-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
Your Opinion On global warming, and what should humanity do about it?
- Thread starter Pokemon-Dratini
- Start date
Vermehlo_Steele
Grand Arbiter II
Try not to twist what I say next time.
FEEPtheFlareon
Crazy but not insane
According to a source (not saying that it's true) that was just released today, we haven't had any warming in the last 15 years.;136;
If the source is what I think it is, it is from a recent interview with Dr Jones, the scientist who was at the center of the Climategate controversy.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010...admits-uks-climate-scientist/?test=latestnews
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
Fox News said:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010...admits-uks-climate-scientist/?test=latestnews
UK Daily Mail said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
FEEPtheFlareon
Crazy but not insane
I guesss that's it. I heard it on the radio this morning.;136;
PokemonLeagueChamp
Team Aero Leader
Yeah....we just got buried in about a foot of snow here in New York.
DATZ A SIGN OV GLOBL WARMING GUYZ!
But seriously, liberals and pro-global warming scientists can't tell us how we're causing global warming ON MARS(I doubt it's from Martian life), nor do they want to tell you that we had a global warming spell 10,000 years ago(end of last ice age), when industry didn't exist. No, it wasn't too many humans exhaling too much carbon dioxide. Not to mention that the Arctic ice sheet may well be shrinking, but the Antarctic ice sheet is growing. You can check all of this. It is all true.
Now do I think we can be a little cleaner with industry? Yes. Pollution and trash themselves kill plenty of animals, not to mention the increasing numbers of pollution-related disease and death in us humans. Solar and wind power would be a good way to go, but I don't want some politician with 15 houses, a fleet of private jets and cars, who takes one of his bunch of yachts on a vacation every 2 weeks telling me that I need to cut back.
DATZ A SIGN OV GLOBL WARMING GUYZ!
But seriously, liberals and pro-global warming scientists can't tell us how we're causing global warming ON MARS(I doubt it's from Martian life), nor do they want to tell you that we had a global warming spell 10,000 years ago(end of last ice age), when industry didn't exist. No, it wasn't too many humans exhaling too much carbon dioxide. Not to mention that the Arctic ice sheet may well be shrinking, but the Antarctic ice sheet is growing. You can check all of this. It is all true.
Now do I think we can be a little cleaner with industry? Yes. Pollution and trash themselves kill plenty of animals, not to mention the increasing numbers of pollution-related disease and death in us humans. Solar and wind power would be a good way to go, but I don't want some politician with 15 houses, a fleet of private jets and cars, who takes one of his bunch of yachts on a vacation every 2 weeks telling me that I need to cut back.
Last edited:
I heard about it too.
If there is no global warming, why they did all these committees climate?
They should check it well and then to decide on the committees.
ccangelopearl1362
Well-Known Member
National Review: Rich Lowry: Climate Alarmism Acknowledges Doubt
The collapse of anthropogenic climate change’s “consensus” continues, and it’s reached all the way to the very scientists charged with exploring Earth’s weather patterns as meticulously as possible. Between their uncertainty about paleoclimactic records and their thunderousness, if that really is what their pronouncements amount to, about melting Himalayan glaciers and reduced African crop yields, these scientists and all too many politicians and businesspersons have succumbed to the demand to reduce human activity by any means necessary in favor of greater oneness with nature. It will be appropriate that a backlash is building among certain companies and insiders against such environmental extremists, if that’s what we’re still calling them, for deceiving us about their intended impacts on Earth’s natural resources and attributes and steering us toward an all-powerful global regime that eviscerates the global market system and transfers wealth according to the whims of the perpetually revengeful… despite any individual initiatives.:
Fox News Channel: Three Major Firms Pull Out of Climate Change Alliance
Times of London: UN must investigate warming ‘bias’, says former climate chief
BP America, Caterpillar, and ConocoPhillips have decided to withdraw from that coalition lobbying President Barack Obama, his advisors, and Congress to seize the moment on this issue, citing concerns about oil imports, American refinery closures, and job losses. They could very well want to devise their own technological advances to explore for natural gas and shale oil, and Professor Robert Watson might be happy to examine such new technology himself, enlisting any other Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change insiders who’ve run out of patience with Al Gore and climate alarmism’s demands to ration global energy supplies. I can’t imagine how far they’d be willing to go in the face of the recent blizzard blanketing the northeastern United States – including Washington, D.C. – but the IPCC itself may dissolve into ever mounting deadlock as a consequence of this tumbling house of cards. If even Obama himself realizes just how extensively this tomfoolery has encroached, then he could develop a new course of action to expand America’s nuclear energy reserves, among others, while heeding the words of not only religious leaders more inclined toward unleashing human creativity, but also the governor of no less than… my home state.:
British Broadcasting Corporation: US to build two new nuclear power stations
Reuters: Texas to challenge U.S. greenhouse gas rules
Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation: Cornwall Stewardship Agenda
