hmm...doesn't appear to be a natural change at all

[Wheezer]

funny, how much energy do you think is being expended by all the computer systems that are in place and are needed just to carry out this silly thread, and how much of an impact to thing they have on the environment?

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
ill be dead by the time it does anything, im on this earth once, and i will live it how i want to.

but pretty much this.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: cscpianoman
I love how we have now transitioned from global warming to climate change. The fact of the matter is the climate is changing, it always has and will continue to change whether man is a part of it or not. Change is part of nature, the same with evolution and adaptation. Man and the animal kingdom will adapt to the changes in climate that they always have done for the past thousands of years. Some locations will become wetter and others will be dryer. In some places storm intensity will increase others will decrease. Get used to it! Now, don't get me wrong, we have a responsibility to conserve and protect the world that is ours, however, going around with the alarmist attitude that the sky is falling is not going to accomplish anything and at best will waste billions of dollars and actually may cause more harm than good.

This study has an agenda, is not peer-reviewed, is alarmist, and is picky-and-choosy with the data to make a point. I'm sorry, this is not going to convince anyone. How about instead of trying to prove we are doing something wrong, why don't we spend all that money on how we can do things right, huh? Like providing water to the billions on this earth, or coming up with better sources of energy, or finding ways to remove all the pollutants in the air, water and earth?

I don't know to whom this is directed, but only true ignoramuses think "global warming" is what this whole debate is about. Climatologists and intelligent lay people have referred to the phenomenon as "anthropogenic climate change" for at least the last 25 years.

Of course, you're one of those right-wing nitwits, so how could I expect you to understand this? You want to pretend that the whole "global warming alarmism" camp is playing games with terminology, changing the debate. That shows how little you've been following this issue. One of the major world bodies focusing on this issue is named the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was founded in 1988.

So I guess that means the "alarmists" started playing presto-chango in 1988, huh?

Your comment about animals adapting is equally risible. Naturally, you're an expert on ecosystems, and it's immediately obvious to your great intellect that a change in average temperature of even a half degree is no big deal. And you conclude this, of course, because whether the temperature outside is 71 or 71.5 degrees (or 73 degrees), you don't notice the difference. And because YOU don't notice the difference of a half or a couple of degrees, no ecosystem will, either. And what possible harm could a couple of degrees make in world climate?

And this "common sense" trumps science.

You are a fool.

 

[imported_inspire]

Firstly, the article erroneously characterizes Carbon Dioxide as a 'potent greenhouse gas'. It's not. Certainly not on the order of Methane.

Secondly, the graph you link to fails to explain the Y-Axis. These are merely deviations from the statistical model the researchers used used to extrapolate temperatures from - they are the plotted differences between what their models expect to happen and the proxy markers they observed. Without knowing more about the models, it's quite difficult to talk about the graph.

Last, I always find it interesting that the patterns in ozone depletion/repletion are rarely discussed when analyzing arctic ice cover.

I'd have to wait for the full article to say any more.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Vic
I should be upset because the next ice age has been delayed by global warming?

hahahahah great way to look at it. global warming is keeping us safe! and you want us to stop sowe can freeze to death? wft!

Yeah, ice ages suck. I prefer to NOT have my country covered by mile thick sheets of ice, thank you.

I think I'll go cut all my trees down and buy a bigger truck now. We can't falter now, victory against the ice is at hand!

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
I don't believe many have ever said that man doesn't or can't impact the climate -- the actual debate has always revolved around the degree to which man has had on changes; and, of course, the subsequent amount of money we should throw at trying to prevent such change.

Many haven't, most Deniers have. The debates on P&N are mostly between the Deniers and Accepters(just made that up). The rest of your post lies in the Scientific and Economic Debates surrounding the issue, which get brought up here from time to time, but are usually not the main Debate happening on this Forum.

Deniers: Deny man is making any impact
Accepters: Realize that even if man is, man is too greedy, short-sighted to make it any better

?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: novasatori

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
ill be dead by the time it does anything, im on this earth once, and i will live it how i want to.

And this is why we have doomed ourselves.

its not like it would be the worst thing to happen to the earth - I think that would be humans - besides imagine all the creatures that will thrive without us

Everytime someone says this I ask them to prove their point and remove themselves from the equation. No one ever does.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
uhh, that chart only goes back 2000 years. how about the rest of the 10000 years since the last ice age????

Because it wouldn't fit in their agenda.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
why do people assume that 1 cool summer means there isn't global warming?

Easy, when you have a pea for a brain and don't believe in science.

Same goes for those that voted for Bush a second time.

Why specify only those that voted for him a second time? Oh, that's right. You voted for Bush, pea brain.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
I don't believe many have ever said that man doesn't or can't impact the climate -- the actual debate has always revolved around the degree to which man has had on changes; and, of course, the subsequent amount of money we should throw at trying to prevent such change.

Many haven't, most Deniers have. The debates on P&N are mostly between the Deniers and Accepters(just made that up). The rest of your post lies in the Scientific and Economic Debates surrounding the issue, which get brought up here from time to time, but are usually not the main Debate happening on this Forum.

Deniers: Deny man is making any impact
Accepters: Realize that even if man is, man is too greedy, short-sighted to make it any better

?

Accepter: OH MY GOD THE SKY IS FALLING WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ANYTHING IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT WE DO!!!!!!!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Can't wait to hear all of the

'it's the sun'

'man is arrogant to think he can impact the climate'

'doesn't matter'

bs replies


this story/graph - while not proof in and of itself, seems to refute many of the anti GW folks

interesting read

LINKY

NeoV...after all the discussions on this subject over the years...you come up with this to justify your personal opinion. Somehow I expected more from you.

Maybe you just missed this part of the article that you linked:
"That research showed a temperature spike in the 20th century, but it was unclear whether human-caused greenhouse gas emissions or natural variability was the culprit, noted study co-author Gifford Miller of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado, Boulder."
The operative word being "unclear".

But let's be clear on this...your article refutes nothing...NOTHING.

FYI...I'm not sure it actually matters to you or not...but we should know a lot more about extraterrestrial forcing in the next year or two...and hopefully get a much better picture of how these mechanisms impact our climate changes. Meanwhile...I'm glad to say...true science marchs on and the truth of the matter will be found.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
I don't believe many have ever argued that man doesn't or can't impact the climate at all -- the actual debate has always revolved around the degree to which man has contributed to the changes; and, of course, the subsequent amount of money we should throw at trying to prevent what many people believe is inevitable or "mostly natural."

Much easier to put a large Denier nametag around the neck of a strawman to knock over repeatedly then it is to discuss the social and economic consequences of the proposed solutions and whether they are worth the cost.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Vic
I should be upset because the next ice age has been delayed by global warming?

Everyone knows that when ice ages come we go sledding and sit around a picturesque New England fireplace eating stew. When the temperatures warm 2 degrees the seas boil off the earth and molten ash rains from the sky! The answer is clear, bankrupt our country so China can burn ass piles of coal anyway.

 

[Atheus]

This message is intended for anyone who has stumbled into this thread and has been shocked by what they read. Those actually participating in the debate may feel free to disregard it.

What we are seeing here is a small part of what I call the rape of the enlightenment - this is the new age of popular philosophy in which the acquisition of knowlege and the application of reason are no longer considered to be important. In other words, just becasue someone has spent their entire life studying something, that doesn't mean their views on it are any more important than those of a complete layman. It is a return to the days before the age of enlightenment when it was just as reasonable for an intelligent person to read the answer to a problem in the intestines of a sheep as it was for him to study it and think it through logically.

A perfect example is so-called 'new age' medicine, like homoeopathy, which many otherwise perfectly sane people swear by. You can show them a scientific study which proves their little bottle contains only water, which will cure nothing but dehydration, and yet it will have absolutely no effect on them. This is not becasue they have some kind of fanatical religious faith in homoeopathy, but becasue they think the homeopathist is just as much of an expert on the subject as the hatfull of MDs and PHDs who did the study, and given a 50/50 choice they've picked the homeopathist.

So you see, the people in this thread have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, and yet they actually believe they are fully qualified to discuss these issues. Not only discuss the issues, in fact, but proclaim that they know the truth as it seems obvious to them. Those who devote their lives to the study of Earth's climate might as well be another bunch of internet blowhards as far as these people are concerned.