CBS News Confirms... Global Warming is MAN MADE!

[JD50]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87
How does one measure the temperature from 200,000 years ago? I am being honest.

btw did anybody else notice Martins graphs contradict each other?
The wiki link shows a particle concentration of nearly 400 while the 2nd graph shows 275 and CO2 and temperature being higher about 130,000 years ago.

No actually, there are no contradictions. The graph simply doesn't show it that well, since its 200 years out of 150000. But here is the same data show in a different manner:
http://ees.etf.bg.ac.yu/Predmeti/EG5OE/Uticaj%20na%20atmosferu_files/atm5.gif

How do they measure temperatures? They drill for ice cores, then measure the composition of the trapped air.

See, this is where these graphs completely lose me.


1. 140k years ago a CO2 levels went from ~180 -> 300. This 66% increase resulted in a 7 degree increase. With *NO* lag time.

2. Temps are about 0 degrees and are flat, yet CO2 levels increase from about 260 to 360, a 38% increase. If we consider the same order of magnatude = same temp increase, whcih is reasonably rationale, we would have already seen a 4 degree increase, not flat.


The reasonable explanation for this is that they are utilizing multiple sources. Vostok core goes until 1999, so why are they suddenly not using it? Why append yet another ice core AND regular air samples? That is very poor scientific process.

You make very valid points, but according to Martin, since you are not one of the "hundreds of the world's top climatologists saying one thing" your opinion is worthless. Wait a minute, unless Martin is one of the "hundreds of the world's top climatologists saying one thing" then his opinion is worthless as well. At least Martin and I agree on one thing. :laugh:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87
How does one measure the temperature from 200,000 years ago? I am being honest.

btw did anybody else notice Martins graphs contradict each other?
The wiki link shows a particle concentration of nearly 400 while the 2nd graph shows 275 and CO2 and temperature being higher about 130,000 years ago.

No actually, there are no contradictions. The graph simply doesn't show it that well, since its 200 years out of 150000. But here is the same data show in a different manner:
http://ees.etf.bg.ac.yu/Predmeti/EG5OE/Uticaj%20na%20atmosferu_files/atm5.gif

How do they measure temperatures? They drill for ice cores, then measure the composition of the trapped air.

See, this is where these graphs completely lose me.


1. 140k years ago a CO2 levels went from ~180 -> 300. This 66% increase resulted in a 7 degree increase. With *NO* lag time.

2. Temps are about 0 degrees and are flat, yet CO2 levels increase from about 260 to 360, a 38% increase. If we consider the same order of magnatude = same temp increase, whcih is reasonably rationale, we would have already seen a 4 degree increase, not flat.


The reasonable explanation for this is that they are utilizing multiple sources. Vostok core goes until 1999, so why are they suddenly not using it? Why append yet another ice core AND regular air samples? That is very poor scientific process.

Probably depends on why those CO2 levels increased. If it was caused by a Super Volcano, not only would have CO2 increased, but there would also be a massive amount of volcanic ash in the air which actually causes cooling.

There is likely a scientific explanation/reason for this already. I'm sure those warning us about GW have also noticd this and have investigated why there is this apparent discrepency.

 

[Vic]

Whew! I'm so glad that the media knows more about science than science itself! Now be a good citizen and follow the corporate media's instruction to be afraid... be very afraid..

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87
How does one measure the temperature from 200,000 years ago? I am being honest.

btw did anybody else notice Martins graphs contradict each other?
The wiki link shows a particle concentration of nearly 400 while the 2nd graph shows 275 and CO2 and temperature being higher about 130,000 years ago.

No actually, there are no contradictions. The graph simply doesn't show it that well, since its 200 years out of 150000. But here is the same data show in a different manner:
http://ees.etf.bg.ac.yu/Predmeti/EG5OE/Uticaj%20na%20atmosferu_files/atm5.gif

How do they measure temperatures? They drill for ice cores, then measure the composition of the trapped air.

See, this is where these graphs completely lose me.


1. 140k years ago a CO2 levels went from ~180 -> 300. This 66% increase resulted in a 7 degree increase. With *NO* lag time.

2. Temps are about 0 degrees and are flat, yet CO2 levels increase from about 260 to 360, a 38% increase. If we consider the same order of magnatude = same temp increase, whcih is reasonably rationale, we would have already seen a 4 degree increase, not flat.


The reasonable explanation for this is that they are utilizing multiple sources. Vostok core goes until 1999, so why are they suddenly not using it? Why append yet another ice core AND regular air samples? That is very poor scientific process.

Probably depends on why those CO2 levels increased. If it was caused by a Super Volcano, not only would have CO2 increased, but there would also be a massive amount of volcanic ash in the air which actually causes cooling.

There is likely a scientific explanation/reason for this already. I'm sure those warning us about GW have also noticd this and have investigated why there is this apparent discrepency.

Those warning us about "GW" are those who selectively chose to use Vostock, then another core, then atmospheric samples even though Vostok would have been fine up to 99, the difference between 99 and 07 wouldn't be huge, especially since they have been carping about "GW" for decades.

CO2 raising is CO2 raising, regardless of the reason, according to "GW" "experts". Even if we tied natural events causing CO2 increases to temps, they'd still like you to think it's a 1:1, whereby Co2 = heat. Yet, even with modified data that doesn't show to be true. If we analyzed all data, we'd see that my questions are valid.

Why a massive disconnect between CO2 and Heat?

Why cherry pick data?

Personally, I'd lean more towards Vostok either being spot-on or underestimating CO2 levels compared to other ice cores and atmosphere samples. Then the air samples over-estimating it, to make alarming statements.

After all, a scientists #1 priority is to get funding.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Fern
You are all wrong.

It's the god d@mn lazy effin trees fault. If they'd get on ball and breathe up the CO2, which we so kindly provided for them, there's be no problem.

I really don't see how they've escaped the blame they so rightfully deserve. I guess they have a helluva lobbying group in Washington DC.

(Waiting for Dave to tell me that the trees are Republican, and ericlp to say this is another thing the GOP is keeping from us)

Fern

Obviously as a Fern you have a built in bias against Trees. Tell me, how many of your family members have been killed due to trees hogging all the light?
Therefore how can you pretend to be look at this issue without a built in bias?

 

[2Xtreme21]

In other news: The sky is, in fact, blue. More at 11.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: K1052
Other crimes of the henious (and seemingly all powerful) GOP/Bush administration:

Repression of the Boxer Rebellion
Fat people
Poor people
Smelly people
Suppression of the Loch Ness Monster
Cancer
AIDS
The Spanish Inquisition
Genocide in Africa
Prostate enlargement
The Cubs losing every year
Receding hairlines
That stuff that accumulates in the corner of your eye after sleeping
Hurricanes
Costing Dave more to fill up his yacht
Tasty foods fried in trans-fats

etc....


I say we hang the bastards.

The bolded one would explain why Hillary become a Yankee fan all of a sudden right?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic
Whew! I'm so glad that the media knows more about science than science itself! Now be a good citizen and follow the corporate media's instruction to be afraid... be very afraid..

Come on Vic, dont you believe in the faith? If you dont, you need to be converted or shamed in public.

btw shortly I am sure the second coming of the messiah(huge spike in temperatures) will show up and all who are faithfull will be vindicated while those who werent(sinners) punished in the last hours of earth and human kind.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic
Whew! I'm so glad that the media knows more about science than science itself! Now be a good citizen and follow the corporate media's instruction to be afraid... be very afraid..

Come on Vic, dont you believe in the faith? If you dont, you need to be converted or shamed in public.

btw shortly I am sure the second coming of the messiah(huge spike in temperatures) will show up and all who are faithfull will be vindicated while those who werent(sinners) punished in the last hours of earth and human kind.

Yes, it's true. Our technological cunning has made us evil and defiled us in the eyes of Holy Mother Earth and the Great Sky Father. They will punish us for our sins.