Cutting 16 million tons’ worth of carbon pollution while creating hundreds of well-paid nuclear research jobs may work just fine under this new policy on Obama’s part, but how much further can he go in advancing nuclear energy if the human mind can also create “high-yield, pest- and disease-resistant food crops that provide increased yields and lower the price of staples in poor nations plagued by hunger” and utilize land resources to their fullest extent, among other courses of action supported by the Cornwall Alliance? Such environmental utilization might best complement Governor Rick Perry’s efforts to find agricultural regulations that achieve this basic end of human creativity in environmental development and greenhouse gas reduction, creating a new impulse toward measuring our natural resources as they are without insisting on controlling the Earth’s weather patterns. That said, my personal favorite anecdote in this debate comes from a certain Islamic terrorist whose involvement is and will be unwelcome for environmental extremists.:
Investor’s Business Daily: The Greening of Osama bin Laden
Of all the people to recommend openly boycotting American products to protest our supposed exploitation of less developed countries, it would have to be the man whose organization brought down two towers that attracted businesses from all over the world. Osama bin Laden bashed George Walker Bush for backing away from the Kyoto Protocol, which could only portend a new leap toward economic retribution against America away from environmental concern. If I ever needed a reason to conclude that anthropogenic climate change is a gigantic hoax, then bin Laden’s pronouncement may break the camel’s back in a way that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could not conceive of doing.
The collapse of anthropogenic climate change’s “consensus” continues, and it’s reached all the way to the very scientists charged with exploring Earth’s weather patterns as meticulously as possible. Between their uncertainty about paleoclimactic records and their thunderousness, if that really is what their pronouncements amount to, about melting Himalayan glaciers and reduced African crop yields, these scientists and all too many politicians and businesspersons have succumbed to the demand to reduce human activity by any means necessary in favor of greater oneness with nature. It will be appropriate that a backlash is building among certain companies and insiders against such environmental extremists, if that’s what we’re still calling them, for deceiving us about their intended impacts on Earth’s natural resources and attributes and steering us toward an all-powerful global regime that eviscerates the global market system and transfers wealth according to the whims of the perpetually revengeful… despite any individual initiatives.:
Fox News Channel: Three Major Firms Pull Out of Climate Change Alliance
Times of London: UN must investigate warming ‘bias’, says former climate chief
BP America, Caterpillar, and ConocoPhillips have decided to withdraw from that coalition lobbying President Barack Obama, his advisors, and Congress to seize the moment on this issue, citing concerns about oil imports, American refinery closures, and job losses. They could very well want to devise their own technological advances to explore for natural gas and shale oil, and Professor Robert Watson might be happy to examine such new technology himself, enlisting any other Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change insiders who’ve run out of patience with Al Gore and climate alarmism’s demands to ration global energy supplies. I can’t imagine how far they’d be willing to go in the face of the recent blizzard blanketing the northeastern United States – including Washington, D.C. – but the IPCC itself may dissolve into ever mounting deadlock as a consequence of this tumbling house of cards. If even Obama himself realizes just how extensively this tomfoolery has encroached, then he could develop a new course of action to expand America’s nuclear energy reserves, among others, while heeding the words of not only religious leaders more inclined toward unleashing human creativity, but also the governor of no less than… my home state.:
British Broadcasting Corporation: US to build two new nuclear power stations
Reuters: Texas to challenge U.S. greenhouse gas rules
Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation: Cornwall Stewardship Agenda
Cutting 16 million tons’ worth of carbon pollution while creating hundreds of well-paid nuclear research jobs may work just fine under this new policy on Obama’s part, but how much further can he go in advancing nuclear energy if the human mind can also create “high-yield, pest- and disease-resistant food crops that provide increased yields and lower the price of staples in poor nations plagued by hunger” and utilize land resources to their fullest extent, among other courses of action supported by the Cornwall Alliance? Such environmental utilization might best complement Governor Rick Perry’s efforts to find agricultural regulations that achieve this basic end of human creativity in environmental development and greenhouse gas reduction, creating a new impulse toward measuring our natural resources as they are without insisting on controlling the Earth’s weather patterns. That said, my personal favorite anecdote in this debate comes from a certain Islamic terrorist whose involvement is and will be unwelcome for environmental extremists.:
Investor’s Business Daily: The Greening of Osama bin Laden
Of all the people to recommend openly boycotting American products to protest our supposed exploitation of less developed countries, it would have to be the man whose organization brought down two towers that attracted businesses from all over the world. Osama bin Laden bashed George Walker Bush for backing away from the Kyoto Protocol, which could only portend a new leap toward economic retribution against America away from environmental concern. If I ever needed a reason to conclude that anthropogenic climate change is a gigantic hoax, then bin Laden’s pronouncement may break the camel’s back in a way that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could not conceive of doing.
