Global Warming Deniers

[First]

No one denies global warming anymore, it's the man-made part that is less clear. Though the majority of evidence is on the man-made side, the degree to which we're affecting the planet is difficult to gauge entirely accurately.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Some of us simply do not believe that the cyclical phenomenon is entirely, or even primarily, man-made. That doesn't mean the same thing as denying its occurrence... but hey, you knew that, right? :roll:

i'm sure most of the reason why most of you don't believe it is because al gore brought it to attention.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I don't understand why this thread was not locked immediately. This is 100% flame-bait. People who start threads like this should get vacations.

If not, I'll be starting a whole slew of threads with titles like, "Democrats: Wouldn't being a democrat make you stupid or ignorant?" or "Tree Hugging Hippies: Wouldn't the world be a better place if they were all dead?"

Am I missing something when it comes to what is acceptable and what is not?

not even close... worst analogies ever. you should get a vacation just for the piss poor analogies.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
No one denies global warming anymore, it's the man-made part that is less clear. Though the majority of evidence is on the man-made side, the degree to which we're affecting the planet is difficult to gauge entirely accurately.

untrue. my roommate and some other people from school don't believe in global warming whatsoever. that's what prompted this thread.

i've got no beef with anyone who knows that global warming is happening, but isn't sure whether or not it's primarily worsened because of human consumption and pollution. it's a valid stance to have. my beef is with those who don't acknowledge global warming at all. that's why i ask whether it's because they're ignorant of the facts or if it's because they're just dumb or if they think it's all a big liberal lie or something.

 

[Aimster]

A lot of people have too much faith in their religion that doesn't exist.

Sorry folks.. God is not going to save this planet from our mess.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I think that when you get to the crux of this MMGW issue...many falsely believe the science is settled...when, in fact, it is not.

What I have found is that most who have no interest in science as it applies to the creation/evolution debate because of their faith, are the first ones to pull "the science is still out" card out when trying to convince themselves that God would never allow such a thing as GW to occur, man-made or otherwise.

.. just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us. It's science. /burgundy voice

For the record...I don't fall into your pigeon hole...don't let your imagination get the best of you.

Glad to hear, but my observation was in no way my personal indictment of your own beliefs, I tried to make it generic. Just saying I hear it often in debate from people like those I described above. Most people imo have a healthy balance between faith and science and can judge things for themselves. At least I hope they do.

Since you quoted me, I responded as your comment appeared to have been directed at me personally. So, tell me, what do you believe...is the science settled or not?

I don't think the science will ever be totally settled. It is too vast and we are too puny to be even being able to come close to understanding everything that is climate change. I think we are warming up a bit, but I hope it is nothing major and it is just a short, cyclical change.

As to whether or not man has anything to do with.. not sure, though I can't imagine we can continue to dump shit into our skies forever without consequence nor do I know if that is the cause of GW. My contention has and always will be, fuck the likes of Al Gore and other messengers preaching and trying to decide if they are full of shit or not. That?s just a waste of time IMO. I could care less to defend anyone as in all honesty, I don't know if they are right or not. What I do know is, if there is anything that I as a human can do to reduce my footprint, I am all for it but I think it should be a voluntary thing on the individual level.

On the corporate level, I guess I am for having stricter standards if for nothing more than to force the advance of R&D and technology. We can't run on fossil fuels forever.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I think that when you get to the crux of this MMGW issue...many falsely believe the science is settled...when, in fact, it is not.

What I have found is that most who have no interest in science as it applies to the creation/evolution debate because of their faith, are the first ones to pull "the science is still out" card out when trying to convince themselves that God would never allow such a thing as GW to occur, man-made or otherwise.

.. just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us. It's science. /burgundy voice

For the record...I don't fall into your pigeon hole...don't let your imagination get the best of you.

Glad to hear, but my observation was in no way my personal indictment of your own beliefs, I tried to make it generic. Just saying I hear it often in debate from people like those I described above. Most people imo have a healthy balance between faith and science and can judge things for themselves. At least I hope they do.

Since you quoted me, I responded as your comment appeared to have been directed at me personally. So, tell me, what do you believe...is the science settled or not?

I don't think the science will ever be totally settled. It is too vast and we are too puny to be even being able to come close to understanding everything that is climate change. I think we are warming up a bit, but I hope it is nothing major and it is just a short, cyclical change.

As to whether or not man has anything to do with.. not sure, though I can't imagine we can continue to dump shit into our skies forever without consequence nor do I know if that is the cause of GW. My contention has and always will be, fuck the likes of Al Gore and other messengers preaching and trying to decide if they are full of shit or not. That?s just a waste of time IMO. I could care less to defend anyone as in all honesty, I don't know if they are right or not. What I do know is, if there is anything that I as a human can do to reduce my footprint, I am all for it but I think it should be a voluntary thing on the individual level.

On the corporate level, I guess I am for having stricter standards if for nothing more than to force the advance of R&D and technology. We can't run on fossil fuels forever.

you don't think there should be environmental protection laws or pollution laws or more strict emissions standards for vehicles?

 

[eits]

accidentally quoted instead of edit

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Some of us simply do not believe that the cyclical phenomenon is entirely, or even primarily, man-made. That doesn't mean the same thing as denying its occurrence... but hey, you knew that, right? :roll:

i'm sure most of the reason why most of you don't believe it is because al gore brought it to attention.

Al Gore has absolutely nothing to do with my personal opinions on Global Warming being a natural vs. man-made phenomenon. I was also well aware of the issue before Al Gore reared his robotic head...

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So what do you plan on doing about global warming? Will you sell your car and start riding a bicycle to work? Lead by example!

..he's going to force his eco-theism down your throat. some where along the line the eco-theists will start cutting heads off. don't we already have another theism group doing that??

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: JD50
How is this thread not locked yet, its the definition of a troll.

Thank you, was thinking the same thing.

My thread on Randi Rhodes was based on a Newspaper story and it was still locked for being a 'troll thread.'

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: eits
wouldn't being a global warming denier make someone a conspiracy theorist if not stupid or ignorant?

I don?t get your ?logic? and I use the term loosely.

No one is claiming that Global Warming in based on some conspiracy theory.
We are saying that it is based on questionable science. The same type of science that told us we were heading into an ice age 30 years ago.

I really enjoyed the story of the guys who took one of the doom predicting computer models and backed it up 50 years plugged in the data as it actually existed based on history, instead of taking a guess at the next 50 years, and then ran the model and found out that it was 100% wrong.

 

[ProfJohn]

BTW? our atmosphere has a mass of 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg or 5,000 trillion kilo grams or 11,023 trillion pounds.

It is awfully arrogant of us to think that we the number one cause of any changes in something this large.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eits
wouldn't being a global warming denier make someone a conspiracy theorist if not stupid or ignorant?

I don?t get your ?logic? and I use the term loosely.

No one is claiming that Global Warming in based on some conspiracy theory.
We are saying that it is based on questionable science. The same type of science that told us we were heading into an ice age 30 years ago.

I really enjoyed the story of the guys who took one of the doom predicting computer models and backed it up 50 years plugged in the data as it actually existed based on history, instead of taking a guess at the next 50 years, and then ran the model and found out that it was 100% wrong.

ooooh, ok... so you guys know more than scientists. i see now. gotcha. so, you're not into a conspiracy theory or stupid or ignorant... you're just delusional.

that's like you telling me about what the people of iran are like. oh, wait...

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eits
wouldn't being a global warming denier make someone a conspiracy theorist if not stupid or ignorant?

I don?t get your ?logic? and I use the term loosely.

No one is claiming that Global Warming in based on some conspiracy theory.
We are saying that it is based on questionable science. The same type of science that told us we were heading into an ice age 30 years ago.

I really enjoyed the story of the guys who took one of the doom predicting computer models and backed it up 50 years plugged in the data as it actually existed based on history, instead of taking a guess at the next 50 years, and then ran the model and found out that it was 100% wrong.

ooooh, ok... so you guys know more than scientists. i see now. gotcha. so, you're not into a conspiracy theory or stupid or ignorant... you're just delusional.

that's like you telling me about what the people of iran are like. oh, wait...

What about the scientists who Global Warming deniers, do they know nothing about science as well?

As Dr William Gray says: "How can we trust climate forecasts 50 and 100 years into the future (that can?t be verified in our lifetime) when they are not able to make shorter seasonal or yearly forecasts that could be verified?"

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eits
wouldn't being a global warming denier make someone a conspiracy theorist if not stupid or ignorant?

I don?t get your ?logic? and I use the term loosely.

No one is claiming that Global Warming in based on some conspiracy theory.
We are saying that it is based on questionable science. The same type of science that told us we were heading into an ice age 30 years ago.

I really enjoyed the story of the guys who took one of the doom predicting computer models and backed it up 50 years plugged in the data as it actually existed based on history, instead of taking a guess at the next 50 years, and then ran the model and found out that it was 100% wrong.

ooooh, ok... so you guys know more than scientists. i see now. gotcha. so, you're not into a conspiracy theory or stupid or ignorant... you're just delusional.

that's like you telling me about what the people of iran are like. oh, wait...

What about the scientists who Global Warming deniers, do they know nothing about science as well?

As Dr William Gray says: "How can we trust climate forecasts 50 and 100 years into the future (that can?t be verified in our lifetime) when they are not able to make shorter seasonal or yearly forecasts that could be verified?"

Reasonable people can differ. The problem is that folks like Dr. Gray express dissent, often in extremely political language, without factual support...and their opinions, and more important, their published arguments, are dwarfed by the number of real scientists who support the idea of man-made climate change. And the other problem is that most scientists like Dr. Gray are not actually climate change scientists. His field, for example, is short term hurricane prediction. While that may appear to be related, I would trust someone who actually studies long term climate trends over someone who merely studies a related field.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
No one denies global warming anymore, it's the man-made part that is less clear. Though the majority of evidence is on the man-made side, the degree to which we're affecting the planet is difficult to gauge entirely accurately.

untrue. my roommate and some other people from school don't believe in global warming whatsoever. that's what prompted this thread.

i've got no beef with anyone who knows that global warming is happening, but isn't sure whether or not it's primarily worsened because of human consumption and pollution. it's a valid stance to have. my beef is with those who don't acknowledge global warming at all. that's why i ask whether it's because they're ignorant of the facts or if it's because they're just dumb or if they think it's all a big liberal lie or something.

Your roommate and those other people from school are total twats. Not even the most intellectually dishonest political commentators in broadcast journalism deny GW. The worst you'll get is someone saying man has little to nothing to do with GW (which isn't supported by much of any evidence, but that's another story).

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eits
wouldn't being a global warming denier make someone a conspiracy theorist if not stupid or ignorant?

I don?t get your ?logic? and I use the term loosely.

No one is claiming that Global Warming in based on some conspiracy theory.
We are saying that it is based on questionable science. The same type of science that told us we were heading into an ice age 30 years ago.

I really enjoyed the story of the guys who took one of the doom predicting computer models and backed it up 50 years plugged in the data as it actually existed based on history, instead of taking a guess at the next 50 years, and then ran the model and found out that it was 100% wrong.

ooooh, ok... so you guys know more than scientists. i see now. gotcha. so, you're not into a conspiracy theory or stupid or ignorant... you're just delusional.

that's like you telling me about what the people of iran are like. oh, wait...

What about the scientists who Global Warming deniers, do they know nothing about science as well?

As Dr William Gray says: "How can we trust climate forecasts 50 and 100 years into the future (that can?t be verified in our lifetime) when they are not able to make shorter seasonal or yearly forecasts that could be verified?"

that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard. that's like someone saying, "how can i trust that there will be record breaking temperatures next summer when i can't predict the weather next week?"

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW? our atmosphere has a mass of 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg or 5,000 trillion kilo grams or 11,023 trillion pounds.

It is awfully arrogant of us to think that we the number one cause of any changes in something this large.

..but the alarmist screw balls ignore numbers and only subscribe to pick and choose agenda driven dogma that the willing accomplices in the media drum beat. The media action line is blame humans and construct rational that supports that agenda.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW? our atmosphere has a mass of 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg or 5,000 trillion kilo grams or 11,023 trillion pounds.

It is awfully arrogant of us to think that we the number one cause of any changes in something this large.

..but the alarmist screw balls ignore numbers and only subscribe to pick and choose agenda driven dogma that the willing accomplices in the media drum beat. The< media action line is blame humans and construct rational that supports that agenda.

see? this is why i said "conspiracy theorists".

 

[dualsmp]

In 1975 Chicken Little told me that Global Cooling is going to cause an apocalypse.

In 2007 Al Gore told me the that Global Warming is going to cause an apocalypse..

Been there done that.

The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975

Here is the text of Newsweek?s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling. It may look foolish today, but in fact world temperatures had been falling since about 1940. It was around 1979 that they reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had begun in the 1880s, bringing us today back to around 1940 levels. A PDF of the original is available here.

A fine short history of warming and cooling scares has recently been produced. It is available here. ? D.D.
--------------------


There are ominous signs that the Earth?s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production ? with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas ? parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia ? where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree ? a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars? worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world?s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth?s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. ?A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,? warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, ?because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.?

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth?s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras ? and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the ?little ice age? conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 ? years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. ?Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,? concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. ?Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.?

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases ? all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

?The world?s food-producing system,? warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA?s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, ?is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.? Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: eits
the reason i bring up the conspiracy theory thing is because if you don't believe that it exists and most people around the world and most scientists who are experts on this sort of thing agree that global warming is occurring, then you must think that there must be some kind of conspiracy against the general world public for some kind of liberal agenda... either that or you think you're right and everyone else is wrong.

The issue is not global warming!
The issue that is highly debated an NOT agreed on by mosy scientists is 2 fold...

#1--- Are we the cause of this?
#2--- is this just another natural occurance that takes place every so many hundreds of years?

Nobody is going to tell you that global warming is NOT happening.
It`s the cause that nobody seems to agree on!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

wouldn't being a global warming denier make someone a conspiracy theorist if not stupid or ignorant?

Such a thought provoking question, and you are bringing into question the intelligence or ignorance of others?

Don't question him! He's an EXPERT (who's still in training, but an expert nonetheless!)

This is nothing but a troll thread.

the definition of an EXPERT is -- a drip under pressure!!

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: eits
the reason i bring up the conspiracy theory thing is because if you don't believe that it exists and most people around the world and most scientists who are experts on this sort of thing agree that global warming is occurring, then you must think that there must be some kind of conspiracy against the general world public for some kind of liberal agenda... either that or you think you're right and everyone else is wrong.

The issue is not global warming!
The issue that is highly debated an NOT agreed on by mosy scientists is 2 fold...

#1--- Are we the cause of this?
#2--- is this just another natural occurance that takes place every so many hundreds of years?

Nobody is going to tell you that global warming is NOT happening.
It`s the cause that nobody seems to agree on!

no, there are people who actually don't believe that global warming is even occuring, regardless of cause. that's what i'm talking about.

 

[CyberDuck]

Originally posted by: eits
no, there are people who actually don't believe that global warming is even occuring, regardless of cause. that's what i'm talking about.

It's worth it!