Let us pray, brother, for strength in punishing the wicked evildoers who have brought down this holy wrath upon us!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Just a small aside here?
Military (government) intelligent officers believe that Iran may have something to do with the Karbala raid and all the people on the left trip over themselves in claiming the government lies and can?t be trusted.

Government scientists claim global warming is man made and the same people trip over themselves yelling ?see we told you?

Now why is it you believe the government when it comes to high theoretical work on global warming and climate change, and yet totally discount them when it comes to intelligence work? Could it be that you want to believe the global warming story, but don?t want to believe the Iranian connection story? This would seem like a perfect example of internal bias at work here.

I suggest all you Global warming people head over to wikipedia and look up ?ice age? and read about the natural cycle.
Of course none of this excuses us to destroy the earth via pollution. But it also doesn?t mean we should adopt regulations that would cripple our economy. (Even the Clinton administration didn?t like Kyoto because of its effects on our GDP.)

As usual, there's hardly anything that isn't wrong in your post.

1. These climatologists come from all over the world, not just the US.
2. Their work is open to critique and examination. If you ask for proof, they'll give it to you instead of telling you you're a traitor and that revealing anything is a threat to national security.
3. I suggest you read about the differences between natural climate cycles and what is currently happening.
4. I also suggest thinking before you post next time.

As usual you totally missed the point of the post.
The object of my post was to point out a double standard many of the posters on here have.
I am sure if we go to the ?Bush officials misled public? thread we will see a bunch of people upset at what the government tried to hide.
And then if we head over to any Iraq thread we find a bunch of people who don?t believe anything the government says.

Now why is it when the government says something they agree with, global warming is man made, they line up behind that statement like it is gospel. But when the government says something they don?t like, Iran is involved in Iraq, they all proclaim the government can?t be trusted? Simple question.

Personally I believe that climate change is happening. The question in my mind is how much of it is man made. And even more important what types of actions can we take to slow it down that will not ruin our life style.

Also note that the US is becoming less pollutant every year, while China and the rest of the developing world is growing in its pollution output. That is the big problem. How do we get these poor countries to adopt behaviors that will protect the environment in the future when such behaviors will effect their economic growth? It is one thing to tell me to buy a hybrid because it saves gas; it is another to tell a farmer using Ox to plow his fields that he shouldn?t buy a tractor because it hurts the environment.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ericlp
Wow, I guess no love for the starving polar bears and penguins eh? Didn't you see Happy Feet?

I'm still trying to get over all of the poor dinosaurs that died, did we cause that too?

Nope but we've done a good job on the whales so far, tigers, elephants, etc.

If you still think climate change has nothing to do with us, or doesn't matter (or both) you really do have your head stuck in the sand.

First of all, species go extinct, its how nature works, get over it.

Second, yea, we probably do have something to do with the climate change, as do all creatures on this planet, the debate is how much we have to do with it. If you think that the wolrd would have no climate change and be a great big garden of eden with no species going extinct and everything living in harmony together if humans weren't here then you really do have yourhead stuck in the sand.

Most ignorant attitude, FTL.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Wow some of you guys really suck at making logical conclusions. Let me try to follow your logic:

- There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than any time ever recorded in history.
- CO2 makes the temperature go up.
- CO2 levels are at an all time and have rose exponentially since the Industrial Revolution.
- Man is responsible for the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore... it's all every other animal and plant's fault that global warming exists, but not humans because... well... because!

Did I get that right?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87
How does one measure the temperature from 200,000 years ago? I am being honest.

btw did anybody else notice Martins graphs contradict each other?
The wiki link shows a particle concentration of nearly 400 while the 2nd graph shows 275 and CO2 and temperature being higher about 130,000 years ago.

No actually, there are no contradictions. The graph simply doesn't show it that well, since its 200 years out of 150000. But here is the same data show in a different manner:
http://ees.etf.bg.ac.yu/Predmeti/EG5OE/Uticaj%20na%20atmosferu_files/atm5.gif

How do they measure temperatures? They drill for ice cores, then measure the composition of the trapped air.

See, this is where these graphs completely lose me.