scythemantis
Creepy crawly
Wow. Hell of a lot of childishness and ignorance here. I can't believe that even a teenager is foolish enough to question global warming because it's COLD OUT. Newsflash: the entire point of climate change is hotter summers and colder, more widespread winters. That is what happens when the planet's mean temperature goes up by a couple degrees.
Second, there has been no such "dry spell" and anthropogenic climate change has in no way begun to "collapse." The media takes a few minority theories and twists it until it sounds like there's a big controversy, when in fact, most (as in more than 99%) of the scientific community has found the same consistent evidence for generations that the temperature has abnormally spiked due to human pollutants. It's settled. It's not debatable. You have to be insane to believe they're all making the same mistake (we're talking about scientists of every field conducting experiments of every variety with every form of equipment at mankind's disposal) and more insane to believe they're all in on a hoax (we're talking about the same results from rival scientists in rival corporations in rival COUNTRIES)
I am incredibly saddened that the post above me tries to dig up "sources" and every single one is a mainstream media source. If you get any of your opinions from "news sources" like television shows, magazines and radio programs then I'm afraid you have no right to that opinion because you have heard nothing close to the original source of that information. You need to start over from square one. FOX and Newsweek and CNN are not laboratories. I can't believe anyone bases their knowledge of science off what businesses and politicians have to say.
The "controversy" and "debate" only exists in your heads, planted there by a media that craves the ratings and talk that it generates. I am downright ashamed of some of you.
Second, there has been no such "dry spell" and anthropogenic climate change has in no way begun to "collapse." The media takes a few minority theories and twists it until it sounds like there's a big controversy, when in fact, most (as in more than 99%) of the scientific community has found the same consistent evidence for generations that the temperature has abnormally spiked due to human pollutants. It's settled. It's not debatable. You have to be insane to believe they're all making the same mistake (we're talking about scientists of every field conducting experiments of every variety with every form of equipment at mankind's disposal) and more insane to believe they're all in on a hoax (we're talking about the same results from rival scientists in rival corporations in rival COUNTRIES)
I am incredibly saddened that the post above me tries to dig up "sources" and every single one is a mainstream media source. If you get any of your opinions from "news sources" like television shows, magazines and radio programs then I'm afraid you have no right to that opinion because you have heard nothing close to the original source of that information. You need to start over from square one. FOX and Newsweek and CNN are not laboratories. I can't believe anyone bases their knowledge of science off what businesses and politicians have to say.
The "controversy" and "debate" only exists in your heads, planted there by a media that craves the ratings and talk that it generates. I am downright ashamed of some of you.
Last edited:
Oh really? So you seem to know the views of 99% of the scientific community? Every scientist all over the world? How did you collect all of these views? Are you sure this is what they actually believe? Or what they go along with to get research grants and to be taken seriously by their peers?
Which is as pathetically stupid as it is unscientific. Nothing is ever "Settled" in science, especially when information is constantly coming in and changing, and especially when it has become as rabid and political as Climate Change. The information that has coming out of the CRU and IPCC over the last few months should be proof of that. Believing it is settled and not debatable shows some one that only does not understand science, but some one who does not understand Climate Change and is afraid their views are wrong.
Doesn't have to be every scientist, the information on Global Warming by and large comes from several main organizations ( CRU, NOAA, NASA for example ), one of those organizations has been utterly discredited as of late. It also has raised deep questions as to how all of them calculate the heating of the earth, as massive fraud has been shown in the monitoring of Weather Stations close to urban areas compared to weather stations out in the middle of no where.
Controversy and Debate have existed due to the utter incompetence and the pathetic management of the IPCC and the CRU. AGW would not quickly becoming a discredited view in the eyes of the public if it were not for Climate Gate and the errors in the 4th IPCC report. The media cannot make a controversy out of nothing, and ignoring the facts of the controversy on your part shows a substantial amount of fear.
Last edited:
scythemantis
Creepy crawly
Do you have any idea what grant money is? Federal funding doesn't go into scientist's pockets. A one million dollar grant is for a one million dollar experiment. The scientists involved get paid the same basic wage they always did.
