Climate Change Still Denied?

See here is the problem I have not denied anything and the liberal agenda wants you to believe that if you question "global warming" then you deny that anything is happening.

What is a debate is how much has man contributed to this latest warming period and how much is a normal earth cycle?

Earth has gone through many changes before man and it will not stop. But because this is something that has been beaten into people to question it is the stupidest thing in the world. More people on here are ok with questioning the event of 9/11 then they are with man-made global warming. I find that scary.

 

No one has been beaten into not questioning it the science has at it's root a healthy amount of skepticism or redundant consideration in examining the statistical evidence. We have a broad understanding of physical processes and forecasting weather is an inexact science but we are getting better at prediction as we gather more information. How significantly have humans contributed to water pollution? The fact is humans are altering earth systems substantially across the board including the rate of species extinction.

 

Another thing... pointing to specific cold weather events as disproof of global warming is a lot like saying you've disproven the Greenhouse Effect because you went inside a real greenhouse on a cloudy winter day, and it was cold inside. The temperature of a real greenhouse is going to go up and down, but the yearly average will still be higher than outdoors.

 

I agree thedope, and the sad thing is many humans are only worried about their own reproduction....abortion issues and hatred there for people wishing to abort.........etc......and couldn't care less about other species......

 

We may not have time to figure this out. We need to fix whatever we can fix.

 

No, there is really no relevant debate, just a bunch of blather from tea-party republicans. There's a little thing called overwhelming scientific consensus. Unless of course you believe Al gore has magical hypnotic powers over the majority of earth and atmospheric scientists.
There's no point in debating weather human activity is the greatest contributor.
Nations are moving forward to address what can be done and there's very little the troglodytes can do about it.

 

And it those who have difficulty accepting an inconvenient truth would naturally expect that they were being forced into it.

 

the bible says to subdue the earth, so we have a God given right to fuck this planet up and make money doing it, Jesus gonna come back and save the ones that matter in a few years...devil worshipping scientists are gonna go to hell

*wink*

it seriously pisses me off to hear some religious fundamentalist try to make this kind of argument ... the degree of ignorance is just staggering

 

lol you fucked up your copy-paste fonts.

 

Before I even bother reading this entire thread...can someone kindly confirm whether it's going to be Logical People Who Understand Science vs. People Who Think Science Is "Junk", Evolution Is A Myth And An Invisible Man Is Real?

I'm just going to go out on a limb and guess that's basically what this is. If not, I'll be happy to read and participate.

 

Something like that....

 

Having skimmed over some of the posts it appears to be a typical Left vs Right application of denigration, name calling and labeling, method of eliminating any rational discussion as usual.
Has anyone seen the source code of the climate model program?

IF, as we are asked to believe, that global warming is happening and is an anthropogenic causation, is population growth included as a component in the model? Although I'm NOT a climate scientist, if their program does not predict with 100% accuracy I would assume there may be numerous ways of changing it to produce the appearance of greater accuracy which may only work temporarily. Obviously it is pointless to attempt any questioning as one side seems to feel it possesses the unquestionable truth already. Perhaps the simplest solution would be to reduce the human population?

That's my two cents worth, and I see no point in responding to any allusive posts based upon what I have just written.

 

I skimmed back a few posts but I think that population obviously increases consumption. The other thing is...even if we can agree that the climate is changing and we don't agree why....is it a bad thing to limit our toxic emissions or pollution in terms of garbage/chemical waste? I say no.

As to the question of measurable surface of ice caps...there seems to be a gross misconception that just because we can say there is more surface ice...that means the ice cap is growing. By contrast....lets say we took a 4x8 ft container, filled it with water and left it outside in 29 degree weather until it froze to 10 inches deep. We would have a 4x8 slab of ice that is 10 inches thick. Then we put that into a 8x12 pool of water that was the same temperature but we left it outside in say...43 degree temps for a while. The ice slab would melt on all sides to some degree. Let's just say 30% of the mass melted. Then we had a few days of 31-32 degree temps overnight and the surface of all of the water froze over and created a half inch of ice on the surface.

Did we regenerate the original thick mass of ice which takes longer to thaw? No. Not at all. We would see an impressive increase in the surface area of the ice but not in the mass of the original ice which took much longer to form at colder temps. And that thinner surface area would melt very rapidly with a slight increase in the temperature.

That is what people are trying to sell you when they claim we have such a huge surface area of ice. It isn't a relevant point because the original mass is still reduced and will continue to melt as soon as a warm day melts the thin ice around it.

 

Carbon dioxide has a GWP of exactly 1 (since it is the baseline unit to which all other greenhouse gases are compared)

For example, the 20 year GWP of methane is 86, which means that if the same mass of methane and carbon dioxide were introduced into the atmosphere, that methane will trap 86 times more heat than the carbon dioxide over the next 20 years.

Sulfur hexafluoride has a GWP of 22,800 over 100 years but 16,300 over 20 years . The GWP value depends on how the gas concentration decays over time in the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential

 

the only logical conclusion is that chemistry and thermodynamics is a conspiracy!

 

Climate is just the beginning. The apocalypse has started! I know this because the crime rate is up this year in the city that my conservative christian coworkers live in.

But they still deny that it's getting warmer. This recent cold weather is their proof.

 

I'm kind of of the same thought as George Carlin. We're toast. The Earth ins't going anywhere. We are and he talked about how he would like to be able to watch it unfold over the next 1000-1500 years or however long it takes. It would be very interesting to watch it all happen.

 

Indie

But you’ve never discussed anything rationally, you name call, denigrate and label whenever its suites you but mainly you are good at running away because you can’t defend your ideas from criticisms in any rational way, we see that all the time, I could give a very long list of thread, where you have scampered off with your tail between your legs – so please don’t insult us with rubbish about you being some champion of rational discussion.

You’ve mentioned this before - as you have mention your preference for a “Spenceristic” approach named after that great champion of Social Darwinism Herbert Spencer and here is something of his views -

You’ve also suggested that the poor should be sterilized and that you would be happy with a society and world where people who through no fault of found themselves in hardship should suffered even unto death.

Yes the acceptance of these ‘harsh fatalties’ in the interests of ‘humanity’ would seem to hint at how you would go about reducing the population.

 

[SIZE=12pt]Vance[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Is it just a coincidence that a lot if not most of the climate denial type articles and reports can be traced back to wealthy right wing funders? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]They are very often the same backers of other deeply flawed ideas pumped out by this propaganda machine that many on the right seem to accept without question. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]They are pursuing what they think is there self interest, but it seems to me their self interests blind them to the problem their thinking is flawed and counterproductive.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Their financial interests might be protected or enhanced in the short term but disastrous for them and us in the long-term. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]In the past thirty years the wealth of the richest have ballooned due in main to tax cuts, while the real term incomes of the middle and lower classes have in the main stagnated or fallen. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Really man I think it is you that should take a long look at your sources of information and who is behind it pulling the strings and stop just accepting it seemingly without question. [/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=11pt]Going back to Professor Ross McKitrick - he is a signatory to the “Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming” and so must approve of what is written well it states -[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]This would seem to imply that the professor is also a denier of evolutionary theory and seems to believe that everything will be ok because some supernatural skygod thingy is looking after the human race and will sort it all out for them. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]The statements bad science, belief in fairies and arrogance is almost unbelievable. [/SIZE]