1. 140k years ago a CO2 levels went from ~180 -> 300. This 66% increase resulted in a 7 degree increase. With *NO* lag time.

2. Temps are about 0 degrees and are flat, yet CO2 levels increase from about 260 to 360, a 38% increase. If we consider the same order of magnatude = same temp increase, whcih is reasonably rationale, we would have already seen a 4 degree increase, not flat.


The reasonable explanation for this is that they are utilizing multiple sources. Vostok core goes until 1999, so why are they suddenly not using it? Why append yet another ice core AND regular air samples? That is very poor scientific process.

Probably depends on why those CO2 levels increased. If it was caused by a Super Volcano, not only would have CO2 increased, but there would also be a massive amount of volcanic ash in the air which actually causes cooling.

There is likely a scientific explanation/reason for this already. I'm sure those warning us about GW have also noticd this and have investigated why there is this apparent discrepency.

Those warning us about "GW" are those who selectively chose to use Vostock, then another core, then atmospheric samples even though Vostok would have been fine up to 99, the difference between 99 and 07 wouldn't be huge, especially since they have been carping about "GW" for decades.

CO2 raising is CO2 raising, regardless of the reason, according to "GW" "experts". Even if we tied natural events causing CO2 increases to temps, they'd still like you to think it's a 1:1, whereby Co2 = heat. Yet, even with modified data that doesn't show to be true. If we analyzed all data, we'd see that my questions are valid.

Why a massive disconnect between CO2 and Heat?

Why cherry pick data?

Personally, I'd lean more towards Vostok either being spot-on or underestimating CO2 levels compared to other ice cores and atmosphere samples. Then the air samples over-estimating it, to make alarming statements.

After all, a scientists #1 priority is to get funding.

Who said that?

You seem to think they are all kooks. They are not. They know that there is no 1:1 ratio, that other factors come into play(Volcanic ash, Methane, etc). The reason why they harp on CO2 is because it is the most difficult GHG to get rid of and we are spewing it into the air in Mass Quantities. Excess CO2 takes Centuries to remove from the atmosphere, no other GHG is so persistent.

You should be alarmed! It's not the kind of thing that will kill us all, but it is going to muck up everything we know and take for granted. The US, for example, may not have enough arable land to continue to supply its' own food needs. Meaning that the US may go from a Food Supplier to a Food Importer. Not necessarily the end of the World, but a dramatic change in the Economy. Even those nations which might gain arable land(Canada, Sweden, and othe rNortherlynations) will have to Develop it and in some cases abandon land already used for agriculture.

We can spend $billions now and avoid much of the consequences. Or we can spend $trillions later as a consequence of doing nothing.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Fern
You are all wrong.

It's the god d@mn lazy effin trees fault. If they'd get on ball and breathe up the CO2, which we so kindly provided for them, there's be no problem.

I really don't see how they've escaped the blame they so rightfully deserve. I guess they have a helluva lobbying group in Washington DC.

(Waiting for Dave to tell me that the trees are Republican, and ericlp to say this is another thing the GOP is keeping from us)

Fern

Oh come on, we cut so many down they can't do the job anymore.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Also note that the US is becoming less pollutant every year, while China and the rest of the developing world is growing in its pollution output. That is the big problem. How do we get these poor countries to adopt behaviors that will protect the environment in the future when such behaviors will effect their economic growth? It is one thing to tell me to buy a hybrid because it saves gas; it is another to tell a farmer using Ox to plow his fields that he shouldn?t buy a tractor because it hurts the environment.

Great question. I think that the answer is in the big picture rather than the single case.
By leading the way, we will develop the cleaner technologies (that we can sell), for example cleaner running tractors.
Poorer nations are also less likely to persue cleaner technologies if the richest nation in the world does not see it as worthwhile.

 

[2Xtreme21]

I think a good chunk of you just like to turn this into a partisan debate. There's no reason to be blaming the Bush Administration or what not as they didn't specifically cause it-- we as the human race caused it.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Fern
You are all wrong.