Despite what the ironically named "right" wants to believe, tax dollars do not line lab coats with gold. Scientists have a difficult and thankless job and there ISN'T any path to fame and fortune that involves falsifying data. It just flat-out does not work that way. Scientists have everything to lose by being wrong and nothing to gain.
It's very easy to find out the general consensus of the scientific community. Thousands are publishing studies every single day.
This is a layman's misconception.
Do you honestly believe there's any room to debate that germs cause disease? That water freezes at a particular temperature? That metal conducts electricity? I could, of course, go on for the rest of my life listing off things for you that have been settled as fact. The effects of our pollutants are among them.
To the media. I already explained this. Within the scientific community, there is no significant fighting over Climate Change other than how best to combat it, and nothing new or different has been discovered in decades; only further confirmation of what was theorized in the very beginning. Scientists LOOK for evidence that it might not be happening or might be happening some other way - that's what they all WISH they could find. They can't. They fail. They continue to find the same results because they cannot change reality.
Science is apolitical, and is only twisted into a political crutch when it becomes a mainstream issue, which is irrelevant. The mainstream public doesn't have the capacity to properly understand and address scientific discoveries. They're chickens clucking at each other over how the farmer's tractor works.
Say hello to every single person who identifies with the political "right."
You receive information from "several main organizations" because those organizations are popular in the media. They are neither a significant portion nor a meaningful representation of the scientific community, they're just famous. They're also primarily Western. Japan is far ahead of us in technology, takes science a bit more seriously, and reports the same conclusions.
The methods to calculate climate change are wide and varied, with new methods developed on a regular basis to get an even deeper understanding. All of them are consistent with one another when conducted properly. They show a gradual rise in the planet's mean temperature directly correlating with certain chemicals in the atmosphere that weren't always in such an abundance. The same chemicals tested in controlled conditions exhibit all the behavior associated with climate change. It would not be possible to have these consistent results from such diverse experiments if man-made emissions were negligible to the climate.
What the hell?! The media creates controversy out of nothing every single day. Anyone who has kept up with any popular issue on the planet knows this. Anyone who has ever watched a single news report on any celebrity, politician, country or discovery knows this. Are you nuts? The mainstream media ignites controversy over immigration, evolution, abortion, homosexuality...myriad things that only extremely ignorant, small-minded people would find alarming or questionable to begin with. They feed these ignorant people more ways to justify themselves, just so they'll stubbornly stick to their blatantly obsolete views and keep the controversy raging. Then every time the news needs money and ratings, it just touches on the issue all over again.
I have no fear. I have RAGE at the amount of misinformation not only spread around by the media, but blindly gobbled up by people too stupid to see past what their chosen politician or celebrity feels about it.
Despite what the ironically named "right" wants to believe, tax dollars do not line lab coats with gold. Scientists have a difficult and thankless job and there ISN'T any path to fame and fortune that involves falsifying data. It just flat-out does not work that way. Scientists have everything to lose by being wrong and nothing to gain.
It's very easy to find out the general consensus of the scientific community. Thousands are publishing studies every single day.
This is a layman's misconception.
Do you honestly believe there's any room to debate that germs cause disease? That water freezes at a particular temperature? That metal conducts electricity? I could, of course, go on for the rest of my life listing off things for you that have been settled as fact. The effects of our pollutants are among them.
To the media. I already explained this. Within the scientific community, there is no significant fighting over Climate Change other than how best to combat it, and nothing new or different has been discovered in decades; only further confirmation of what was theorized in the very beginning. Scientists LOOK for evidence that it might not be happening or might be happening some other way - that's what they all WISH they could find. They can't. They fail. They continue to find the same results because they cannot change reality.
Science is apolitical, and is only twisted into a political crutch when it becomes a mainstream issue, which is irrelevant. The mainstream public doesn't have the capacity to properly understand and address scientific discoveries. They're chickens clucking at each other over how the farmer's tractor works.
Say hello to every single person who identifies with the political "right."
You receive information from "several main organizations" because those organizations are popular in the media. They are neither a significant portion nor a meaningful representation of the scientific community, they're just famous. They're also primarily Western. Japan is far ahead of us in technology, takes science a bit more seriously, and reports the same conclusions.
The methods to calculate climate change are wide and varied, with new methods developed on a regular basis to get an even deeper understanding. All of them are consistent with one another when conducted properly. They show a gradual rise in the planet's mean temperature directly correlating with certain chemicals in the atmosphere that weren't always in such an abundance. The same chemicals tested in controlled conditions exhibit all the behavior associated with climate change. It would not be possible to have these consistent results from such diverse experiments if man-made emissions were negligible to the climate.
