It will take me less than two minutes to find a credible scientist who disagrees and he too will know more about global climate than you or anyone here. What's your point?
It will take me less than two minutes to find a credible scientist who disagrees and he too will know more about global climate than you or anyone here. What's your point?
My point is that there is still a debate on global warming. There are still many skeptical scientists and no one should claim that man-made global warming is entirely factual.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
My point is that there is still a debate on global warming. There are still many skeptical scientists and no one should claim that man-made global warming is entirely factual.
I agree but no one should claim it's bullshit either, in all fairness.
Anyway, I think there are more reasons than global warming to change our ways. We are polluting our water and our air, we are using up our natural sources... In my opinion, it would be a good thing to switch to green energy as fast as we can, whether the global warming is really man-made or not.
I agree but no one should claim it's bullshit either, in all fairness.
Anyway, I think there are more reasons than global warming to change our ways. We are polluting our water and our air, we are using up our natural sources... In my opinion, it would be a good thing to switch to green energy as fast as we can, whether the global warming is really man-made or not.
I know many new buildings are being built as "green" buildings or something like that.
I agree but no one should claim it's bullshit either, in all fairness.
Anyway, I think there are more reasons than global warming to change our ways. We are polluting our water and our air, we are using up our natural sources... In my opinion, it would be a good thing to switch to green energy as fast as we can, whether the global warming is really man-made or not.
I completely agree. I care 2 shits what Al Gore thinks or says but I think it's in our best interest as humans to take care of our mother earth.
My point is that there is still a debate on global warming. There are still many skeptical scientists and no one should claim that man-made global warming is entirely factual.
Has this person ever written a peer reviewed paper which argues AGAINST climate change? I'm guessing not because there are none.
My point is that there is still a debate on global warming. There are still many skeptical scientists and no one should claim that man-made global warming is entirely factual.
Are these the same scientists who are skeptical about evolution and they maintain that the earth was created 5000 years ago by god? The fact is, that when you look at temperature trends (and I know that only the last 100 years or so have been officially recorded), you can actually see that the increase is fairly proportional to our use of GHGs. I'm not saying that global warming is a bad thing, seeing as I live somewhere that regularly sees the temperature drop below -40°, but to deny that global warming is happening is idiotic. But then again, these "global warming deniers" routinely spout idiocy on this forum.
1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
Notice that this article is from the US Senate. It's well known that the Bush Admin. has tried to hush scientists that don't work for them (especially one working at NASA) by threatening them with removal from their job positions. The one from NASA actually came out with an article detailing how he was forced to censor his research of global warming findings, or he would be dismissed. He took that dismissal to expose the administration. Of course, anything coming from the U.S. Gov't is going to deny global warming is actually happening.
I know many new buildings are being built as "green" buildings or something like that.
Buildings get better isolation and climate systems to conserve energy. Because of high oil prices new sources for energy, its conservation and more effective usage will be researched even more. I doubt the doom scenarios those fox guys are flashing with, I think we will all accept it soon enough.
Anyone in this thread who think global warming isnt a fact and that man and it's wasting of natural resources, poluting the world, claiming land, has an effect on it is misinformed. You are the ones being manipulated by the media.
The link posted is from OPINIONjournal, that doesnt add to making it factual. The vast mayority of scientists agrees on what some here are skeptical about and this mayority disagrees with what the spin doctors on Fox have to say. It like evolution, some religious folk here will question it, like some scientists do, but that doesnt make evolution less of a fact.
Global warming from Wikipedia:
Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation into the future. Global average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 °Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 °Fahrenheit) in the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
There is a strong consensus among scientists that recent warming is caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and that warming will continue with serious consequences if emissions continue. Some scientists disagree, most commonly asserting that, although warming is occurring, its cause is either natural or unknown.
...
A 2004 essay in the journal Science [26] reported a survey of abstracts of peer-reviewed, research articles related to global, climate change in the ISI database. Of the 900+ such abstracts found, none contradicted the view of the major scientific organizations that "the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling."
But it's happening. No knowledgeable person disputes this. I think what you're getting at is all of the fossil fuels we're burning up have no effect on global temperatures. I bet you were the tops in science class.
Actually, no he doesn't. He agrees that climate change is human induced, but disagrees that humans are the primary cause.
"Firstly, it is clear that Lindzen only signs up to the first point of the basic 'consensus' as outlined here previously, that the planet has indeed warmed significantly over the 20th century. While he accepts that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have increased due to human activities, and that this should warm the planet, he does not accept that it is necessarily an important component in the 20th century rise." http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=222
Actually, no he doesn't. He agrees that climate change is human induced, but disagrees that humans are the primary cause.
"Firstly, it is clear that Lindzen only signs up to the first point of the basic 'consensus' as outlined here previously, that the planet has indeed warmed significantly over the 20th century. While he accepts that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have increased due to human activities, and that this should warm the planet, he does not accept that it is necessarily an important component in the 20th century rise." http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=222
He maintains that it is a debatable issue.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Fair enough, but he does not deny climate change. Has he written any peer reviewed literature on the subject? If not can you link or refer to one? I'm looking for a solid piece of scientific literature that is not an internet/magazine/media article. Anything in a scientific journal?
I guess I should have phrased that differently, aside from the sarcasm. There are some dissenters. I lifted this profound fact from wikipedia.
In December 2004, an article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[1] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". The abstracts were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
Here's the link for the for the full article. It does mention dissent. I guess something as politically charged as this subject would always have dissent. Often, if you do a little research, the dissenters are funded by various organizations. But the vast majority of the world's true experts agree there is a warming trend, globally, and that anthropological activities are very likely a main reason for that. There is wiggle room because this is science, and it is impossible to absolutely prove a theory.
Fair enough, but he does not deny climate change. Has he written any peer reviewed literature on the subject? If not can you link or refer to one? I'm looking for a solid piece of scientific literature that is not an internet/magazine/media article. Anything in a scientific journal?
Probably. Look it up somewhere! I'm not your toadie.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Probably. Look it up somewhere! I'm not your toadie.
My point is you probably couldn't. There really isn't any. You keep referring to this one article as your evidence but refuse to debate the science. Do you accept the greenhouse effect? I was just wondering if all of your inforamtion was tied up in one article or if you had more to go on to support your position which you seem to believe strongly in. That is great that you hold a position on the subject, but I would be concerned if you got all of your information from unscientific sources (ie. random internet sites and wikipedia)
My point is you probably couldn't. There really isn't any. You keep referring to this one article as your evidence but refuse to debate the science. Do you accept the greenhouse effect? I was just wondering if all of your inforamtion was tied up in one article or if you had more to go on to support your position which you seem to believe strongly in. That is great that you hold a position on the subject, but I would be concerned if you got all of your information from unscientific sources (ie. random internet sites and wikipedia)
The problem with global warming is that a lot of the funding goes to groups that must first admit that global warming is occurring. Then they receive funding. If they oppose it, they don't get funding.
It's a wholly unscientific process.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
The problem with global warming is that a lot of the funding goes to groups that must first admit that global warming is occurring. Then they receive funding. If they oppose it, they don't get funding.
It's a wholly unscientific process.
By "groups" do you mean universities? The vast majority of scientific research in the realm of climate change is done through universities. I think the reason why there is difficulty gettin funding for opposition groups is because it is so well accepted now that it is hard to be taken seriously as a skeptic. Sorta like if you are trying to get funding for creationism over evolution.
When climate change was first proposed, it was the complete opposite. The vast majority were skeptics and it was difficult to get funding for promoting the theory until enough research was done to prove it.
Do you agree with the greenhouse effect? What do you object to on scientific terms?
I think the reason why there is difficulty gettin funding for opposition groups is because it is so well accepted now that it is hard to be taken seriously as a skeptic. Sorta like if you are trying to get funding for creationism over evolution.
