Over 400 Scientists disput global warming

1…456810

Comments

  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    stu gee wrote:
    My logical decision is that i dont see any more evidence supporting the theory that you hold, than evidence supporting the theory opposite to yours. I am interested in it and think im fairly conscious about environmental issues but i just dont fully believe that the situation is as drastic as many people make out.

    can you see the ice melting; mate? can you look at a satellite photo of the ice in 2000 and then a recent photo. can you see that we've lost over half the ice? that's all i'm asking.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    I'm providing sourced statements... all you are doing is whining.
    You want credentials... the guy is the Director of the Lake Chad Research Institute. And he based his estimations and assessments on the NASA funded 2001 report from Michael T. Coe Ph.D. - University of Wisconsin-Madison - 1997, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and Jon Foley, Director of the Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment (SAGE) at the University of Wisconsin, where he is also the Gaylord Nelson Distinguished Professor of Environmental Studies and Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences.
    I think that if taken the two... comments made from William Bata Ndahi based upon his assessments of the findings of a NASA funded project as to the reasons why Lake Chad was shrinking by university scientists... and you... most reasonable people will come to the conclusion that you are the less credible source.
    If you can sight a report that contradicts their report... then, please, direct me to them and I'll compare their finding with Coe and Foley's.
    You can go ahead and question them all you want... all I'm saying is that they would probably have a bit more insight on the Lake Chad problem than you would.

    no two scientist will agree so what's the point. i can find several that disagree with matching credentials so you're just pissing in the wind.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    "Because of unrelenting human demand for water, Africa's Lake Chad, once one of the continent's largest bodies of fresh water, has shriveled to a ghost of a great lake.
    In a few decades, Lake Chad has shrunk to a size smaller than Great Salt Lake from a surface area the size of Lake Erie, university scientists Michael T. Coe and Jonathan A. Foley write in the Feb. 27 issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research.
    "It's about one-twentieth of the size it was 35 years ago," says Coe, who led the NASA-supported study by the Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment. "It's a huge change" from 25,000 square kilometers of surface area in 1963 to 1,350 square kilometers today.
    The human need for water, mostly through massive irrigation projects, and the competing demands of the four nations that share the lake, account for almost 30 percent of the observed decrease in lake area since the early 1960s, say Coe and Foley."
    "The amount of water diverted to nearby fields over the past 40 years has affected the lake's equilibrium. Add poverty, political instability and national rivalries over a scarce resource to the mix, and a recipe for ecological disaster results, Coe says."
    ""The Chari River and the lake are the important, life-sustaining systems for this corner of the world," Coe says. "Irrigation activity is significant, and they now have more capacity than they can use because there is less water."
    Until about 1979, irrigation had a modest impact on the hydrology of the region. But between 1983 and 1994, the amount of water diverted for irrigation quadrupled over water used for the previous 25 years. In addition to the radically reduced lake surface area, the flow of water from the primary river system that feeds it has decreased by almost 75 percent over the past 40 years."
    (Source: Under human pressure, Africa's Lake Chad disappearing - Feb. 27, 2001 by Terry Devitt)
    ...
    Then, question William Bata Ndahi, University scientists Michael T. Coe and Jonathan A. Foley, not me. I'm basing my statements on their research and their findings. They did all of the work in developing their model, not me. I'm just using their findings to base my comments on.
    I just happen to find them as more reliable sources as to the reasons of Lake Chad's problems than you. I do this by comparing their credentials against yours and... call me crazy... I choose to believe the Director of the Lake Chad Research Institute and scientist published in the Journal of Geophysical Research rather than some random gal on a Pearl Jam forum.

    you've proved my point. the higher temperatures cause the rain to evaporate before they can replenish the lake. GLOBAL WARMING. the water is now saline from evaporation. keep up the research; you're almost there.

    now doesn't it feel good to do something for yourself and not have someone else hand it to you?
  • stu gee
    stu gee Posts: 1,174
    onelongsong wrote:
    can you see the ice melting; mate? can you look at a satellite photo of the ice in 2000 and then a recent photo. can you see that we've lost over half the ice? that's all i'm asking.

    Ice has a habit of melting sometimes from what i gather, but seriously, all im saying is that you cant possibly know for sure that this isnt natural. How many millions of years have you been on this planet? You have been here for a dot in time, so how do you know this isnt part of some kind of cycle. As i said, im not denying or confirming anything, i just find it funny how people are so sure of themselves when explaining global warming to me, and refuse to even consider that they might be wrong. I just keep an open mind until there is solid evidence. And once again ill say that ive seen nothing more substantial supporting your theory than i have supporting the opposite one.
    People say im paranoid. Well, they dont say it, but i know that's what they are thinking.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    stu gee wrote:
    Ice has a habit of melting sometimes from what i gather, but seriously, all im saying is that you cant possibly know for sure that this isnt natural. How many millions of years have you been on this planet? You have been here for a dot in time, so how do you know this isnt part of some kind of cycle. As i said, im not denying or confirming anything, i just find it funny how people are so sure of themselves when explaining global warming to me, and refuse to even consider that they might be wrong. I just keep an open mind until there is solid evidence. And once again ill say that ive seen nothing more substantial supporting your theory than i have supporting the opposite one.

    there is solid evidence ... the only thing that is NOT solid is the exact impacts ... the debate is long over ...

    i suppose if you're just reading op/eds from biased sources (from both sides) then you might still be confused but the reality is that it is no longer debated amongst the world parties - what is debated now is what we are gonna do about it ...
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    do some of y'all think that the UN would hold huge conferences every year with almost all countries participating on setting emission targets on the whim of some possible theory!?? ... the world cares too much about money/resources to do things like that ... don't let these PR firms and lobbyists fool ya ... the shit is for real ...
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    polaris wrote:
    do some of y'all think that the UN would hold huge conferences every year with almost all countries participating on setting emission targets on the whim of some possible theory!?? ... the world cares too much about money/resources to do things like that ... don't let these PR firms and lobbyists fool ya ... the shit is for real ...

    the voice of reason. that's a great point.
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    onelongsong wrote:
    you've proved my point. the higher temperatures cause the rain to evaporate before they can replenish the lake. GLOBAL WARMING. the water is now saline from evaporation. keep up the research; you're almost there.

    now doesn't it feel good to do something for yourself and not have someone else hand it to you?
    ...
    So... you admit that your statement that the largest lake in Africa is reduced to a mud puddle due to Global Warming is as FALSE STATEMENT.
    My point is that there are several factors involved here... yes, Global Warming is a factor as well as resource mismangement, dams, waste and irrigation. If your statement was true... then, shouldn't all lakes in the region be affected... or does Global Warming target specific lakes?
    The Study states that the rivers feeding the lake have been diverted for irrigation purposes. So, you believe thatr Farming is the same as Global Warming?
    ...
    It does feel good to makes statements of fact. You should try it sometimes... it's probably better than making up shit or lying.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    stu gee wrote:
    Ice has a habit of melting sometimes from what i gather, but seriously, all im saying is that you cant possibly know for sure that this isnt natural. How many millions of years have you been on this planet? You have been here for a dot in time, so how do you know this isnt part of some kind of cycle. As i said, im not denying or confirming anything, i just find it funny how people are so sure of themselves when explaining global warming to me, and refuse to even consider that they might be wrong. I just keep an open mind until there is solid evidence. And once again ill say that ive seen nothing more substantial supporting your theory than i have supporting the opposite one.

    i've been here for a dot; but we have knowledge of history back millions of years. and history always repeats itself. and if this is natural; kiss your arse good bye b/c it's following in the footsteps of a mass extinction.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    So... you admit that your statement that the largest lake in Africa is reduced to a mud puddle due to Global Warming is as FALSE STATEMENT.
    My point is that there are several factors involved here... yes, Global Warming is a factor as well as resource mismangement, dams, waste and irrigation. If your statement was true... then, shouldn't all lakes in the region be affected... or does Global Warming target specific lakes?
    The Study states that the rivers feeding the lake have been diverted for irrigation purposes. So, you believe thatr Farming is the same as Global Warming?
    ...
    It does feel good to makes statements of fact. You should try it sometimes... it's probably better than making up shit or lying.