It's the god d@mn lazy effin trees fault. If they'd get on ball and breathe up the CO2, which we so kindly provided for them, there's be no problem.

I really don't see how they've escaped the blame they so rightfully deserve. I guess they have a helluva lobbying group in Washington DC.

(Waiting for Dave to tell me that the trees are Republican, and ericlp to say this is another thing the GOP is keeping from us)

Fern

Obviously as a Fern you have a built in bias against Trees. Tell me, how many of your family members have been killed due to trees hogging all the light?
Therefore how can you pretend to be look at this issue without a built in bias?

D@mn, you figured it out. Yes, for generations us ferns have been repressed by the trees, they steal our sunlight and ejaculate their seeds down upon us. No respect I tell you, no respect.

 

[DVK916]

Yep, Humans are destroying the earth. Won't be long before something like this
http://www.photodonation.org/images/gal...gs%20creek%20false%20hellebore%202.jpg

turns into something like this:

http://www.qtours.com/images/qcalifornia/regional/deserts/new/desert_wash.jpg

We are killing the earth, temperatures are rising to dangerous levels, and the problem is only getting worst. Millions, or even billions will die if we don't stop.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Fern
You are all wrong.

It's the god d@mn lazy effin trees fault. If they'd get on ball and breathe up the CO2, which we so kindly provided for them, there's be no problem.

I really don't see how they've escaped the blame they so rightfully deserve. I guess they have a helluva lobbying group in Washington DC.

(Waiting for Dave to tell me that the trees are Republican, and ericlp to say this is another thing the GOP is keeping from us)

Fern

Oh come on, we cut so many down they can't do the job anymore.

Well then, Global Warming is clearly the fault of real estate developers. They cut down all the trees to build new homes/condo's.

Oh wait, there's another plank in my anti-immigation platform. Immigration causes global warming cuz we gotta cut down the trees to make houses for all the immigrants.

That means liberals, who support open borders, are therefore really the cause of global warming.

And because Steeplerot calls everyone who's against immigration a racist. He/she/it is the worst cause of global warming out of all the liberals!

Fern

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Shivetya
of course its man made...... MAN MADE UP


The real trick is, there is no money in it, research or fixing it, if it were not man made, so what result did you think they would come up with?

Ding ding, global warming has become a big industry for govt researchers. Who the hell is going to come out with findings that will eliminate their job?

If anybody can explain to me why we have more ice on greenland now than they did 1000 years ago and tell me 1000 years ago man caused that warming trend. Then maybe Ill start to really believe in the new religion called Man Made Global Warming.

Otherwise this whole idea we can alter the climate so it doesnt warm sounds about as futile as pissing into the wind. The Earths climate has moved up and down in temperature for billions of years. Only the ego of man can conclude the latest seesaw effect is his own doing and he can stop it.

Do some volume calculations, just simple 'order of magnitude' stuff, and you will see that the CO2 we produce is capable of affecting worldwide levels, and therefore of altering solar energy absorption/reflection ratios.

Methane worries me more, why dont people attack this more?
My theory of course is methane is a byproduct of everybody, not just western nations. Cattle herds in a 3rd world country, we cant be limiting 3rd world progress. Only those ebil western countries with a lot of wealth.

My understanding of Co2 deposits in ice samples is the warming trend happens several decades or centuries after the rise in Co2. In other words the correlation is very small and possible non-existent all together.

We have been putting out substantial CO2 for 'several decades' or more precisely for at least a century - we haven't seen the results of our current CO2 levels yet.

So you are saying that there is a lag between CO2 emissions and actual effects? Does it somehow take 20 years for CO2 emitted today to filter up to the atmosphere to effect us? I'd love to know why you think that what we have done recently hasn't been felt.

Further, I'd love to see your CO2 emissions graph that shows worldwide CO2 levels for the last 100 years, showing exactly how much has been released and that we have had "substantial" amounts since then.

Considering that cars were a novelty in 1907 and weren't even mass produced for another year, planes had only been around for 4 years, and while there were lots of factories, they weren't as numerous in other countries. I know there are studies which have attempted at correlating fossil fuels with emissions, but they don't show aggregate amounts, nor total effect on the planet.

Please provide proof. Otherwise, stop being a fearmongerer.

Factories and other burning were prevalent by 100 years ago; we certainly put out much much more CO2 today though.

In other news, the lag isn't because CO2 has no effect immediately, it's because it stays around for a while, and the additive effects are bigger than the 'time-zero' effects. Do we see the effects of this year's CO2? Sure, but we see the effects of 20-years-ago CO2, added over 20 years much more clearly.

 

[Czar]

This is our modern day "the world is round" debate. Alot of science against predetermant fools.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Just a small aside here?
Military (government) intelligent officers believe that Iran may have something to do with the Karbala raid and all the people on the left trip over themselves in claiming the government lies and can?t be trusted.

Government scientists claim global warming is man made and the same people trip over themselves yelling ?see we told you?

Now why is it you believe the government when it comes to high theoretical work on global warming and climate change, and yet totally discount them when it comes to intelligence work? Could it be that you want to believe the global warming story, but don?t want to believe the Iranian connection story? This would seem like a perfect example of internal bias at work here.

I suggest all you Global warming people head over to wikipedia and look up ?ice age? and read about the natural cycle.
Of course none of this excuses us to destroy the earth via pollution. But it also doesn?t mean we should adopt regulations that would cripple our economy. (Even the Clinton administration didn?t like Kyoto because of its effects on our GDP.)

As usual, there's hardly anything that isn't wrong in your post.

1. These climatologists come from all over the world, not just the US.
2. Their work is open to critique and examination. If you ask for proof, they'll give it to you instead of telling you you're a traitor and that revealing anything is a threat to national security.
3. I suggest you read about the differences between natural climate cycles and what is currently happening.
4. I also suggest thinking before you post next time.

As usual you totally missed the point of the post.
The object of my post was to point out a double standard many of the posters on here have.
I am sure if we go to the ?Bush officials misled public? thread we will see a bunch of people upset at what the government tried to hide.
And then if we head over to any Iraq thread we find a bunch of people who don?t believe anything the government says.

Now why is it when the government says something they agree with, global warming is man made, they line up behind that statement like it is gospel. But when the government says something they don?t like, Iran is involved in Iraq, they all proclaim the government can?t be trusted? Simple question.

Personally I believe that climate change is happening. The question in my mind is how much of it is man made. And even more important what types of actions can we take to slow it down that will not ruin our life style.

Also note that the US is becoming less pollutant every year, while China and the rest of the developing world is growing in its pollution output. That is the big problem. How do we get these poor countries to adopt behaviors that will protect the environment in the future when such behaviors will effect their economic growth? It is one thing to tell me to buy a hybrid because it saves gas; it is another to tell a farmer using Ox to plow his fields that he shouldn?t buy a tractor because it hurts the environment.

Less polluting, perhaps, but still on the short list of worst-offenders, especially per capita (I'd imagine on a per capita basis, Canada and the US are the worst, but I'm not certain of that).

There's no double-standard here, just because government has finally accepted that CO2 matters and warming is real.

A much better analogy than yours:

If the tobacco companies all of a sudden announced that smoking was a terrible thing to do and they were going to cease making cigarettes and encourage everyone to quit, would smoking all of a sudden become good for you?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ericlp
Wow, I guess no love for the starving polar bears and penguins eh? Didn't you see Happy Feet?

I'm still trying to get over all of the poor dinosaurs that died, did we cause that too?

Nope but we've done a good job on the whales so far, tigers, elephants, etc.

If you still think climate change has nothing to do with us, or doesn't matter (or both) you really do have your head stuck in the sand.

First of all, species go extinct, its how nature works, get over it.

Second, yea, we probably do have something to do with the climate change, as do all creatures on this planet, the debate is how much we have to do with it. If you think that the wolrd would have no climate change and be a great big garden of eden with no species going extinct and everything living in harmony together if humans weren't here then you really do have yourhead stuck in the sand.

How typical:

'You must live in some pansy liberal dream world with rainbows and faeries and birthday cake for every meal'

Get a freakin clue - the animals I mentioned we drove near or to extinction by hunting; they have nothing to do with climate change, but if you think they became endangered or extinct for any reason other than man and modern technological killing you are fooling yoursef.

No other animal causes the kind of CO2 emissions we do, because no other animal creates CO2 by methods other than breathing.

Things go extinct and climates change, but the current changes are being largely caused by us, and are going to create major issues that could have been avoided if we had taken action 20 years ago when it was scientifically obvious what was going on.

As it is, there is still a chance to reduce the impact, but it's not going to happen, because you're still hoping to be dead before the bad stuff hits.

How typical? I was responding to your typical statement saying "If you still think climate change has nothing to do with us, or doesn't matter (or both) you really do have your head stuck in the sand."

Yes, I realize that we almost made them extinct by hunting them. Thats what happens, survival of the fittest, preditors eat prey, its called nature. Did animals not go extinct before humans came around? Do you get all up in arms when a lion kills a zebra?

We systematically hunt to extinction; at this point barring evolution or climate change, neither the zebra nor the lion will cause the extinction of the other.

More to the point, you can look at a body of evidence and simply see what you want to. Then you take a page out of the neo-con debate book and accuse the one of us who is paying attnetion to the real world of living in an imagined fantasy world.

Seriously, get a clue.

 

[wazzledoozle]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
So sad all the people that so vehemently deny that we caused global warming. It's a fact, it's our man made destiny, if you don't believe it, fine, keep your head up your ass, but it's the truth and more information is being disclosed and discovered that confirms this. Check out the front page of USA Today if you get a chance.

Wasn't global cooling a "fact" a couple of decades ago? Wasn't it a "fact" that the world was flat a few centuries ago?

You have a horrible knowledge of history.

 

[ericlp]

Well, how about this thread? I think it almost deserves a thread of it's own....


LINK

The GOP really does have something to do with it...

WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal scientists have been pressured by the White House to play down global warming, advocacy groups testified Tuesday at the Democrats' first investigative hearing since taking control of Congress.

The hearing focused on allegations that White House officials for years has micromanaged the government's climate programs and has closely controlled what scientists have been allowed to tell the public.

"It appears there may have been an orchestrated campaign to mislead the public about climate change," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. Waxman is chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and a critic of the Bush administration's environmental policies, including its views on climate.

All you non believers have been duped!

Climate change also was a leading topic in the Senate, where presidential contenders for 2008 lined up at a hearing called by Sen. Barbara Boxer. They expounded - and at times tried to outdo each other - on why they believed Congress must act to reduce heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases.

"This is a problem whose time has come," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., proclaimed.

"This is an issue over the years whose time has come," echoed Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said "for decades far too many have ignored the warning" about climate change. "Will we look back at today and say this was the moment we took a stand?"


Hell even McCain has a better understanding then MOST of the people on this board.... Unbelievable...

At the House hearing, two private advocacy groups produced a survey of 279 government climate scientists showing that many of them say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the climate threat. Their complaints ranged from a challenge to using the phrase "global warming" to raising uncertainty on issues on which most scientists basically agree, to keeping scientists from talking to the media.

The survey and separate interviews with scientists "has brought to light numerous ways in which U.S. federal climate science has been filtered, suppressed and manipulated in the last five years," Francesca Grifo, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told the committee.

Grifo's group, along with the Government Accountability Project, which helps whistle-blowers, produced the report.

Drew Shindell, a climate scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that climate scientists frequently have been dissuaded from talking to the media about their research, though NASA's restrictions have been eased.

Prior to the change, interview requests of climate scientists frequently were "routed through the White House" and then turned away or delayed, said Shindell. He described how a news release on his study forecasting a significant warming in Antarctica was "repeatedly delayed, altered and watered down" at the insistence of the White House.

Some Republican members of the committee questioned whether science and politics ever can be kept separate.


Pretty sad stuff that this could happen in America... Sigh... Just say no to Science...