Ok stop disputing (man's effect on) climate change

Obi Once

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

Ahnimus

Hey, I don't doubt human contribution to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. I doubt it's effects on global temperature.

Carbon Dioxide is what plants breath. It doesn't cause temperature change. If it does, it's insignificant. That's what I think anyway.

Obi Once

Ahnimus wrote:

Hey, I don't doubt human contribution to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. I doubt it's effects on global temperature.

Carbon Dioxide is what plants breath. It doesn't cause temperature change. If it does, it's insignificant. That's what I think anyway.

Than you are uninformed.

brain of c

it's the end of the world as we know it.






i feel fine.

Obi Once

Ok, I'll elaborate, yes you are correct, plants breathe CO2, which we emit in many ways, ways that have increased significantly over the last decades. The report clearly states that we contribute the mayority of gasses that lead to global warming.

brain of c wrote:

it's the end of the world as we know it.






i feel fine.

Man I feel great! Life is what you make it.

Drew263

Obi Once wrote:

Than you are uninformed.

Polar Ice Caps are melting on Mars.

Is that b/c of our SUVs also?

inmytree

can somebody help me understand...

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...?

know1

inmytree wrote:

can somebody help me understand...

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.

inmytree

know1 wrote:

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.

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....?

polaris

know1 wrote:

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.

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 ...

polaris

inmytree wrote:

can somebody help me understand...

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...?

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" ...

know1

inmytree wrote:

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....?

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.

Jeanwah

know1 wrote:

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.

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.

polaris

know1 wrote:

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.

a few years? ... funny but sad ...

miller8966

Im not worried

dunkman

miller8966 wrote:

Im not worried

most unintelligent people tend not to be...

inmytree

know1 wrote:

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.

so, your issue is with how you are being told pollution is bad....but you agree pollution is bad....

know1

inmytree wrote:

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)

mca47

I just want to know the level of scientific education and knowledge people have on this board who throw out this bold claims.
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.

know1

mca47 wrote:

I just want to know the level of scientific education and knowledge people have on this board who throw out this bold claims.
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.

UKDave

know1 wrote:

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.

So we ignore it until we have our whole life to study and it's too late?

Genius argument that one :rolleyes: