Ok stop disputing (man's effect on) climate change
Obi Once
Posts: 918
Today a new UN report has been presented leaving no doubt about the impact of human activity on global warmig:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.
The report was produced by some 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of government reviewers also participated. Representatives from 113 governments reviewed and revised the Summary line-by-line during the course of this week before adopting it and accepting the underlying report.
And here the reason you believe the lies:
1) Bush administration accused of doctoring scientists' reports on climate change
· Inconvenient conclusions censored, hearing told
· Researchers warned not to talk about global warming
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2002485,00.html
2) Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.
The report was produced by some 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of government reviewers also participated. Representatives from 113 governments reviewed and revised the Summary line-by-line during the course of this week before adopting it and accepting the underlying report.
And here the reason you believe the lies:
1) Bush administration accused of doctoring scientists' reports on climate change
· Inconvenient conclusions censored, hearing told
· Researchers warned not to talk about global warming
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2002485,00.html
2) Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html
your light's reflected now
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Carbon Dioxide is what plants breath. It doesn't cause temperature change. If it does, it's insignificant. That's what I think anyway.
i feel fine.
http://www.myspace.com/brain_of_c
Polar Ice Caps are melting on Mars.
Is that b/c of our SUVs also?
why is there so much resistance to reports like this...? I mean, is it a "bad thing" to want to make changes that will slow the release of toxins and such...?
Because it's junk science. It may very well be true, but there's just no way these scientist can be sure that it's true. So when they come out with these assertions based upon a miniscule observable timeframe when compared to the history of the earth it's ridiculous.
And no, it's not a bad thing to slow the release of toxins, but then let's just call for that and leave this climate change stuff out of it.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
um...so, on one hand, you disagree with the "science" behind it, but on the other hand, you agree that slowing the release of toxins is not a "bad thing"....if the science is "junk" why would agree to slow the release of toxins....?
junk science?? ... you got any "real" science to back your claim ... and please do not post your what was the weather like 1,000,000 years ago stuff ... this report has all the scientific information one needs to make an informed opinion ...
yes - plants breath co2 but when u cut down all the trees and u produce more then before ... you're gonna get an imbalance ...
really - at this point ... the debate should move from are we doing this to what can we do about it ...
i believe its one of two things: 1. some people have just invested so much in trying to refute it that they don't want to back down. or 2. they are still buying the PR campaign that was launched by opponents a long time ago ... they are probably googling "climate change is a fraud" instead "what is climate change" ...
They are two different things. There are plenty of truly measurable bad effects of pollution to dispute that.
But to translate all the way into thinking that humans are definitely making an impact on the global climate based upon a few years of observations is silly.
I don't understand why people just stop blathering on and on about climate change and just start talking about pollution.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Junk science. And what did you learn in school pertaining to science? That everything is irrelevant? Subjective? Duh. When people stop listening to scientists, who are researching the FACTS, what do the people on this Earth have left?
A lot of Republicans like yourself Miller, have no reason but your own ignorance to not face the facts.
a few years? ... funny but sad ...
most unintelligent people tend not to be...
so, your issue is with how you are being told pollution is bad....but you agree pollution is bad....
I definitely agree that pollution is very bad and harms the environment.
I definitely think scientists have no clue how or if it is affecting the CLIMATE (climate being different from the environment)
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
The majority of the scientific community, a collection of some of the smartest men and women on the earth who have done and actually UNDERSTAND science and the research, are all making these claims.
I just don't know how you can throw out arbitrary "facts" about how this worldwide problem isn't existing.
That would be like me telling Stephen Hawking that his theory on quantum physics is bullshit. Then again if I want him to be wrong, he will be wrong.
Look at it this way. What if a scientist studied one tenth of a second of your life and then made claims and predictions about the rest of your life. Those predictions might even come true, but there would be absolutely no confidence in them.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So we ignore it until we have our whole life to study and it's too late?
Genius argument that one :rolleyes:
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
Or this - scientist have only been keeping mildly accurate data for about the same time that parts of the world have become industrialized. They don't really have a way to compare to changes over that period of time against a set of conditions that did not include industrialization. Therefore, there is no control group. What if the earth had exhibited the exact same weather patterns and temperatures over the last 100 years or so even without industrialization? It just might have, because they can't study that.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Yawn. I'm definitely not saying that. You just made it up for me.
I am agreeing we should reduce pollution. I am just disagreeing about the level of confidence scientists could possibly have in their claims about the impact on climate change.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Well, if that scientist has the means to study one tenth of a second my life but could figure out a good percentage of the rest from other data and information, and if the worldwide community agrees with it then I might consider what they had to say as being somewhat accurate.
I disagree with that. There are scientists "in their field" who disagree with them as well. How are they allowed to do it?
You could take the reverse - that if you're not in their field, you can't logically agree with their findings, either.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
There is no other data they can study. They are looking a the tiniest of fractions of the data and that's all they have.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
god is real and climate change/global warming is a myth....
If so, those would both be very good things.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
interesting.
OK, so you don't have confidence in their claims about the impact, fine, nothing is black and white but you agree on reducing pollution, so the cure we are agreed on, just not the diagnosis? end result same...
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...