Fox News On Global Warming

13

Comments

  • Obi Once
    Obi Once Posts: 918
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    I guess all of these folks aren't real then:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skeptic
    They're real but outnumbered.

    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."
    your light's reflected now
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    I guess all of these folks aren't real then:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skeptic
    That is not a peer-reviewed journal. there are not any peer reviewed journals there. They are real, but their peer-reviewed journals are not.
  • gabers
    gabers Posts: 2,787
    miller8966 wrote:
    i dont believe in global warming.

    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.
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    gabers wrote:
    But it's happening. No knowledgeable person disputes this.

    This guy was the tops in his science class and he disputes it.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    This guy was the tops in his science class and he disputes it.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

    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
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    sourdough wrote:
    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
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    He maintains that it is a debatable issue.
    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?
  • gabers
    gabers Posts: 2,787
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    This guy was the tops in his science class and he disputes it.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

    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
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    sourdough wrote:
    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
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    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)
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    sourdough wrote:
    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
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    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?
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    sourdough wrote:
    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
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    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.
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    sourdough wrote:
    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
  • Puck78
    Puck78 Posts: 737
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Um.
    He knows more about global climate than you.
    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.
    www.amnesty.org
    www.amnesty.org.uk
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Its snowing in Arizona
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Flagstaff is a gorgeous little city.
    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.
  • thankyougrandma
    thankyougrandma Posts: 1,182
    Humans do not pullute... Humans are going in the good (the right one) direction, stay the course...
    "L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
    -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    chiefojibwa wrote:
    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!!!

Categories