What the hell?! The media creates controversy out of nothing every single day. Anyone who has kept up with any popular issue on the planet knows this. Anyone who has ever watched a single news report on any celebrity, politician, country or discovery knows this. Are you nuts? The mainstream media ignites controversy over immigration, evolution, abortion, homosexuality...myriad things that only extremely ignorant, small-minded people would find alarming or questionable to begin with. They feed these ignorant people more ways to justify themselves, just so they'll stubbornly stick to their blatantly obsolete views and keep the controversy raging. Then every time the news needs money and ratings, it just touches on the issue all over again.
I have no fear. I have RAGE at the amount of misinformation not only spread around by the media, but blindly gobbled up by people too stupid to see past what their chosen politician or celebrity feels about it.
Oh I know what it is, I also know as many scientists have pointed out that it is very easy to find yourself on the black list both with federal and private funding if you do not toe a certain line.
Sorry but that does not add up to 99% of the scientific community, either provide facts or retract the claim.
You have created a pathetic apple and oranges scenario. Is there any new information coming in on the nature of germs causing diseases? How about water's freezing point? the conductivity of metal? If there were as there is with AGW, we would be reevaluating what we know about it, and if those long held beliefs are truly accurate.
With the case of AGW we continue to get in new information that calls into question not only the beliefs we have now, but also the scientists that crafted the information such surface temperature monitoring, or the errors in the IPCC report, or the climate gate emails.
Nothing new has been discovered? Could you be so ignorant? Just the very fact that we are not in a warming period right now is a new discovery that has perplexed scientists as the Climategate emails have exposed. That is one of millions of discoveries that have happened just over the last decade, that continue to change our understanding of Global Warming.
Actually it is relevant, again as the emails exposed you have scientists who have taken pre conceived notions and are twisting data to fit those notions. Using data only from city sites in Russia is a perfect and disappointing example of this. AGW has become less of a science and more of a cult belief, when you start tossing out data because it may not go with what you already believe, you have taken a MASSIVE step away from the field of science.
They also are the leading providers of data sets, and are also some of the leading organizations in the Climate Industry. Before the climate gate emails came out no one in the "media" had even heard of Dr Jones or the CRU that did not stop them from being one of the top providers of information in the Climate Change Industry.
Funny you just said the science was settled, now you are saying that new methods are being developed on a regular basis to get a deeper understanding. That is in and of itself a contradiction, if such science was settled we wouldn't need a deeper understanding, we would have already accepted our understanding as fact. You are doing a poor job at contradicting yourself.
The problem you seem to have is that correlation does not automatically mean causation. As Dr. Jones pointed out the rates of Global Warming in the time periods of 1860-1880, 1910-1940, 1975-1998, and 1975-2009 are nearly identical, not to mention the Medieval Warm Period has shown that the warming we experience today is not unprecedented.
We have many things that we know influence the climate, from water vapor to sun spots to a multitude of other things. Just because one behaves in a certain fashion does not mean it is the main contributing factor to the warming we have experienced, or the lack of warming we now experience. But then again our understanding of the Climate continues to evolve as we gather new information.
And such issue would die easily if there was not a grain of truth in it. With AGW there was a rather large grain of truth that began with the Climategate emails, continued with Russia exposing additional fraud, and snowballed to the discrediting of the IPCC 4th edition.
Which is a opinion, but as I mentioned before, they cannot create it out of nothing, a grain of truth, a starter must exist for it.
You seem to have a horrible confusion, confusing the media, with rags like the National Enquirer that make up stories as they go along. Stories do not get traction unless there is something behind it to start with. If not, everyone would be under the belief that "Bat Boy is dating Madona"
You have a substantial amount of fear, as does any person who turns their back to science in the belief that AGW is settled.
Last edited:
scythemantis
Creepy crawly
The industries with the most power and resources to manipulate data and bully scientists in this manner are the industries who stand to suffer if AGW is accepted fact. And yes, the overwhelming consensus from the scientific community is still in favor of AGW. Shady funding can't possibly account for anything here. You're also making a sweeping statement about science that only applies to certain forms of research here in America.
No I haven't. The fact that the climate is changing and that human activity influences it is exactly as well established as anything else I listed.
No new information has cast legitimate doubt on our impact upon the climate.
You keep talking about this stuff like it matters. None of that falsification casts doubt on AGW as a whole to anyone but media hounds. You're just clinging to minority examples of what you want to hear.
Uh...what? How is that remotely contradictory? I distinctly said it was settled that climate change happens and that human civilization worsens it. Why would there ever be any reason to halt research right there? We ALWAYS need a deeper understanding, including of established, observable fact. Like I said, we know that disease is caused by microorganisms. Are you saying that because this fact is settled, we have no reason to keep studying how they do it? BYE MEDICINE! LOL! BIGLUTZ SAYS SCIENCE WORKS A DIFFERENT WAY NOW JUST SO HE CAN ACCUSE ME OF AN IMAGINARY "CONTRADICTION" IN AN INCREDIBLY CONVOLUTED FASHION.
I never said we were the primary cause and have not been arguing that we are the primary cause.
The difference is negligible. Mainstream news will take the views of a fringe wacko, take them out of context, add their own spice and treat it as a compelling new find virtually every time the media talks science.
Last edited:
Of which is more than off set by the heavy Government interest as well as interest at the University level in seeing AGW succeed. If you are going to play the "Coal industries" card then you cannot ignore the large influence by liberal governments, universities, and groups who wish to see the other side win.
This belief is not only shared by me, but also one of the Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. Who says and I quote:
Prof. Richard Lindzen of MIT said:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220&mod=RSS_Opinion_Journal&ojrss=frontpage
Yes it is still a apples and oranges comparison, is there any new information coming in on the nature of germs causing diseases? How about water's freezing point? the conductivity of metal? If there were as there is with AGW, we would be reevaluating what we know about it, and if those long held beliefs are truly accurate.
Here is the thing we can both throw out apples and oranges compairsons to the current situation. Scientists also once believed the science was settled that the Earth was flat, or that the Earth was the center of the universe, or that we could trans-mutate copper into gold, or any number of things. The thing is that we continue to get new information in, and find out new things about our atmosphere and our planet and how they react, as well as planets around us that have warmed. To believe the science is settled when we continue to get that new information in, is as ignorant as it is naive and shows me that you are more willing to dig your head into the sand, than you are to be a scientist and be open minded on the possibilities that exist.
You mean other than the information coming out about how much a factor Water Vapor plays on Global Warming? A discovery that has been making massive leaps for the past 5 years? Or the fact that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased over the last 150 years or during the most recent five decades or during the most recent five decades? New information that casts doubts on our impact, and how much of a impact we have continue to come out every day, the problem is that science has become so political that some of that information is covered up before it can even come out.
Actually it casts doubt on how much we have warmed, with the manipulation of surface temperatures to hide the cooling while promoting the warming. It also casts doubt on the scientists themselves, and how far they will go to manipulate data and stop decenting voices that disagree with their views.
Climate Change is happening, how much humanity plays a role in it is up for debate, but please continue to be ignorant.
The problem is that the increased research has led to discoveries that contradict how much of a role Humanity has to play in it, thus AGW as a whole is not a established observable fact. If it were, scientists would not be scrambling to explain the decrease in water vapor over the last decade, as well as the recent leveling and cooling of temperatures.
Really? As this statement
"same consistent evidence for generations that the temperature has abnormally spiked due to human pollutants"
Seems to point that you believe that human pollutants were the primary cause for the temperature spikes.
Last edited:
ccangelopearl1362
Well-Known Member
I find it ironic that scythemantis is accusing others in this thread of ignorance when he’s the one insisting that climate change science as a whole is thoroughly settled. Professor Watson and those other scientists may hold differing perspectives about climate change’s real causes, but that is my real point. If I may borrow a – rather unfortunately – mocked quote from former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, climate change has become a known unknown, or something we know we don’t know. The scientists at the IPCC and other places are by definition positioned to know exactly what they’re attempting to examine, so I have to wonder exactly how worried, if also annoyed, they must be that the data they’re collecting is deliberately being manipulated to push for a greater lockdown, so to speak, on energy extraction around the world. There are many politicians and businessmen being drawn toward this bandwagon like moths to a flame, but how many other political and business figures are more willing to sit back and allow those dissenting scientists to proceed with their examinations and share whatever they learn with the rest of us? I would think that with such high value placed on this information, President Obama and his team will be better off paving the way for new energy companies to grow by extracting the oil and natural gas from their designated areas of exploration without damaging the natural environment and at least avoiding wind turbines and solar panels based on this planet.:
Energy Tribune: Max Schulz: The Green Jobs Engine That Can’t
The President, among other political figures, has made repeated references to “green jobs” brought about by governmental investment, but come to think of it, I know that I don’t know what for the life of me he’s talking about. Obama could subsidize these green jobs until the American economy implodes once and for all, and they wouldn’t count for much in the way of actual energy production for this country. As energy prices rise, energy-related jobs will only plummet, as California and New York have personally learned, so if Obama, his advisors, and the environmental lobby continue promoting such technologies at the expense of workers in the oil and gas industry, then those workers will lose their jobs. One might need to wonder precisely how many of those jobs happen to involve analysis of whatever energy resource they’re dealing with, thinking through the optimal temperatures and stability for petroleum and other forms of energy to operate without harming people around them, but it will be unfortunate that the current power players in climate change are continuing their impulse to deny these workers’ perspectives – in the case of some, eviscerating their own past reputations in the process.:
American Thinker: Claude Sandroff: Bill Gates, Environmental Kook
British Broadcasting Corporation: Yvo de Boer resigns as top UN climate official
If the man responsible for introducing computers, even laptops, can transform himself into a mouthpiece for all of the tropes about reducing carbon-based emissions to nothing or standing by as global temperatures creep upward, then how many other technological innovators out there can refrain from succumbing to this climate alarmism and invest their money in inventions that bring energy to millions who’ve previously been exposed to the harsher elements of nature? Bill Gates and Yvo de Boer have admittedly taken different professions, but both of them have fallen victim to anthropogenic climate change’s tentacles, Boer a week more recent than Gates, perhaps eerily enough. I can only worry about just how many thousands – or tens of thousands – of other reputations have been staked on such a premise as more sordid details about the machinations of the climate alarmists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change continue to come to light, indicating an illusion worth countless hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars once its full extent has been chronicled, to the dismay of future scientists and historians who will forever be scratching their heads at this sequence of events. Questions may still arise on natural climate change, as opposed to anthropogenic climate change, but I will be happy to let the scientists explain their findings and conclusions based on their individual pursuit of knowledge and truth... rather than coerced intervention into the lives of ordinary people.
Energy Tribune: Max Schulz: The Green Jobs Engine That Can’t
The President, among other political figures, has made repeated references to “green jobs” brought about by governmental investment, but come to think of it, I know that I don’t know what for the life of me he’s talking about. Obama could subsidize these green jobs until the American economy implodes once and for all, and they wouldn’t count for much in the way of actual energy production for this country. As energy prices rise, energy-related jobs will only plummet, as California and New York have personally learned, so if Obama, his advisors, and the environmental lobby continue promoting such technologies at the expense of workers in the oil and gas industry, then those workers will lose their jobs. One might need to wonder precisely how many of those jobs happen to involve analysis of whatever energy resource they’re dealing with, thinking through the optimal temperatures and stability for petroleum and other forms of energy to operate without harming people around them, but it will be unfortunate that the current power players in climate change are continuing their impulse to deny these workers’ perspectives – in the case of some, eviscerating their own past reputations in the process.:
American Thinker: Claude Sandroff: Bill Gates, Environmental Kook
British Broadcasting Corporation: Yvo de Boer resigns as top UN climate official
If the man responsible for introducing computers, even laptops, can transform himself into a mouthpiece for all of the tropes about reducing carbon-based emissions to nothing or standing by as global temperatures creep upward, then how many other technological innovators out there can refrain from succumbing to this climate alarmism and invest their money in inventions that bring energy to millions who’ve previously been exposed to the harsher elements of nature? Bill Gates and Yvo de Boer have admittedly taken different professions, but both of them have fallen victim to anthropogenic climate change’s tentacles, Boer a week more recent than Gates, perhaps eerily enough. I can only worry about just how many thousands – or tens of thousands – of other reputations have been staked on such a premise as more sordid details about the machinations of the climate alarmists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change continue to come to light, indicating an illusion worth countless hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars once its full extent has been chronicled, to the dismay of future scientists and historians who will forever be scratching their heads at this sequence of events. Questions may still arise on natural climate change, as opposed to anthropogenic climate change, but I will be happy to let the scientists explain their findings and conclusions based on their individual pursuit of knowledge and truth... rather than coerced intervention into the lives of ordinary people.
Last edited:
Atlidevil
Game Hoarder
Dude..first of all HOLY CRAP! You really should not do one of these two things you did 1. care so much about this matter to write that whole mess of crap that less then ten people will read 2. copy and paste this from some other website.
Anyway on the matter.
Global Warming = Happening but very slowly.
-_-
If you didn't want to read (or post) a well-constructed, logical argument then why did you come to the Debate Forum? You can have whatever mindless discussion you want in Misc, if you want to post here you should expect to post something more tangible than 'global warming = happening but very slowly'.
Golly =/
Anyway, all of this climate scandal certainly has me wondering about the legitimacy of it all. I just moved house so for a relatively long period of time I had no TV or Internet and thus missed the bulletins about the IPCC =/
In any case, I don't think the direction that scientists are pushing is necessarily a bad one. We don't know that global warming is happening, but we do know that we will run out of oil/coal. Fortunately by tackling 'global warming' pressure on fossil fuels decreases which of course is a positive thing politically, environmentally and economically.
scythemantis
Creepy crawly
Ther aren't enough of those for the amount of scientific support to be suspicious. As I recall saying, if the pro-AGW movement was the result of hoaxing, we would still be seeing a more even split in its support from the scientific community. Instead, only a tiny number of scientists step forward to challenge it, and interestingly enough, very few of those have actually done hands-on research of the climate in recent years. You just quoted an MIT professor. Do you think he's spent more time analyzing data in a laboratory or more time teaching classes for the past decade or two? While not always the case, I can't help but notice that a significant amount of doubt comes from the paper-pushers and desk jockeys who aren't even out in the field.
Never insisted such a thing. I insisted, fairly, that the existence of an unusual climate shift is settled and it is settled that we have had a hand in it. Anywhere you test the Earth's atmosphere you'll find any number of chemicals we put there. Anyone who doubts that our waste can make a difference need only read up on the pacific garbage patch or deforestation statistics.
So as more and more intelligent people begin to agree that there's a problem, it never once occurs to you that they could be even partially correct, but instead, further reaffirms your paranoid delusion that it's all a big "alarmist" conspiracy?
I'm debating with brick walls here. If your stubbornness and unbelievable level of misunderstanding didn't make my brain want to puke on itself I'd be too bored to keep trying.
AGW does not come from the IPCC. I've never read any information filtered through them, never followed them, and in fact, never once heard anybody bring them up until this past week. They are not a laboratory. They are a second party assessing data from laboratories. This makes them completely irrelevant. Any information not received straight from the mouth of a scientist about his or her own immediate observations is worthless. Are you guys even aware that the IPCC is also criticized by scientists for understating human influence in certain areas? That environmentalists call them too conservative? If the IPCC spins some lies about climate change, it doesn't remotely indicate that science is actually wrong about it. They are meaningless to me, and I will not acknowledge any more arguments that bring up this non-scientific joke of a source. Only an idiot would allow the IPCC's antics to cast doubt on the scientific theory itself. Try harder.
Last edited:
Seeing how they tend to control not only funding but prestige and the peer review process it is more than enough to be suspicious.
Not necessarily true, self preservation is a very powerful motivator. Many people would rather keep their careers than speak out and be utterly black balled from the scientific elite. When you have your very career threatened you tend to keep your mouth shut.
Seeing how he published a very real paper on the Iris effect with NASA, as well as papers on: Hadley circulation, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, hydrodynamic instability, mid-latitude weather, global heat transport, the water cycle, ice ages, seasonal atmospheric effects.
There is a better chance that he works in a laboratory while teaching part time. As many scientists in the field now day do.
Except none of that is evidence, as I have already said the airborn C02 rate in the atmosphere has remained stable over the past 150 years. Not to mention as you already agreed Humans are not the biggest contributor to Global Warming. Not to mention the climate shift is not that unusual, nor is it settled as over the past few years we learn more and more about the Medieval Warming Period, another event of Global Warming during our time.
Saying it is settled, especially with the mountains of evidence that we continue to get in, is very unscientific.
Is that why the opinion about Global Warming as a whole is going south with the American public? Or that more and more scientists are now breaking away from the Global Warming crowd and putting their careers on the line to speak up?
I am sorry but going around and saying "The science is settled" is not debating it is being a well as you said a brick wall. The only brick wall in this topic here is you.
I would suggest you take your fingers out of your ears, and stop hiding behind lines of "The science is settled" and actually debate the facts. But from the looks of it you are too afraid to have your own preconceived notions challenged to actually do that.
If you are going to continue to be a brick wall there is nothing to debate, as you are unwilling to debate. You would be better off finding a place where people will parrot your own dillusions than challenge them.
Which only serves to highlight your lack of knowledge on the topic as the IPCC has been a major force in the AGW movement for years.
Except the IPCC is made up of scientists who submit their data for the larger conclusion. Granted you have the science elite of the IPCC twisting and turning many of the facts as well as providing false information. But then again that seems to be a common pattern in the AGW community as the CRU did the exact same thing.
But your views on the IPCC not only show that you have no knowledge about what they did, but no knowledge at all about the situation.
For example the IPCC is not in trouble for being too conservative in its predictions, it is in trouble for being too liberal, using research that over predicted things such as sea level rise, and snowfall melt, with the scientists using sources that were mainly advocates and not actual research.
Why do you think India as a whole pulled out of the IPCC? Right now the AGW community has shown itself to be built on a mountain of shaky evidence and conclusions. Its not surprising countries are more than willing to set up their own Global Warming committees than trust the leaders like the IPCC and the CRU
Try harder Brick Wall.
Last edited: