Over 400 Scientists disput global warming

1…45679

Comments

  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    polaris wrote:
    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 ...

    the thing i'll never understand is that we debated the cause for the 10 years we had to slow; or maybe reverse it. yes; the ice has melted before. during 4 of the 5 mass extinctions. so we watch it melt when we had the technology to do something. now you'll all learn just how important that ice was. thank God i won't be here to see it.

    you've really been on top of this polaris. i'm proud you were my friend.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    onelongsong wrote:
    thank God i won't be here to see it.

    i believe this pretty much sums it up ... the lack of political will can be characterized as greed, selfishness and the fact they won't be around for the worst of it ...
  • krzzzymary
    krzzzymary Posts: 458
    I can't believe I just read 11 pages of this
    "You can bomb the world to pieces but you can't bomb into peace"
    Michael Franti
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    krzzzymary wrote:
    I can't believe I just read 11 pages of this

    welcome to the moving train :)
  • firstquartermoon
    firstquartermoon Posts: 103
    polaris wrote:
    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 ...


    Wait, which side are you on again?
    The truth is, we can only "see back" a few hundred thousand years. I watched a report on the Discovery Channel, and the scientist explained that since we can see back two (or three, I can't remember exactly) hundred thousand years, we can see back all the way back to the beginning of time (sarcasm).
    So in hundred thousand years we see increase in CO2 and ice melting. Also, chewing gum has increased in those years, as did voting democrat, population, life-span, vegetarians, vegans, hippies, hitler, WWII, Al Gore, Puppy Adoptions, and a whole host of things.
    We can see that the reason the dinosaurs are extinct is because they refused to stop burning fossil fuels.

    Honestly, Earth has changed more than we can imagine, and will continue to do so. To think that humans have arrived and Earth has reached it ultimate Epoch, and now must stop as it is, that is ridiculous.

    Where was Al Gore when our Super-Continent split apart? I bet it was those pesky CO2 sumbitches that did it.

    Anyway, things change, and we can live with it and adapt (as we have been and will do for millions of years) or we can piss and cry and whine that things aren't staying the same.
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    I didn't read the first ten pages. Frankly, I question anyone (especially scientists) who would spend his/her time disputing a mainstream hoax, (which isn't a hoax at all, really). All that negative energy trying to disprove a theory!

    Really, to all 400 of these "scientists". Get a life. Cherish your family and especially kids. Better yet, cherish your kids' future by taking care of our world NOW. It's not about trying to make a problem more of a issue, it's about SOLUTION. What we do now, by simply not littering or recycling make a big difference down the road for our kids than every arguing about the possibility that global warming exists. Glaciers are melting. No one can quite dispute that, so why bother.

    Do something instead of sitting here insisting nothing's happening! Are our kids not worth it?
  • Nevermind
    Nevermind Posts: 1,006
    Some people say we will see a brown dwarf in our sky next year.
  • searchlightsoul
    searchlightsoul Posts: 583
    onelongsong wrote:
    the thing i'll never understand is that we debated the cause for the 10 years we had to slow; or maybe reverse it. yes; the ice has melted before. during 4 of the 5 mass extinctions. so we watch it melt when we had the technology to do something. now you'll all learn just how important that ice was. thank God i won't be here to see it.

    you've really been on top of this polaris. i'm proud you were my friend.

    There's a lot of evidence in the fossil record that in fact atleast the past 3 glacial cycles (waxing and waning of ice sheets) have not resulted in major extinctions as you suggest. The past contraction of these ice sheets was far more significant than the present (ice sheets covering New York for example)but there were not major marine or terrestrial extinctions. Infact for most of earth history ice has not been present at the poles so it is slightly more complicated than your presenting.
  • chadwick
    chadwick up my ass Posts: 21,157
    Collin wrote:
    This won't change my mind. I've always been an advocate of less polution.

    Also, forget about global warming for a minute, man has clearly made an impact on earth, we're fucking up our fresh water and our air, we're chopping down woods etc.

    .(agreed
    fisheries, globally, affected
    forests, globally, affected
    wildlife endangered extinction, globally, affected
    human
    for poetry through the ceiling. ISBN: 1 4241 8840 7

    "Hear me, my chiefs!
    I am tired; my heart is
    sick and sad. From where
    the sun stands I will fight
    no more forever."
    Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
  • firstquartermoon
    firstquartermoon Posts: 103
    Jeanwah wrote:
    I didn't read the first ten pages. Frankly, I question anyone (especially scientists) who would spend his/her time disputing a mainstream hoax, (which isn't a hoax at all, really). All that negative energy trying to disprove a theory!

    Really, to all 400 of these "scientists". Get a life. Cherish your family and especially kids. Better yet, cherish your kids' future by taking care of our world NOW. It's not about trying to make a problem more of a issue, it's about SOLUTION. What we do now, by simply not littering or recycling make a big difference down the road for our kids than every arguing about the possibility that global warming exists. Glaciers are melting. No one can quite dispute that, so why bother.

    Do something instead of sitting here insisting nothing's happening! Are our kids not worth it?


    So you wouldn't mind wasting more of our money if nothing was happening? Yes, no polluting is better, but what price should we have to pay if there's nothing we can do to change it?
    Glaciers have always melted. They will continue to do so. Whether or not we want to cut off our left nuts to stop it (when there's nothing we can do to stop it) is important.
    Al Gore wants major changes in everything we do. But if we make all those changes, sacrifice left and right, and it still doesn't change anything, wouldn't you say "why didn't we learn more before taking drastic actions"?
    Is the cure worse than the disease?
    That's what we need to know.
  • chromiam
    chromiam Posts: 4,114
    Nevermind wrote:
    Some people say we will see a brown dwarf in our sky next year.

    was their work peer-reviewed???
    This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.

    Admin

    Social awareness does not equal political activism!

    5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    firstquartermoon wrote:
    So you wouldn't mind wasting more of our money if nothing was happening? Yes, no polluting is better, but what price should we have to pay if there's nothing we can do to change it?
    Glaciers have always melted. They will continue to do so. Whether or not we want to cut off our left nuts to stop it (when there's nothing we can do to stop it) is important.
    Al Gore wants major changes in everything we do. But if we make all those changes, sacrifice left and right, and it still doesn't change anything, wouldn't you say "why didn't we learn more before taking drastic actions"?
    Is the cure worse than the disease?
    That's what we need to know.

    Dude, it's not WASTING our money. Not to mention that you don't need to buy a thing to make a difference. Clean up a yard, the shoulder of a highway or a beach.

    If you choose not to evolve, that's your personal problem. The world is constantly changing and we need to change with it. If science shows that human activity is changing climate or weather patterns, it is our responsibility to look into it further. We OWE THIS TO OUR NEXT GENERATION. If you don't want kids, that's your business, but to say that we shouldn't do a thing, shouldn't lift a finger, shouldn't be open to the idea that change is constant and that we may be responsible for it, is a pretty ignorant statement.

    One thing is for certain. If we do end up in an Ice Age, or some drastic cyclical event as has happened since the beginning, our civilization won't be around to see it. And you can bet your nuts on that.

    P.S. I am a girl, I don't have nuts.
  • chromiam
    chromiam Posts: 4,114
    Jeanwah wrote:
    One thing is for certain. If we do end up in an Ice Age, or some drastic cyclical event as has happened since the beginning, our civilization won't be around to see it. And you can bet your nuts on that.

    I wanna know how you can say that, since there are civilizations of people who live in extremely cold regions of the world (Eskimos/ Inuits)?? It's a basic fact that people have adapted to their environment over the years whether the weather was cold, warm, moderate, or a mixture. Now, yes there may be a point where the Earth becomes inhabitable for people but to say that an Ice Age would cause the end of civilization is shortsighted.
    This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.

    Admin

    Social awareness does not equal political activism!

    5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
  • Nevermind
    Nevermind Posts: 1,006
    chromiam wrote:
    was their work peer-reviewed???
    It was discovered on walls in ancient sumeria. 80% of all other galaxies have 2 suns. Its been predicted in the bible and if you have any knowledge in the occult you may know what im talking about.
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    chromiam wrote:
    I wanna know how you can say that, since there are civilizations of people who live in extremely cold regions of the world (Eskimos/ Inuits)?? It's a basic fact that people have adapted to their environment over the years whether the weather was cold, warm, moderate, or a mixture. Now, yes there may be a point where the Earth becomes inhabitable for people but to say that an Ice Age would cause the end of civilization is shortsighted.

    Eskimos and Indians have long lived off of the Land. They know how to survive because they don't buy into industrialization or technology. They are the only Humans who have the skills to really survive. In other words, if ANYONE should survive a little while, it would be them, sure. But if we ever came into another severe Ice Age, we won't survive, pending on the severity.

    Not to mention this. It's really egotistical to think only of our own civilization here. By "adapting" to temperature differences, it forces any animal species to go North or South in search of their comfort temp. That means that they are forced to LEAVE THEIR HABITAT. How long do you think any animal is going to survive out of their own habitat? Not long, not long at all. We all perish if we're forced to leave what makes us thrive.
  • chromiam
    chromiam Posts: 4,114
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Eskimos and Indians have long lived off of the Land. They know how to survive because they don't buy into industrialization or technology. They are the only Humans who have the skills to really survive. In other words, if ANYONE should survive a little while, it would be them, sure. But if we ever came into another severe Ice Age, we won't survive, pending on the severity.

    Not to mention this. It's really egotistical to think only of our own civilization here. By "adapting" to temperature differences, it forces any animal species to go North or South in search of their comfort temp. That means that they are forced to LEAVE THEIR HABITAT. How long do you think any animal is going to survive out of their own habitat? Not long, not long at all. We all perish if we're forced to leave what makes us thrive.

    So you are saying that only certain humans have basic survival instincts??? Again pretty shortsighted.

    As for forcing animals from their habitat, it has been happening for centuries without being the fault of humans. The Earth's climate and conditions have changed over the centuries and animals, as well as man, have had to leave their habitat to cope.
    This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.

    Admin

    Social awareness does not equal political activism!

    5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    chromiam wrote:
    So you are saying that only certain humans have basic survival instincts??? Again pretty shortsighted.

    As for forcing animals from their habitat, it has been happening for centuries without being the fault of humans. The Earth's climate and conditions have changed over the centuries and animals, as well as man, have had to leave their habitat to cope.

    AND, these animals aren't thriving if the temp difference is great. If it's minimal, they certainly have a better chance of survival.
  • firstquartermoon
    firstquartermoon Posts: 103
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Eskimos and Indians have long lived off of the Land. They know how to survive because they don't buy into industrialization or technology. They are the only Humans who have the skills to really survive. In other words, if ANYONE should survive a little while, it would be them, sure. But if we ever came into another severe Ice Age, we won't survive, pending on the severity.

    Not to mention this. It's really egotistical to think only of our own civilization here. By "adapting" to temperature differences, it forces any animal species to go North or South in search of their comfort temp. That means that they are forced to LEAVE THEIR HABITAT. How long do you think any animal is going to survive out of their own habitat? Not long, not long at all. We all perish if we're forced to leave what makes us thrive.


    We've already survived one ice age, alone with many animals, so who's to say we wouldn't survive another?
    And you seem to be under the impression that there haven't been millions of species of animals that have gone extinct that had NOTHING to do with humans. animals and the earth have been changing (CONSTANTLY) forever.
    You insult me for not being willing to change, and yet you fight AGAINST things changing, because we'll all perish if things change.
    Anmd then you personally attack me, ignoring the billions of dollars Al Gore has spent, and wants to spend in the future (and that's our taxes I'm talking about) on GW, and how we need to stop it. But if there's no problem, then we've been wasting our money. And instead of investing this money in ways to stop GW (if you believe in it) he's spent all the money on "research" designed to scare us into pissing ourselves in fear.
    that's what I'm against.
    So, personal attacks aside, that's my problem with it. Other than saying, "Oh, biofuels, we need to put money into developing other sources of energy." I haven't heard of these people putting Their own money into solving their "problem".
    I can listen to ideas and theories, but I can't stand being called ignorant for wanting proof that isn't inside an alarmist package.
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    firstquartermoon wrote:
    We've already survived one ice age, alone with many animals, so who's to say we wouldn't survive another?
    And you seem to be under the impression that there haven't been millions of species of animals that have gone extinct that had NOTHING to do with humans. animals and the earth have been changing (CONSTANTLY) forever.
    You insult me for not being willing to change, and yet you fight AGAINST things changing, because we'll all perish if things change.
    Anmd then you personally attack me, ignoring the billions of dollars Al Gore has spent, and wants to spend in the future (and that's our taxes I'm talking about) on GW, and how we need to stop it. But if there's no problem, then we've been wasting our money. And instead of investing this money in ways to stop GW (if you believe in it) he's spent all the money on "research" designed to scare us into pissing ourselves in fear.
    that's what I'm against.
    So, personal attacks aside, that's my problem with it. Other than saying, "Oh, biofuels, we need to put money into developing other sources of energy." I haven't heard of these people putting Their own money into solving their "problem".
    I can listen to ideas and theories, but I can't stand being called ignorant for wanting proof that isn't inside an alarmist package.

    personal attacks? whatever, nowhere did I attack you. That's when I stop this BS. You're crazy, and I'm not playing your game anymore.
  • GreenTeaDisease
    GreenTeaDisease Posts: 3,359
    here's the thing. the greenhouse effect is a proven effect. no one disputes this. no one disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. No one disputes that the earth is getting warmer. No one disputes that we've emitted a lot of CO2 during the same period that the earth has gotten warmer. in science there's a thing called correlation and causation. we've got correlation. anyone can make up reasons to dispute causation. but there are the facts, take what you will from it. causation is extremely hard to prove.

    also, the government edits scientific papers involving climate change. don't forget that.

    oh and for the person who said "what harm can there be in polluting less." Well here's the thing, CO2 and methane are the 2 biggest problems when it comes to climate change, and these aren't really pollutants so to speak. in fact EPA is not allowed to classify them as pollutants (there was a recent supreme court ruling that may have changed this but I'm not sure what effect it's had yet, I don't think any yet). CO2 in the air can't really harm a person or ecosystem DIRECTLY EXCEPT for greenhouse effects. that's why whether or not there is global warming is an issue. *pollutant-pollutants* from the usual sources are already regulated. CO2 is not. Without climate change there would be no reason to regulate CO2.

    All I know is, I went to environmental management school for 2 years, and I'm pretty well convinced there's a climate change problem.

Categories