    all the lakes are effected. do more research sonny.
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    onelongsong wrote:
    all the lakes are effected. do more research sonny.
    ...
    Sorry.. WRONG!!! again.
    ...
    Was that one of your lies... or just more crap you made up?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    onelongsong wrote:
    no two scientist will agree so what's the point. i can find several that disagree with matching credentials so you're just pissing in the wind.
    ...
    Then, FIND them. Give me their names... point me to thier research papers. let me decide.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    Jeanie wrote:
    What's the matter?? Frightened I'll take all the hot air space away from you?
    I like how if it's my assessment it's shite but if it's yours it's gotta be so much smarter than the average bears! Fat head much?
    ...
    This is just... well... sad.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Fighting Hellfish
    Fighting Hellfish Posts: 3,175
    So 200 Exxon scientists and 200 Getty scientists got together and put out a report, eh? I bet they hand delivered it to someone who could get Exxon's, I mean their, opinions to the masses. So they got this report, and of course a hefty check from Exxom/Mobil/BP/etc... right to the hands of Rush Limbo, Sean "Hypocrite" hannity. They spread the word, there is no consensus, further study is needed, blah, blah, ka ching!
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    Then, FIND them. Give me their names... point me to thier research papers. let me decide.

    you would debunk my scientists just as i have scientists to debunk yours. if you're truely interested; look and ye shall find. the other 2 major lakes are lake malawi and lake victoria. there's your start.
  • glasshouse
    glasshouse Posts: 1,762
    gabers wrote:
    Look, there is a direct coorelation with and increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and increased global temps. That is as simple as you can make it, this is a statistic that you simply can't dispute.

    if it is really as straight forward as you put it what on earth are 400 prominent scientists fussing about????????????
    obviously it is not "as simple"
    Athens, Greece: 2006/09/30

    "Call me Ishmael. Some years ago- never mind how long precisely- having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world." Herman Melville : Moby Dick
  • glasshouse
    glasshouse Posts: 1,762
    onelongsong wrote:
    400 scientists out of what? 4 million? so we have 400 idiots that can't see the ice melting. those 400 idiots can't read growth rings of corals. those 400 idiots have never been to a city and seen the brown clouds hanging over them. these 400 idiots paid to speak this before congress so the oil companies cannot be held responsable.
    let's see how many idiots believe them.

    fucksakes. they see the ice rings melting etc etc, they are disputing the cause. your dubbing of scientists opposing the greenhouse effect tools for oil companies are tired. really. ever considered that our CO2 emission are not the cause??? the ice have melt before fabrics existed.
    Athens, Greece: 2006/09/30

    "Call me Ishmael. Some years ago- never mind how long precisely- having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world." Herman Melville : Moby Dick
  • baraka
    baraka Posts: 1,268
    I think one needs to distinguish between GW (or CC, climate change) and AGW.

    There seems to be a consensus on GW/CC (we are certainly experiencing it locally) but seems to be greater disagreement on the anthropogenic role.

    I would like to stress that I think that there are sufficient elements on the table to take the hypothesis of AGW seriously, and be 'better safe than sorry' and think about what one can do against it right now. But in as much as I find that there is enough material on the table to consider the hypothesis of AGW, and to deal with its potential consequences, I also find that the scientific case is far from established. The latter, by definition, means that the debate should be open, and that the attitude (not of the politicians, but of the scientists) should be critical.
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • glasshouse
    glasshouse Posts: 1,762
    baraka wrote:
    I think one needs to distinguish between GW (or CC, climate change) and AGW.

    There seems to be a consensus on GW/CC (we are certainly experiencing it locally) but seems to be greater disagreement on the anthropogenic role.

    I would like to stress that I think that there are sufficient elements on the table to take the hypothesis of AGW seriously, and be 'better safe than sorry' and think about what one can do against it right now. But in as much as I find that there is enough material on the table to consider the hypothesis of AGW, and to deal with its potential consequences, I also find that the scientific case is far from established. The latter, by definition, means that the debate should be open, and that the attitude (not of the politicians, but of the scientists) should be critical.

    that's what I'm sayin'
    Athens, Greece: 2006/09/30

    "Call me Ishmael. Some years ago- never mind how long precisely- having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world." Herman Melville : Moby Dick
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    glasshouse wrote:
    fucksakes. they see the ice rings melting etc etc, they are disputing the cause. your dubbing of scientists opposing the greenhouse effect tools for oil companies are tired. really. ever considered that our CO2 emission are not the cause??? the ice have melt before fabrics existed.

    the problem is that these scientists aren't getting their work peer-reviewed ... they are published as op-ed pieces in magazines and websites that tout a certain philosophy ... every time their work gets scrutinized it always fails in the scientific community ... it's a ploy that has been used for years by corporate interests to change public policy ...

    the greenhouse effect is really very simple - it's not hard to prove ... there is no debate anymore ...

Categories