Do you agree with the greenhouse effect? What do you object to on scientific terms?
Comparing skepticism of global warming to creationism is competely absurd and any skeptical scientist would be appalled at that.
I believe in the greenhouse effect in theory. After all, we can see it happening on Venus. hehe!!
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Comparing skepticism of global warming to creationism is competely absurd and any skeptical scientist would be appalled at that.
I believe in the greenhouse effect in theory. After all, we can see it happening on Venus. hehe!!
I don't think its that absurd. There are many "scientists" who dispute evolution and there are creationists who are also scientists. They just are not taken seriously. There is minimal debate between those who believe in evolution and those who do not, similar to the debate about climate change.
If you accept the greenhouse effect, and you can agree that humans are responsible for emitting billions of tons of CO2 annually, than how can you dispute human role in climate change. If an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere results in more insolation being trapped with the earth, than it follwos that the energy that would normally be lost would heat the earth.
I don't understand how you can accept the greenhouse effect and the fact that humans are responsible for adding billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere (above background amounts) and still insist that there is no cause and effect with climate change.
I don't think its that absurd. There are many "scientists" who dispute evolution and there are creationists who are also scientists. They just are not taken seriously. There is minimal debate between those who believe in evolution and those who do not, similar to the debate about climate change.
If you accept the greenhouse effect, and you can agree that humans are responsible for emitting billions of tons of CO2 annually, than how can you dispute human role in climate change. If an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere results in more insolation being trapped with the earth, than it follwos that the energy that would normally be lost would heat the earth.
I don't understand how you can accept the greenhouse effect and the fact that humans are responsible for adding billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere (above background amounts) and still insist that there is no cause and effect with climate change.
I believe the CO2 output is minimally affecting climate. Barely enough to notice, especially in comparison to past climate changes.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
he disagrees with the hype. Other atmosphere experts from the MIT instead think that global warming is a reality. So, because YOU are not the expert, YOU can just guess which one of them is right. If you agree more with Lindzen than with any other, well, you're the Looney Tool.
this is not news. where i live in arizona, our annual snowfall is 120 inches. and although rare, it usually snows at least once a year in the desert.
i have lived in flagstaff for 8 years now, and we have had below average annual precipitation all but one of those years. during the 2004-2005 winter we had above average precip, but a lot of it that should have fallen as snow fell as rain. the reason? the storms were 1-3 degrees warmer than usual. we rely on that snowpack for water and to delay the start of our fire season. when we get rain in the winter instead of snow it really does not do us much good.
it snowed in Phoenix. wait your telling me it snows in the mountains? SHOCKING well done!!!
Comments
It will take me less than two minutes to find a credible scientist who disagrees and he too will know more about global climate than you or anyone here. What's your point?
naděje umírá poslední
My point is that there is still a debate on global warming. There are still many skeptical scientists and no one should claim that man-made global warming is entirely factual.
-Enoch Powell
I agree but no one should claim it's bullshit either, in all fairness.
Anyway, I think there are more reasons than global warming to change our ways. We are polluting our water and our air, we are using up our natural sources... In my opinion, it would be a good thing to switch to green energy as fast as we can, whether the global warming is really man-made or not.
naděje umírá poslední
I completely agree. I care 2 shits what Al Gore thinks or says but I think it's in our best interest as humans to take care of our mother earth.
I guess all of these folks aren't real then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skeptic
-Enoch Powell
Are these the same scientists who are skeptical about evolution and they maintain that the earth was created 5000 years ago by god? The fact is, that when you look at temperature trends (and I know that only the last 100 years or so have been officially recorded), you can actually see that the increase is fairly proportional to our use of GHGs. I'm not saying that global warming is a bad thing, seeing as I live somewhere that regularly sees the temperature drop below -40°, but to deny that global warming is happening is idiotic. But then again, these "global warming deniers" routinely spout idiocy on this forum.
Notice that this article is from the US Senate. It's well known that the Bush Admin. has tried to hush scientists that don't work for them (especially one working at NASA) by threatening them with removal from their job positions. The one from NASA actually came out with an article detailing how he was forced to censor his research of global warming findings, or he would be dismissed. He took that dismissal to expose the administration. Of course, anything coming from the U.S. Gov't is going to deny global warming is actually happening.
Anyone in this thread who think global warming isnt a fact and that man and it's wasting of natural resources, poluting the world, claiming land, has an effect on it is misinformed. You are the ones being manipulated by the media.
The link posted is from OPINIONjournal, that doesnt add to making it factual. The vast mayority of scientists agrees on what some here are skeptical about and this mayority disagrees with what the spin doctors on Fox have to say. It like evolution, some religious folk here will question it, like some scientists do, but that doesnt make evolution less of a fact.
Global warming from Wikipedia:
Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation into the future. Global average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 °Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 °Fahrenheit) in the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
****
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science. Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
and the full read:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
There is a strong consensus among scientists that recent warming is caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and that warming will continue with serious consequences if emissions continue. Some scientists disagree, most commonly asserting that, although warming is occurring, its cause is either natural or unknown.
...
A 2004 essay in the journal Science [26] reported a survey of abstracts of peer-reviewed, research articles related to global, climate change in the ISI database. Of the 900+ such abstracts found, none contradicted the view of the major scientific organizations that "the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling."
But it's happening. No knowledgeable person disputes this. I think what you're getting at is all of the fossil fuels we're burning up have no effect on global temperatures. I bet you were the tops in science class.
This guy was the tops in his science class and he disputes it.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
-Enoch Powell
Actually, no he doesn't. He agrees that climate change is human induced, but disagrees that humans are the primary cause.
"Firstly, it is clear that Lindzen only signs up to the first point of the basic 'consensus' as outlined here previously, that the planet has indeed warmed significantly over the 20th century. While he accepts that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have increased due to human activities, and that this should warm the planet, he does not accept that it is necessarily an important component in the 20th century rise."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=222
He maintains that it is a debatable issue.
-Enoch Powell
I guess I should have phrased that differently, aside from the sarcasm. There are some dissenters. I lifted this profound fact from wikipedia.
In December 2004, an article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[1] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". The abstracts were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
Here's the link for the for the full article. It does mention dissent. I guess something as politically charged as this subject would always have dissent. Often, if you do a little research, the dissenters are funded by various organizations. But the vast majority of the world's true experts agree there is a warming trend, globally, and that anthropological activities are very likely a main reason for that. There is wiggle room because this is science, and it is impossible to absolutely prove a theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Probably. Look it up somewhere! I'm not your toadie.
-Enoch Powell
The problem with global warming is that a lot of the funding goes to groups that must first admit that global warming is occurring. Then they receive funding. If they oppose it, they don't get funding.
It's a wholly unscientific process.
-Enoch Powell
When climate change was first proposed, it was the complete opposite. The vast majority were skeptics and it was difficult to get funding for promoting the theory until enough research was done to prove it.
Do you agree with the greenhouse effect? What do you object to on scientific terms?
Comparing skepticism of global warming to creationism is competely absurd and any skeptical scientist would be appalled at that.
I believe in the greenhouse effect in theory. After all, we can see it happening on Venus. hehe!!
-Enoch Powell
If you accept the greenhouse effect, and you can agree that humans are responsible for emitting billions of tons of CO2 annually, than how can you dispute human role in climate change. If an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere results in more insolation being trapped with the earth, than it follwos that the energy that would normally be lost would heat the earth.
I don't understand how you can accept the greenhouse effect and the fact that humans are responsible for adding billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere (above background amounts) and still insist that there is no cause and effect with climate change.
I believe the CO2 output is minimally affecting climate. Barely enough to notice, especially in comparison to past climate changes.
-Enoch Powell
www.amnesty.org.uk
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau