Most scientists believe in global warming.

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Give it up.

I can walk in to a room full of scientists and easily find a handful from each camp. Half swear it is all BS and the other half have Al Gore statues on their mantles.

Global Warming is a figment of liberal imagination manifested entirely for political purposes.

You marginalized yourself by bringing up Gore as I highly doubt he is an idol among the scientific community. Shame, you almost had an argument. :roll: It really is a bummer Bush won't get on the GW bandwagon. He is the only person that I reckon can convince the other half of people in the room.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
It really is a bummer Bush won't get on the GW bandwagon. He is the only person that I reckon can convince the other half of people in the room.

I'd like to see that. It would demonstrate that at least one half of the people in the room have an open mind on the matter and are willing to change their opinion.

 

[Brovane]

The press is getting two things messed up. Just because there is Global Warming doesn't
mean that mankind is the cause of Global Warming. Over millions of years the climate of Earth has undergone cooling and heating cycles. How do you think that Greenland got the name Greenland? Because around 1,500 years ago the Earth's climate was warm enough to support people living on Greenland and Greenland was lush and Green.
Nobody has enough information in the short time that data is available to be able to draw a hard conclusion.

That being said I think there is a way to reduce pollution by supporting the widespread development of Nuclear Power to generate large amounts of power with zero green-house gases generated during the power generation process. By large amounts of power I am talking in the Gig watt range. However the lack of support from the environment movement for this technology exposes the environment movement like Greenpeace for what they are. The environmental movement agenda is really a "anti-modernism" and "anti-globalism" movement not a environmental movement. While I support ways to reduce pollution and clean-up the environment however that has to be balanced against the economics of the environmental regulations.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Brovane

Because around 1,500 years ago the Earth's climate was warm enough to support people living on Greenland and Greenland was lush and Green.

FIY

Wikipedia

The Greenland Ice Sheet is a vast body of ice covering roughly 80% of the surface of Greenland

The ice in the current ice sheet is as old as 110,000 years

The ice sheet, consisting of layers of compressed snow from more than a hundred thousand years, contains in its ice today's most valuable record of past climates.

Wikipedia

Greenland was home to a number of Paleo-Eskimo cultures in prehistory. From A.D. 984 it has been colonized by Norse settlers who lived in two settlements on the west coast on the fjords near the very southwestern tip of the island.

Data obtained from ice cores indicate that between A.D. 800 and 1300 the regions around the fjords of the southern part of the island experienced a relatively mild climate similar to today.

So, can you explain your idea that 1500yr ago Greenland was lush and green?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
You marginalized yourself by bringing up Gore as I highly doubt he is an idol among the scientific community. Shame, you almost had an argument. :roll: It really is a bummer Bush won't get on the GW bandwagon. He is the only person that I reckon can convince the other half of people in the room.

I only brought up Gore to showcase the extremes between those who utterly refute the very existence of GW and those who have made it their life's campaign to protest about it.

I certainly hope Gore isn't an "idol" among the scientific community; That'd be a real travesty. The guy doesn't have the credentials to supply anything more than musing and opinion on the subject (and - in fairness - so do most of the rest of us). Unfortunately, Gore is an "idol" of a fairly large segment of the liberals. And they tend to be the ones sounding the alarms, right or wrong. (Some of them I believe of genuine intentions, many not.)

 

[shira]

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

Your first link is the nonsense study which we thoroughly annihilated a couple of days ago. None of the other links disputes the notion that human behavior is a major contributor to climate change or that there is a strong scientific consensus on that opinion. In fact, your telegraph link includes this interesting sentence (bolding is mine):

Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades but have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures.

You seem to think that citing a few scientists, such as Dyson, who disagree with the notion of anthropogenic climate change, does anything to dispute the fact that there is a huge scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. You are confusing consensus with unanimity. But since there's no unanimity in any area of science, by definition you can find scientists to disagree with ANY theory. For your argument to be credible, show us a statement by a major scientific body - representing large numbers of climatologists - that disputes anthropogenic climate change. Good luck!

To address another of your links: No one - not even the most rabid advocates of drastically reducing greenhouse emissions - claims that human activity is the ONLY major contributor to climate change. Yet the right-wing position seems to be that if they can show that there is another contributor, then it's futile and wastefully expensive to try to significantly reduce greenhouse emissions.

But that's like arguing that since heart disease is a major cause of death, it's ridiculous to make an effort to fight cancer. Nonsense!

 

[Comanche]

Originally posted by: shira

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

Your first link is the nonsense study which we thoroughly annihilated a couple of days ago. None of the other links disputes the notion that human behavior is a major contributor to climate change or that there is a strong scientific consensus on that opinion. In fact, your telegraph link includes this interesting sentence (bolding is mine):

Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades but have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures.

You seem to think that citing a few scientists, such as Dyson, who disagree with the notion of anthropogenic climate change, does anything to dispute the fact that there is a huge scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. You are confusing consensus with unanimity. But since there's no unanimity in any area of science, by definition you can find scientists to disagree with ANY theory. For your argument to be credible, show us a statement by a major scientific body - representing large numbers of climatologists - that disputes anthropogenic climate change. Good luck!

To address another of your links: No one - not even the most rabid advocates of drastically reducing greenhouse emissions - claims that human activity is the ONLY major contributor to climate change. Yet the right-wing position seems to be that if they can show that there is another contributor, then it's futile and wastefully expensive to try to significantly reduce greenhouse emissions.

But that's like arguing that since heart disease is a major cause of death, it's ridiculous to make an effort to fight cancer. Nonsense!

That is just it. Our time and money would be better spent trying to find a cure for cancer. To think that puny humans can control something as complex as the weather is nuts.

 

[ProfJohn]

Two of Tech?s sources are the ?Union of Concerned Scientists? which is a left wing group that has very little connection to the scientific world.

This was one of those groups that pushed for the end of all nuclear weapons as well.

Also? no one debates whether the world is warming up; it has been for the past 20 years. The question open for debate is how much impact the activity of man has on this warming. Based on the recent CO2 articles I posted we could be responsible for as little as 1 degree of this warming. Statistically a 1 degree increase in temp would be nearly meaningless as the normal temp fluctuations from year to year are greater than this.

 

[Brovane]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Brovane

Because around 1,500 years ago the Earth's climate was warm enough to support people living on Greenland and Greenland was lush and Green.

FIY

Wikipedia

The Greenland Ice Sheet is a vast body of ice covering roughly 80% of the surface of Greenland

The ice in the current ice sheet is as old as 110,000 years

The ice sheet, consisting of layers of compressed snow from more than a hundred thousand years, contains in its ice today's most valuable record of past climates.

Wikipedia

Greenland was home to a number of Paleo-Eskimo cultures in prehistory. From A.D. 984 it has been colonized by Norse settlers who lived in two settlements on the west coast on the fjords <near the very southwestern tip of the island.

Data obtained from ice cores indicate that between A.D. 800 and 1300 the regions around the <fjords of the southern part of the island experienced a relatively mild climate similar to today.

So, can you explain your idea that 1500yr ago Greenland was lush and green?

Easy you just explained it. Between 800-1300 AD Greenland during the medieval warm period Greenland was warmed enough to support the settling of the Southern tip by Norse Settlers. By 1300 as the Little Ice Age started the settlers could no longer survive on Greenland. So the Earth natural climate change warmed Greenland so settlers could survive for around 500 years and then the climate cooled enough so the settlers could no longer survive. All this happened without modern pollution.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Comanche
That is just it.

Our time and money would be better spent trying to find a cure for cancer.

To think that puny humans can control something as complex as the weather is nuts.

No one is trying to throw money at controlling the weather. :roll:

Don't join the legions of spin and dodge masters.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Originally posted by: techs
This thread is about people who publish outright lies, pulled from fake websites, websites with no documentation and politically or corporate funded websites.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w...lobal-warming-faq.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w...bal-warming-faq.html#3

How can we separate the vast right wing lie conspiracy from the truth?
Any ideas?

You mean like those sites?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 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.

To me, his words are as meaningless as Al Gores. IMO, they're both nutcases.

Do you believe that most "global warming naysayers" are Catholics? What the correlation between religion and global warming!?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth

Originally posted by: techs
This thread is about people who publish outright lies, pulled from fake websites, websites with no documentation and politically or corporate funded websites.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w...lobal-warming-faq.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w...bal-warming-faq.html#3

How can we separate the vast right wing lie conspiracy from the truth?
Any ideas?

You mean like those sites?

The lack of substance in your attack only shows that you are not to be listened to, not that there's anything wrong with the sites.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
What the correlation between religion and global warming!?

Because being a paid naysayer is a religion. Used to be called cults.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: palehorse74
What the correlation between religion and global warming!?

Because being a paid naysayer is a religion. Used to be called cults.

:roll:as usual, you make absolutely no sense Dave.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Brovane

A tiny portion of Greenland was habitable for ordinary people(those without genetic adaptations and special arctic survival skills). Calling this huge island "lush and green" is entirely misleading. The fleeting, tiny, coastal, warmer area was likely due to ocean currents, and has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Besides, the weather was only one of several factors that lead to the Norse leaving.

 

[IGBT]

..if it wasen't for the "willing accomplices" in the misery milking media.. supporting eco-theists and their voodoo science to promote a socialist agenda and algore, global cooling/warming would be laughed out of public discussion. It's entirely a political issue to further the acceptance of severe taxation..emission credit rackets and BIG LIBERAL GOVERNMENT. DON'T BE FOOLED unless your part of the GRIFT.

 

[Comanche]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: palehorse74
What the correlation between religion and global warming!?

Because being a paid naysayer is a religion. Used to be called cults.

:roll:as usual, you make absolutely no sense Dave.

made sense to me!

 

[Brovane]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Brovane

A tiny portion of Greenland was habitable for ordinary people(those without genetic adaptations and special arctic survival skills). Calling this huge island "lush and green" is entirely misleading. The fleeting, tiny, coastal, warmer area was likely due to ocean currents, and has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Besides, the weather was only one of several factors that lead to the Norse leaving.

The Norseman called Greenland the name Greenland because of the green vegetation. The medieval warming period was a trend over several hundred years of warmer weather. The key factor that I am saying is that the Earths climate has changed over millions of years with warmer and cooler periods. To take even 150 years of data and try to build a reasonable model of climate prediction that the Earth is warming and humans have caused this is dubious.
Even if that was the case and we were causing global warming what are we supposed to do about it? The best way to reduce greenhouse gaseous is to build more nuclear power generation stations and environmental movement refuses to consider this. Which exposes there true anti-modernism agenda.

 

[Comanche]

Originally posted by: Brovane

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Brovane

A tiny portion of Greenland was habitable for ordinary people(those without genetic adaptations and special arctic survival skills). Calling this huge island "lush and green" is entirely misleading. The fleeting, tiny, coastal, warmer area was likely due to ocean currents, and has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Besides, the weather was only one of several factors that lead to the Norse leaving.

The Norseman called Greenland the name Greenland because of the green vegetation. The medieval warming period was a trend over several hundred years of warmer weather. The key factor that I am saying is that the Earths climate has changed over millions of years with warmer and cooler periods. To take even 150 years of data and try to build a reasonable model of climate prediction that the Earth is warming and humans have caused this is dubious.
Even if that was the case and we were causing global warming what are we supposed to do about it? The best way to reduce greenhouse gaseous is to build more nuclear power generation stations and environmental movement refuses to consider this. Which exposes there true anti-modernism agenda.

And the same goes for wind farms.

 

[Comanche]

With all the scare tactics that have been going around with global warming it is no wonder that people are afraid. Jackschmittusa brougth up something that is interesting. The Midieval warming trend was a period when it was warmer than today even. And people thrived. Of course back then they were probably saying that it was caused by humans and they needed to cut back on building cooking fires.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Comanche
With all the scare tactics that have been going around with global warming it is no wonder that people are afraid. Jackschmittusa brougth up something that is interesting. The Midieval warming trend was a period when it was warmer than today even. And people thrived. Of course back then they were probably saying that it was caused by humans and they needed to cut back on building cooking fires.

..and back then the eco-theists were burning people at the stake for not believing the world was flat. Now the same bunch of druids say the sky is falling.

 

[FuzzyBee]

How long ago was the earth a big ol' chunk of ice? I'd say it's warming up, all right.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..if it wasen't for the "willing accomplices" in the misery milking media.. supporting eco-theists and their voodoo science to promote a socialist agenda and algore, global cooling/warming would be laughed out of public discussion. It's entirely a political issue to further the acceptance of severe taxation..emission credit rackets and BIG LIBERAL GOVERNMENT. DON'T BE FOOLED unless your part of the GRIFT.

Bravo! I do believe you worked all of the major denial points into not only a single post, but a single paragraph! Quite impressive. (You sound like an ignorant tool, of course, but quite a feat nonetheless.) Now if you could only find some way to get the majority of qualified climatologists to listen to your industry-sponsored rhetoric instead of their factual data, you'd be set.

 

[Comanche]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Bravo! I do believe you worked all of the major denial points into not only a single post, but a single paragraph! Quite impressive. (You sound like an ignorant tool, of course, but quite a feat nonetheless.) Now if you could only find some way to get the majority of qualified climatologists to listen to your industry-sponsored rhetoric instead of their factual data, you'd be set.

Problem is that most climatologists are too busy preparing their eronious 10 day forcasts to have time to listen, and when they do, they listen to people like algore who make up facts, use flawed info, and pretend that we are headed for major catastophie.

IGBT was right on.