Most scientists believe in global warming.

[Lemon law]

As Comnanche sites----I especially like that last one from Nasa

Even though Nasa is an official US government agency, many have taken Nasa to task for being politicized by GWB&co and reporting bogus science while censoring any independent scientist who works for them.

 

[palehorse]

Topic Title: Most scientists believe in global warming.
Topic Summary: Lets end the outright lying on this and many subjects.

oh, the irony

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As Comnanche sites----I especially like that last one from Nasa

Even though Nasa is an official US government agency, many have taken Nasa to task for being politicized by GWB&co and reporting bogus science while censoring any independent scientist who works for them.

Like I said it is clear that the GOP seems to be losing control of keeping the Scientist's down as of late.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Pabster

My personal belief is that global warming is nothing but a figment of liberal imagination, yes.

I think that you are wrong there. There is an overwhelming consensus among scientists that global climate change is happening.

There is a debate about how many factors may be involved, and how each weighs in the overall scheme of things.

But, of all of the possible contributing factors possibly involved, CO2 levels may be the only one we can influence.

So, the emphasis of study should be: can our level of influence make a difference, is the difference great enough to be worthwhile, how soon must we act.

If there really is a "tipping point" to the current warming, delay in finding the answers is foolish.

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Topic Title: Most scientists believe in global warming.
Topic Summary: Lets end the outright lying on this and many subjects.

oh, the irony

Which is a word you may need to look up.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Topic Title: Most scientists believe in global warming.
Topic Summary: Lets end the outright lying on this and many subjects.

oh, the irony

Which is a word you may need to look up.

... no, he used it pretty accurately. What was your point, on the other hand?

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Have you ever walked into a room full of scientists? Exactly where did you get this from?

I take it you are smart enough to do a little research. There's a plethora of opinions available for your perusal.

I'm surprised anybody is willing to say something this silly without justification. Most scientists are not politically motivated and it's repulsive to see people like yourself imputing your own motives on the community at large. If you can show me where GLobal Warming was first mentioned by a pol rather than a scientists, maybe what you said would have some merit. On the other hand, the rejection of a theory based entirely on political grounds is improper and something a large swath of the right wing is guilty of. I suppose you also believe the Earth is only 6000 years old. It must be fun to have the freedom to conflate issues and not bother looking deeper than your voter registration card to make outlandish claims. However, plain common sense should have prevented you from making this post, it did not need a degree in Climatology or a course in logic.

When you can show me 100% agreeement from Scientists that Global Warming exists, you'll have a point. Otherwise, QED.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did anyone else notice the escalation. Pabster starts out maintaining he can walk into a room full of scientists and find a 50-50 split on GW. When it was pointed out that almost all scientists agree man is contributing to global warming and there are huge risks, now Pabster demands a "100% agreement". And failing a 100% agreement, Pabster says the argument is DEFINITELY FALSE when the real answer should be its probably true but not yet totally proven.

That's because the only room Pab and PJ have been is the christian monitor science room...

Of curse they are going to skew the information and science to their agenda ....

Screw the science... You only have to take a trip to the arctics or look at sat info from nasa to see the real picture... To stick ones head in the sand... or be blinded by the truth cause bush told you so is pretty stupid but a lot of die hard repubs here are thick and they will never give in....

Wait till the next president takes his/her seat... then I am almost certain that the truth will come... It's pretty sad how this administration is bending the truth. All one has to do is a bit of their own research and look at the evidence it doesn't get much clearer then that.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As Comnanche sites----I especially like that last one from Nasa

Even though Nasa is an official US government agency, many have taken Nasa to task for being politicized by GWB&co and reporting bogus science while censoring any independent scientist who works for them.

I don't even see what that article is allegedly proving. Solar activity, while certainly a possible cause of past (or current) climate change, has nothing at all to do with the potential impact humans are having on it.

 

[Lemon law]

Well bad news for Global warming nay sayers. Even the Pope has come out and said its time to do somethings about global warming.

Surely you will not piss the pope or call the pope a dope. The pope may talk to God and God will cast your soul into a deep pit for all eternity. Or will you settle for being burned at the stake if he does not give you a break.

Or maybe the ever popular Saint Al Gore would be another option.

All kidding aside, much scientific research remains before a man gains a really excellent understanding of the impacts of man made factors in climate change, but we now know enough that a compelling case can be made to reduce our man made impacts.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

No doubt we in the West can reduce our CO2 output. Although reducing our CO2 output may not have a lot of impact in the future, since India and China are poised to become the largest contributors to atmospheric CO2 in the years to come, we could still slap ourselves on the back at our own thoughtfulness and point fingers at the other guy. At least we would absolve our own guilt, even if we don't really solve the global problem.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Have you ever walked into a room full of scientists? Exactly where did you get this from?

I take it you are smart enough to do a little research. There's a plethora of opinions available for your perusal.

I'm surprised anybody is willing to say something this silly without justification. Most scientists are not politically motivated and it's repulsive to see people like yourself imputing your own motives on the community at large. If you can show me where GLobal Warming was first mentioned by a pol rather than a scientists, maybe what you said would have some merit. On the other hand, the rejection of a theory based entirely on political grounds is improper and something a large swath of the right wing is guilty of. I suppose you also believe the Earth is only 6000 years old. It must be fun to have the freedom to conflate issues and not bother looking deeper than your voter registration card to make outlandish claims. However, plain common sense should have prevented you from making this post, it did not need a degree in Climatology or a course in logic.

When you can show me 100% agreeement from Scientists that Global Warming exists, you'll have a point. Otherwise, QED.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did anyone else notice the escalation. Pabster starts out maintaining he can walk into a room full of scientists and find a 50-50 split on GW. When it was pointed out that almost all scientists agree man is contributing to global warming and there are huge risks, now Pabster demands a "100% agreement". And failing a 100% agreement, Pabster says the argument is DEFINITELY FALSE when the real answer should be its probably true but not yet totally proven.

That's because the only room Pab and PJ have been is the christian monitor science room...

Of curse they are going to skew the information and science to their agenda ....

Screw the science... You only have to take a trip to the arctics or look at sat info from nasa to see the real picture... To stick ones head in the sand... or be blinded by the truth cause bush told you so is pretty stupid but a lot of die hard repubs here are thick and they will never give in....

Wait till the next president takes his/her seat... then I am almost certain that the truth will come... It's pretty sad how this administration is bending the truth. All one has to do is a bit of their own research and look at the evidence it doesn't get much clearer then that.

Excellent! Why spend millions of people to do real research when we can just look at sat info to see what is really going on? We can now put this entire issue to rest because someone looked at a sat image.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No doubt we in the West can reduce our CO2 output. Although reducing our CO2 output may not have a lot of impact in the future, since India and China are poised to become the largest contributors to atmospheric CO2 in the years to come, we could still slap ourselves on the back at our own thoughtfulness and point fingers at the other guy. At least we would absolve our own guilt, even if we don't really solve the global problem.

Now at least TLC is grasping part of the problem. We in the West are doing that better job and we also have to realize that India and China who alone have a huge percentage of the world's population are coming on line as very inefficient polluters at a very rapid pace. Bottom line, world greenhouse gas production will skyrocket.

Regardless if you think the Kyota treaty is fair or not, we now have a huge potential problem and a huge potential risks that may involve the survival of the human race.

So is the strategy of stick your head in the sand like an Ostrich the right thing to do?

Or do we spend the research bucks to help both the East and West become more energy efficient? And become very aggressive in forcing all countries to adopt energy legislation?

Sadly we too much engage in saying lalala GW is not really happening. Which neatly avoids even thinking.

 

[heartsurgeon]

India and China are poised to become the largest contributors to atmospheric CO2 in the years to come

I believe the #1 carbon emitter in the world currently is China.

Clinton/Gore never even attempted to get the Kyoto accord approved.

I am not aware of a single "major" signatory of the Kyoto accord who has actually succeeded in holding up their end of the bargain (except possible Russia..but not through any actual effort, but rather through a collapse of their industrial base (they make less pollution because their antiquated industries spewed out gobs to pollutants and carbon, and now their industrial base has collapsed....i believe they are now in the position of selling carbon credits!!). Further, the last time i checked, almost everyone's carbon emissions are up worldwide, and the U.S., percent wise, has had less of an increase in it carbon emissions that signatories of the Kyoto accord (canada comes to mind..).

so in fact, many signatories of the accord have a worse record of managing their carbon emissions than the U.S. does.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon lawNow at least TLC is grasping part of the problem. We in the West are doing that better job and we also have to realize that India and China who alone have a huge percentage of the world's population are coming on line as very inefficient polluters at a very rapid pace. Bottom line, world greenhouse gas production will skyrocket.

Regardless if you think the Kyota treaty is fair or not, we now have a huge potential problem and a huge potential risks that may involve the survival of the human race.

So is the strategy of stick your head in the sand like an Ostrich the right thing to do?

Or do we spend the research bucks to help both the East and West become more energy efficient? And become very aggressive in forcing all countries to adopt energy legislation?

Sadly we too much engage in saying lalala GW is not really happening. Which neatly avoids even thinking.

Well we can lead those horses to water...

We could easily reduce our GH gas output. We know how and the technologies are there. R&D isn't so much the problem, it's the massive investment to make changes to the existing infrastructure. The same would apply to India and China. So do we twist their collective arms and mandate compliance? Wouldn't that be sticking our nose in the business of others, something that seems repugnant to so many?

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Topic Title: Most scientists believe in global warming.
Topic Summary: Lets end the outright lying on this and many subjects.

oh, the irony

Which is a word you may need to look up.

... no, he used it pretty accurately. What was your point, on the other hand?

I don't find irony in OP asking for an end to lies, except of course in case ph believes the OP himself always lies; however, that still would not really meet the definition of "irony".


Either way, it's really up to Palehorse to enlighten us on exactly what he meant, if he so chooses, in which case he is quite capable of doing so on his own.

 

[piasabird]

If ten people tell you something is so, it does not make it so.

Who cares if global warming exists or not?

What are you going to do about it that you can prove will make a difference??????

I dont care if we have global warming or not because they cant categorically prove that any proposed changes will actually change the climate. Not only that, but you know this. Have we ever been able to stop a drought?

 

[Comanche]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As Comnanche sites----I especially like that last one from Nasa

Even though Nasa is an official US government agency, many have taken Nasa to task for being politicized by GWB&co and reporting bogus science while censoring any independent scientist who works for them.

I don't even see what that article is allegedly proving. Solar activity, while certainly a possible cause of past (or current) climate change, has nothing at all to do with the potential impact humans are having on it.

That last article coincides with cosmic Rays which enhance cloud development. The more sunspots the more solar wind the few cosmic rays. Fewer sunspots and less solar wind means more cosmic rays can get in to enhance cloud development. More clouds and more heat from the sun get reflected back into space. The last time the we went into an extended cycle like this was when the little ice age was going on.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Did anyone else notice the escalation. Pabster starts out maintaining he can walk into a room full of scientists and find a 50-50 split on GW. When it was pointed out that almost all scientists agree man is contributing to global warming and there are huge risks, now Pabster demands a "100% agreement". And failing a 100% agreement, Pabster says the argument is DEFINITELY FALSE when the real answer should be its probably true but not yet totally proven.

Let me make ya happy Lemon. I'd settle for 50% + 1, meaning a majority.

Unfortunately we aren't even close.

And while not all scientists are political, you'd have to be a real sheep not to see that many of them are.

PS, Sierrita, I'm pleased to make your signature line. Flattered, in fact. :laugh:

 

[Comanche]

Pabster just hit on a really big point. Global warming is only a theory. What is a theory? Something that hasn't been proven, otherwise it would be a law, or something like that.

 

[DrPizza]

We have to rely on the intelligence of the citizenry to be able and capable of separating the lies from the truth.

You're right.



<looks around>
We're screwed.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
That's great stuff, but do you have any, what do you call it, "evidence" to back up those statements?

http://www.dailytech.com/Surve...Theory/article8641.htm

http://www.edge.org/documents/...ve/edge219.html#dysonf

http://www.norcalblogs.com/wat...r_the_hottest_yea.html

http://www.dailytech.com/NOAA+...lenged/article7723.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.../2004/07/18/wsun18.xml

http://www.worldclimatereport....6/03/21/solar-warming/

http://news.nationalgeographic...0228-mars-warming.html

 

[Comanche]

And it's just not Mars. It is also Triton, Jupiter and Pluto.

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: Comanche
Pabster just hit on a really big point. Global warming is only a theory. What is a theory? Something that hasn't been proven, otherwise it would be a law, or something like that.

Actions are taken every day on a basis far less certain than something proven.

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Rainsford
That's great stuff, but do you have any, what do you call it, "evidence" to back up those statements?

http://www.dailytech.com/Surve...Theory/article8641.htm

http://www.edge.org/documents/...ve/edge219.html#dysonf

http://www.norcalblogs.com/wat...r_the_hottest_yea.html

http://www.dailytech.com/NOAA+...lenged/article7723.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.../2004/07/18/wsun18.xml

http://www.worldclimatereport....6/03/21/solar-warming/

http://news.nationalgeographic...0228-mars-warming.html

Some of your links say there is no warming, some say it is caused by increased solar irradiance. Do you have a theory of your own, or are you just muddying the water?

 

[Gneisenau]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As Comnanche sites----I especially like that last one from Nasa

Even though Nasa is an official US government agency, many have taken Nasa to task for being politicized by GWB&co and reporting bogus science while censoring any independent scientist who works for them.

I don't even see what that article is allegedly proving. Solar activity, while certainly a possible cause of past (or current) climate change, has nothing at all to do with the potential impact humans are having on it.

Yes it can. The higher the contribution the sun makes to the change in global climate, the less the contribution man may make. When you add all the factors up, it still has to equal the same results. If a+b=10 then if a goes up b must go down. Since the temperatures are known values, and increase in the contribution of the sun means something else's contribution must go down.