" that are paid by oil companies to lie? ... and i've addressed the money and politics point numerous times already ... what is there to come clean about? ... the leaked emails issues has been put to rest ... all you are doing is rehashing talking points that have been addressed a thousand times over ...
i really can't believe that we are talking global warming and everyone here is using the "there's money to be made in promoting global warming" approach ... people have died all around the world while big corporations continue to sabotage this issue - made only possible really because of the lack of critical thinking ...
why is there consensus essentially around the world but not where it counts?
why is no one here prepared to argue the science? ...
sorry ... i ignored it essentially because you are talking out of one side of your mouth ... why don't you mention the "scientists" that are paid by oil companies to lie? ... and i've addressed the money and politics point numerous times already ... what is there to come clean about? ... the leaked emails issues has been put to rest ... all you are doing is rehashing talking points that have been addressed a thousand times over ...
i really can't believe that we are talking global warming and everyone here is using the "there's money to be made in promoting global warming" approach ... people have died all around the world while big corporations continue to sabotage this issue - made only possible really because of the lack of critical thinking ...
why is there consensus essentially around the world but not where it counts?
why is no one here prepared to argue the science? ...
Please post said science...
If it is so concensus then why all the falsification of data? Something that has always bothered me about the science of climate change is how the conclusion was drawn that man caused temperature changes at a global level. In a system as huge and complex as a planet how can temperature changes be attributed to a single cause? There is no proof that weather today is man made. Saying man is responsible for GW when our output is so minuscule has me dumbfounded. Especially when you consider that 70-80% of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is NATURAL water vapor!
Please post said science...
If it is so concensus then why all the falsification of data? Something that has always bothered me about the science of climate change is how the conclusion was drawn that man caused temperature changes at a global level. In a system as huge and complex as a planet how can temperature changes be attributed to a single cause? There is no proof that weather today is man made. Saying man is responsible for GW when our output is so minuscule has me dumbfounded. Especially when you consider that 70-80% of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is NATURAL water vapor!
you can easily find the science online if you care to search yourself ...
i will give you props for managing to put together 4 or 5 right wing talking points into one short paragraph ... what is unfortunate is that it clearly shows you do not know what you are talking about ... you even admit to being dumbfounded that man can cause changes at a global level which is a clear indication you don't understand the science ... i apologize if this appears to be talking down to you but i'm not too sure how else to say this ...
i repeat this over and over on these threads ... in fact, i implore ... if you truly care - educate yourself on the science ... if you want to add global warming as something you rail against because the people you listen to tell you too - then i really don't thing your worth the time ... the science is not complicated ...
and as for your falsification of data ... the CRU was investigated by 3 independent bodies and was cleared of any wrongdoing ...
Of course I know natural gas is a gas, its still a fossil fuel.the earth has been proven 100%. Global warming be caused by man hasn't. I think most people try to do what they can.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
“take someone who is 100 years old right now. In that one person’s 100 year lifetime, we will probably have used up half of the Earth’s oil and natural gas. We have used half of our most important fossil resources in one human lifetime. These are fossil resources that took millions and millions of years to create. In doing so, we’ve created enormous amounts of air pollution and most importantly we are changing the overall climate of the planet by putting all that carbon that was first in dinosaurs and later in oil and gas that was trapped underground and it’s in the atmosphere. It’s the largest uncontrolled experiment that we can possibly imagine. You kind of sometimes feel like Galileo, looking up at the moon saying, the Earth goes around the sun. There is a certain amount of that I think we have to get through.”
--Matt Baker, Executive Director of Environment Colorado Statewide Environmental Group and the State Public Research Interest group.
you can easily find the science online if you care to search yourself ...
i will give you props for managing to put together 4 or 5 right wing talking points into one short paragraph ... what is unfortunate is that it clearly shows you do not know what you are talking about ... you even admit to being dumbfounded that man can cause changes at a global level which is a clear indication you don't understand the science ... i apologize if this appears to be talking down to you but i'm not too sure how else to say this ...
i repeat this over and over on these threads ... in fact, i implore ... if you truly care - educate yourself on the science ... if you want to add global warming as something you rail against because the people you listen to tell you too - then i really don't thing your worth the time ... the science is not complicated ...
and as for your falsification of data ... the CRU was investigated by 3 independent bodies and was cleared of any wrongdoing ...
If I could easily find the science online i would not have asked for you to provide it. I asked you to provdie said seicntific studies peer reviewed. If its so simple please do so. I have looked into it and it seems that "YOUR " scientific comunity is nowhere near an agreement. http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.
If I could easily find the science online i would not have asked for you to provide it. I asked you to provdie said seicntific studies peer reviewed. If its so simple please do so. I have looked into it and it seems that "YOUR " scientific comunity is nowhere near an agreement. http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.
1. it IS easily found ... just google "science behind global warming" ... read the reports from the IPCC
2. your link doesn't work
3. Dr. Wallace Broecker is indeed a leading scientist on climate and he believes wholly in anthropogenic global warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Smith_Broecker
1. it IS easily found ... just google "science behind global warming" ... read the reports from the IPCC
2. your link doesn't work
3. Dr. Wallace Broecker is indeed a leading scientist on climate and he believes wholly in anthropogenic global warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Smith_Broecker
Sorry, here is workable link http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Of everything I read it is preatty clear that there is no CONCENSUS in the scientific comunity. You keep spouting off as CONCENSUS when there is non. If you claim to be as well educated on the subject that you are then you would see that. There are many factors that have to do with global warming. Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate. Hell there is evidence that this "global warming" has happened before industrialization. Unlike you, I like to think things through fully and look at ALL the evidence.
you obviously do not know anything about DOE. You prolly dont even know what it stands for.It stands for Design Of Experienment. To bad you dont know what it is. I am begining to wonder if you have any logic in you at all, any intelligent person would look at all the facts and draw a conclusion. In this particular instance concerning global warming, there is not enough facts to draw a conclusion at all. (man made).
Ive also heard about how magnetic energy plays a role as well as sun spot activity. Here is a quote from the link from Dr. Wallace Broecker
" I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor. "
1. it IS easily found ... just google "science behind global warming" ... read the reports from the IPCC
2. your link doesn't work
3. Dr. Wallace Broecker is indeed a leading scientist on climate and he believes wholly in anthropogenic global warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Smith_Broecker
Sorry, here is workable link http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Of everything I read it is preatty clear that there is no CONCENSUS in the scientific comunity. You keep spouting off as CONCENSUS when there is non. If you claim to be as well educated on the subject that you are then you would see that. There are many factors that have to do with global warming. Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate. Hell there is evidence that this "global warming" has happened before industrialization. Unlike you, I like to think things through fully and look at ALL the evidence.
you obviously do not know anything about DOE. You prolly dont even know what it stands for.It stands for Design Of Experienment. To bad you dont know what it is. I am begining to wonder if you have any logic in you at all, any intelligent person would look at all the facts and draw a conclusion. In this particular instance concerning global warming, there is not enough facts to draw a conclusion at all. (man made).
Ive also heard about how magnetic energy plays a role as well as sun spot activity. Here is a quote from the link from Dr. Wallace Broecker
" I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor. "
haha ... feel free to throw more slags my way ... it just continues to show what little you know ...
the only reason why you don't think there is a consensus is because you continue to read articles by people who aren't part of the scientific process ... find me one peer-reviewed article that states global warming is not caused by man ...
the only reason why you don't think there is a consensus is because you continue to read articles by people who aren't part of the scientific process ... find me one peer-reviewed article that states global warming is not caused by man ...
What is that article? an opinionated pseudo-science piece. You keep talking about the scientific process and nothing in that article expressed that... From my link that I doubt you read.
"Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last half million years. However, secondary greenhouse effects stemming from changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere to support greater concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide also appear to play a significant role. As demonstrated in the data above, of all Earth's greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the dominant player.
The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments, citing numbers similar to those in Table 4b . If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, it wasn't!"
Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.
And you sitting at your computer on a PJ forum are going to tell me there is a concensus when this guy quotes this??? Please shut up about your concensus and learn to do research yourself. You claim concensus and you posted one link to a site with no scientific data.
You should probably read through the link I posted as ther are other atmospheric physicists coming to the conclusion that there are multiple reasons for climate change and mans effect is negligible.
Comments
it's all very confusing when I hear debate from both sides,they both seem to have good points but I should get off my lazy ass and research this myself and come up with my own answer (thanks cosmo).
Godfather.
I really believe that shit you hear and read about has to be taken with a TON of salt, these days. Especially, shit on television and AM Talk Radio. Journalism in America is dead. It is not longer about just giving us the facts... it's all about giving us THEIR opinions.
I mean, I am pretty certain that if you had a staff of people and told them to find predictions of environmental disasters that came true... you could come up with a set of predicitons and try to sell us them as FACTS that proves that man-made Global Warming IS true. That isn't journalism... it's a manipulation of data to fit the outcome you wish to project.
That is WHY we are now being FORCED to find the truth ourselves. We have to take in data and information from several sources (on both sides of the debate) and hash through them to figure out what is more likely to be true, than false. That used to be the role of the media... to give us the facts, not their opinions on what the truth should be. Nowadays, the truth takes a backseat to the sensationalist stories that will attract the advertisement dollars of companies trying to sell us boner pills.
To sit there and take the shit we see on T.V. as fact is exactly where they want us to be. Easily manipulated.
Hail, Hail!!!
WOW !!! well said and true.
Godfather.
Don't drive f 150 or drink bottled water.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Godfather, the truth is in science reports. But there are false scientific websites out there with a slant. If you keep your research limited to authentic science data, you will find the truths regarding climate change.
most definitely ... one thing i would like to point out tho is that your original position is that global warming is a fraud ... you have to ask yourself why you started with that position before studying it yourself ...
t.v and a few things I've read, after some of the things I have read on here I'm wondering..for now I'm on the fence at least until I find some creditable reports as Jeanwah as pointed out.
Godfather.
exactly ...
and sure, there might be some companies out there developing "green" technology that might gain from this but c'mon - we're talking oil companies, mining companies, etc ... these guys are the industry that has brought about in 2010 alone ... massive oil spills, mining deaths, polluted watersheds ... they have far more to lose in this debate than there is to gain for those on the other side ...
That's about as fucking ignorant as saying all white people are trailer trash redneck racists, or all black people are violent hoodlums. It goes without question that certain elements of the climate change argument have been skewed to help push the agenda. You only have to look at some of the headlines last year, the emails, Al Gore, etc. Do a little research into carbon credits, and tell me there aren't huge profits just waiting to be had there.
Just because people don't lock onto something as gospel, when there has not been anywhere near enough consistent long-range data to prove it one way or the other, does not mean those people sit around and just shit all over the Earth. I love how a few people on here who slob all over this topic, try to hold themselves up on a pedestal, as if they are somehow doing more to protect the Earth than those uncivilized heathens who aren't completely sold. I can't think of one person within the community where I live that subscribes to the belief that man is causing the climate to change. However, I bet you ANY amount of money, that these people, along with myself probably do more to conserve, protect and renew our part of the planet than everyone else on this board combined. I'm not saying that to brag, I'm just saying we aren't sitting around in idling trucks drinking bottled water, so it's not smart to make such generalizations. My belief is simple, we should be stewards of this planet for the short time we are here, and I believe it is our responsibility to leave this place better than it was when we got here. That goes for everyone, whether you believe in the climate change business or not.
i don't think it's that ignorant ... it speaks to the power of guilt ... people in general do not want to feel guilt because it compels people to act when they otherwise would not ...
the reality is that regardless of whether or not you believe in global warming - we are NOT good stewards of the planet ... and for MANY people, not believing in global warming is their excuse for continuing to waste and pollute ...
as for the debate itself - feel free to list specifics and i will gladly address them ... global warming is anthropogenic ... the science is clear ...
just because there are groups that seek to exploit the crisis - doesn't mean it does not exist ... especially if you are refering to carbon credits and cap and trade ... things that most environmentalists don't support ... when an issue is politicized - it often gets hijacked by groups ...
the fundamental science behind global warming is sound ... i am pretty sure that you are not able to cast any doubt on it ... sure, if you google "global warming is a fraud" - you'll get a lot of hits but they pretty much have no backbone to it ...
So you have politics mixing with science on an issue that stands to make certain people quite a lot of money, and that being the case you can't expect the average person to not smell something fishy. There has been absolutely no attempt by the scientific community, or anyone here, to come clean on this, just more hammering of 'there's a concensus".Which is a shame, because I think environmentalism is very important, but too much time gets spent on this heavily politicized issue instead of environmental concerns no one doubts are going to bite us in the ass, such as deforestation.
The only people that should feel guilty are people that knowingly pollute and are wasteful. Canada is a big country with cold winters, its unreasonable to expect people to not drive places, this country has a lot of farms, farmers need trucks, construction workers need trucks, contractors need trucks, people who hunt likes trucks. Public transportation in most places in this country is just not an option, it's not an option for me.
What solutions would make greenies happy? seriously!!!! Oil companies provide a product that Canadians need, we use gas for heat, to fuel our vehicles etc.
You make not like to hear this but people in the green movement are making plenty of money as well.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
i'm not sure what the point of your post was - is it to say it's ok for some people to drive trucks? ...
either way - we don't NEED oil as much as people want to seem to think ... you can heat a home with a couple of logs of wood for days if it's properly insulated in the winter in canada ...
the first thing that would make "greenies" happy is have people acknowledge there is a problem and stop using the same tired myths to detract from the issue at hand ... like i said in the other post, people seek to exploit and make money from everything ... you got cancer? ... well, guess what - there's a company looking to exploit that ... does it mean we shouldn't fight cancer?
what i find truly sad tho is that the people i know who basically get paid diddly squat to fight for the environment are being lumped in as believing in this only to make a buck ... just further proof how uninformed people really are on the subject ...
The same way people who question the hypothesis get the rep that they don't care about the Earth.
Anyone who wants to drive a truck can, they have to pay for the gas!!! I'm not about to convert my home from natural gas, sorry, quite happy with natural gas!!!
You'll never be happy then, just as in debate there will always be people on both sides and those who are on the fence, as it should be, I would not want to live in a society without open debate.
Each side is allowed to form there own opinion.
Just to be clear, I believe all tax breaks and subsidies should end for all corporations, be it an oil company, manufacturer of windmill parts. Unfortunately that just not going to happen.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
uhhh ... do you debate that earth is flat? ... some things get debated and a consensus is reached ...
anyways - you do know that natural gas that heats home is different than using oil to heat a home right?
So you have politics mixing with science on an issue that stands to make certain people quite a lot of money, and that being the case you can't expect the average person to not smell something fishy. There has been absolutely no attempt by the scientific community, or anyone here, to come clean on this, just more hammering of 'there's a concensus".Which is a shame, because I think environmentalism is very important, but too much time gets spent on this heavily politicized issue instead of environmental concerns no one doubts are going to bite us in the ass, such as deforestation.
You can't just say concensus! with out providing proof, why all the scandals recently if its so concensus?
sorry ... i ignored it essentially because you are talking out of one side of your mouth ... why don't you mention the "scientists" that are paid by oil companies to lie? ... and i've addressed the money and politics point numerous times already ... what is there to come clean about? ... the leaked emails issues has been put to rest ... all you are doing is rehashing talking points that have been addressed a thousand times over ...
i really can't believe that we are talking global warming and everyone here is using the "there's money to be made in promoting global warming" approach ... people have died all around the world while big corporations continue to sabotage this issue - made only possible really because of the lack of critical thinking ...
why is there consensus essentially around the world but not where it counts?
why is no one here prepared to argue the science? ...
If it is so concensus then why all the falsification of data? Something that has always bothered me about the science of climate change is how the conclusion was drawn that man caused temperature changes at a global level. In a system as huge and complex as a planet how can temperature changes be attributed to a single cause? There is no proof that weather today is man made. Saying man is responsible for GW when our output is so minuscule has me dumbfounded. Especially when you consider that 70-80% of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is NATURAL water vapor!
you can easily find the science online if you care to search yourself ...
i will give you props for managing to put together 4 or 5 right wing talking points into one short paragraph ... what is unfortunate is that it clearly shows you do not know what you are talking about ... you even admit to being dumbfounded that man can cause changes at a global level which is a clear indication you don't understand the science ... i apologize if this appears to be talking down to you but i'm not too sure how else to say this ...
i repeat this over and over on these threads ... in fact, i implore ... if you truly care - educate yourself on the science ... if you want to add global warming as something you rail against because the people you listen to tell you too - then i really don't thing your worth the time ... the science is not complicated ...
and as for your falsification of data ... the CRU was investigated by 3 independent bodies and was cleared of any wrongdoing ...
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
--Matt Baker, Executive Director of Environment Colorado Statewide Environmental Group and the State Public Research Interest group.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.
1. it IS easily found ... just google "science behind global warming" ... read the reports from the IPCC
2. your link doesn't work
3. Dr. Wallace Broecker is indeed a leading scientist on climate and he believes wholly in anthropogenic global warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Smith_Broecker
Of everything I read it is preatty clear that there is no CONCENSUS in the scientific comunity. You keep spouting off as CONCENSUS when there is non. If you claim to be as well educated on the subject that you are then you would see that. There are many factors that have to do with global warming. Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate. Hell there is evidence that this "global warming" has happened before industrialization. Unlike you, I like to think things through fully and look at ALL the evidence.
you obviously do not know anything about DOE. You prolly dont even know what it stands for.It stands for Design Of Experienment. To bad you dont know what it is. I am begining to wonder if you have any logic in you at all, any intelligent person would look at all the facts and draw a conclusion. In this particular instance concerning global warming, there is not enough facts to draw a conclusion at all. (man made).
Ive also heard about how magnetic energy plays a role as well as sun spot activity. Here is a quote from the link from Dr. Wallace Broecker
" I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor. "
haha ... feel free to throw more slags my way ... it just continues to show what little you know ...
http://www.slate.com/id/2182564/
the only reason why you don't think there is a consensus is because you continue to read articles by people who aren't part of the scientific process ... find me one peer-reviewed article that states global warming is not caused by man ...
what is also funny is that you post this and then post a link that refers to DOE as the Department of Energy ...
"Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last half million years. However, secondary greenhouse effects stemming from changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere to support greater concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide also appear to play a significant role. As demonstrated in the data above, of all Earth's greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the dominant player.
The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments, citing numbers similar to those in Table 4b . If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, it wasn't!"
Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.
And you sitting at your computer on a PJ forum are going to tell me there is a concensus when this guy quotes this??? Please shut up about your concensus and learn to do research yourself. You claim concensus and you posted one link to a site with no scientific data.
You should probably read through the link I posted as ther are other atmospheric physicists coming to the conclusion that there are multiple reasons for climate change and mans effect is negligible.