2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Another crock of shit. Every single scientific society on earth states that global warming is happening, that it is a clear and present danger, and that the primary driver is the burning of fossil fuels. As does every National Academy of Science. As does every major university in the world. Come on, Sarge, back up your claim with a scientific society that claims otherwise. How about the National Academy of Science of an industrial nation? A major university? I am just asking for one example out of three differant categories. Surely, if the case is as you state, you can at least show me one.

There are quite a few here.

This nation needs a ten year plan to replace all coal fired plants with alternative energy.

If by "alternative energy" you mean "the latest in pebble bed fission reactors" then maybe, yeah.

 

[Old Rocks]

There are quite a few here.



If by "alternative energy" you mean "the latest in pebble bed fission reactors" then maybe, yeah.

650 "scientists" do not equal any scientific society, a National Academy of Science, or a major university. And that is also Inhofe's site, and that man is a liar from the word go.

And what is the cost of this alternative compared to Solar, Wind, and Geothermal?

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

I'm not sure of the cost, I think it's cheaper, but the point here is that it's not an apples to apples comparison. You're talking about a 24/7 energy source compared to one that may not work for days at a time. It's like listening to the guy with a souped up musclecar brag about how much faster his car will be once he just gets a new driveshaft. Only he never gets it, but keeps on bragging while talking smack about his buddy's Toyota which has run reliably for a couple of decades.

 

[Chris]

I'm not sure of the cost, I think it's cheaper, but the point here is that it's not an apples to apples comparison. You're talking about a 24/7 energy source compared to one that may not work for days at a time. It's like listening to the guy with a souped up musclecar brag about how much faster his car will be once he just gets a new driveshaft. Only he never gets it, but keeps on bragging while talking smack about his buddy's Toyota which has run reliably for a couple of decades.

Conservation works 24/7, and it's made right here in America.

 

[Caligirl]

We do NOT have the technology to project out to begin with. We are so ignorant on how and why and when weather and weather effects happen as to be just barely out of the stone age.

We need to learn how the Environment works. We can not predict anything past what we can observe. All the projections are simply wild ass guesses.

You can not predict 5 years from now if you do not even know what causes things to happen. Have we figured out WHY clouds form? When they will form? What kind they will be? How long they will last? When it comes to rain we GUESS based on weather patterns we can see.

Until we know enough of the variables nothing we guess at will be accurate except by pure simple luck.

As for the bullshit claim about not believing in Global warming, HORSE SHIT. There were arguments put forth that man did not cause it and also those put forth that it was just a short term cycle.

In fact the heating has been short term, it was a 1/3 of a degree in around 10 years and is not currently occurring as rapidly anymore. In fact some have stated, with evidence that there has been NO warming since around 1998.

It does sound so much better for the loons though if they claim people did not believe in a warming trend.

But we can project a heck of a lot better now than we could 200 years ago. I am under the impression that our projections for 2000-2008 were pretty decent. That could be luck, but at some point you have to take faith and say that our projections have some merit, and then decide if they predict anything that is not in our interest (like increased drought, flooding, hurricanes, erosion etc.).

 

[KittenKoder]

We have over 650,000 years of fairly detailed data in the form of ice cores. We have many places with 10s of thousands to hundreds of thousands of detailed data in varved lake deposits. Before you make such ignorant statements, you really should investigate the data.

That's still less than 1% of the planets life span.

 

[KittenKoder]

Bottom line, no matter what effective 'fix' they do find people will still find reasons it's bad for us.

 

[sealybobo]

That was a serious answer. The greenies use regulations and cost as a weapon to advance their insidious agenda. If they could shut off all electrical production they would. If they could abort all babies they would.

Now who's the conspiracy theorist.

And retarded gunny says 42 to 38% of the scientists agree/disagree with gw yet provided no proof of it. So he's a LIAR!!!

 

[sealybobo]

Not everyone on the left agrees with the idea of man-made global warming. The marxists at counterpunch.org are quite vocal about it.

That website is a lefty site? Never heard of it.

I think you guys think every site/radio/tv/newspaper is left.

 

[sealybobo]

That's still less than 1% of the planets life span.

Science is probably beyond your area of expertice so...

 

[editec]

Science is probably beyond your area of expertice so...

It's beyond mine, too, so I depend on the science community to understand what's happening.

Right now it looks to me like the scienctific community which studies this area seems to think that we are having global warming, and that some of us is resulting from manmade pollution.

Should that community change its mind, then I'm likely to believe them.

 

[sealybobo]

It's beyond mine, too, so I depend on the science community to understand what's happening.

Right now it looks to me like the scienctific community which studies this area seems to think that we are having global warming, and that some of us is resulting from manmade pollution.

Should that community change its mind, then I'm likely to believe them.

Amen Editec. I'm certainly no expert either.

And again, you, me and the majority of the scientific community don't have sinister alterior motives behind thinking man does cause global warming, but we know the neo cons do.

Newt Gingrich admitted when he debated John Kerry in 2007 that the Republicans denying this only do so because they know going green will cost them $.

American Thinker: Newt's Global Warming Surprise

During an April 2007 debate on the subject with the insufferable John Kerry, Newt opened by effectively ceding the point of anthropogenic global warming to his not-so-jolly green opponent. Even before Kerry could utter a single word of eco-babble, Newt admitted his thoroughly off beam conviction


"that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere."

Clearly I did not get that from a liberal website either.

Remember they tried to show that Bush's home is green but Al Gore's is not? That was nothing but a distraction from the real issue. The real issue is corporate pollution. Sure homes can and should go green too, but it's corporate smokestacks from America, India, Europe and China that are causing the most pollution. So the Republicans are just denying for Corporations. No surprise.

So this is just another example of republicans denying the undeniable. And doing a very good job of distracting us for as long as they can. Just like they denied the economy was in trouble for as long as they could. Because the fact is, the economy was great for them the last few years. And the $750 billion bailout was just icing on the cake for them.

Just like they denied Iraq was going horribly too. Why fix the problem too soon when Blackwater is making $10 billion a month. Would you want that to end?

So Global warming is another problem the GOP does not want to fix. Why fix it when it will cost them money? What do corporations care about? Maximizing profits? Nothing else? Exactly.

So why do we even listen to them anymore?

 

[Red Dawn]

There are quite a few here.



If by "alternative energy" you mean "the latest in pebble bed fission reactors" then maybe, yeah.

Jesus, you NeoCons cling to that Inohoff list of "600 scientists" like its the holy grail.

That list is decpetive at best, complete propoganda are worst.

Many of those on the list aren't qualified scientists with PhDs in the actual subject matter of climate science, nor do they do their own orginal lab or field research on that discipline.

Some of them have wrote to climate chaged Denier Senator Inohoff's staff to tell them to take their names of the list:

Dear Senator Inhofe:

Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute Man-Made Global warming claims. I've never made any claims that debunk the "Consensus".

You quoted a newspaper article that's main focus was scoring the accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific ... yet I'm guessing some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility.

You also didn't ask for my permission to use these statements. That's not a very respectable way of doing "research".

--Dr. George Walden Burger, University of Iowa

Hmmmm....I checked and they are STILL keeping Waldenburger's name of their "list of scientists". Even though he asked to be taken off it. Sounds like Senator Inhofe doesn't give a damn, and his list is intended as a propoganda tool. A tool to manipulate rightwing cyberspace tools who still point to the list to back their dubious assertions.

Finally, the list also takes quotes from scientists, completely out of context, and it fact leaves out statements that would render the context entirely differently:

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.

What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. A large group of earth scientists, voiced in an IPCC[1] statement, have reached what they claim is a consensus of nearly all atmospheric scientists that man-released greenhouse gases are causing increasing harm to our planet...However, a vocal minority of scientists so mistrusts the models and the complex fragmentary data, that some claim that global warming is a hoax. They have made public statements accusing other scientists of deliberate fraud in aid of their research funding. Both sides are now hurling personal epithets at each other, a very bad development in Earth sciences.

What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical. I decided to keep quiet in this controversy until I had a positive contribution to make.

--Dr. Joanne Simpson

Funny how leaving out a few sentences, like Senator Inohoff did, makes all the difference in the world.

Obviously, she saying the science is incomplete and imperfect, as science often is. But, as policy, we should be doing exactly what Al Gore has been proposing.


In short, Inohoff is a lying, deceptive douchebag, and rightwingers have bought it hook, line, and sinker. Because the want to believe, the need to believe that weren't wrong in their 20 years of foot dragging and denial.



Debunking Joanne Nova's 'Skeptics Handbook' part 3: The Climate Models Have it Right | DeSmogBlog

 

[sealybobo]

Jesus, you NeoCons cling to that Inohoff list of "600 scientists" like its the holy grail.

That list is decpetive at best, complete propoganda are worst.

Many of those on the list aren't qualified scientists with PhDs in the actual subject matter of climate science, nor do they do their own orginal lab or field research on that discipline.

Some of them have wrote to climate chaged Denier Senator Inohoff's staff to tell them to take their names of the list:




Hmmmm....I checked and they are STILL keeping Waldenburger's name of their "list of scientists". Even though he asked to be taken off it. Sounds like Senator Inhofe doesn't give a damn, and his list is intended as a propoganda tool. A tool to manipulate rightwing cyberspace tools who still point to the list to back their dubious assertions.

Finally, the list also takes quotes from scientists, completely out of context, and it fact leaves out statements that would render the context entirely differently:



Funny how leaving out a few sentences, like Senator Inohoff did, makes all the difference in the world.

Obviously, she saying the science is incomplete and imperfect, as science often is. But, as policy, we should be doing exactly what Al Gore has been proposing.


In short, Inohoff is a lying, deceptive douchebag, and rightwingers have bought it hook, line, and sinker. Because the want to believe, the need to believe that weren't wrong in their 20 years of foot dragging and denial.



Debunking Joanne Nova's 'Skeptics Handbook' part 3: The Climate Models Have it Right | DeSmogBlog

Did you read my post? I like yours. I don't think we should even take neo nuts seriously anymore. We know they are denying because cleaning up will cost them $. If not, this wouldn't be an issue for them. What other problem could they have with going green?

 

[Ravi]

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved - Telegraph

This is a silly article. In science, nothing can be PROVEN, it can only shown to be likely. But I'm glad to see you put so much belief in science, bad science that it is...lol.

 

[sealybobo]

This is a silly article. In science, nothing can be PROVEN, it can only shown to be likely. But I'm glad to see you put so much belief in science, bad science that it is...lol.

Some things are actually proven, like, the earth is not flat. Before they proved it, it was just theory.

For example, I watched a show on the two Mars landrovers and they proved there is water/ice on Mars.

Not theorized, they proved it.

Life Beyond Earth - The Habitable Zone - Mars

But now E=MC2. I don't know if that one is proven or just the accepted theory?

But I know what you meant by that. Many things in science are not proven but theory.

 

[Red Dawn]

Did you read my post? I like yours. I don't think we should even take neo nuts seriously anymore. We know they are denying because cleaning up will cost them $. If not, this wouldn't be an issue for them. What other problem could they have with going green?

I didn't see your post.

But, it strains credulity, and puts in stark question the reliability of Senator Ihofe's "list", if scientists are asking to be taken off it and yet he leaves their names on it, and some of the quotations have been clipped and edited to change the context, i.e. Joanne Simpson.

Basically, those that are clinging to this list as the "holy grail" are acting as partisan hacks. Their view of this is political, not scientific.

 

[Bern80]

Science is probably beyond your area of expertice so...

The point is people like yourself and rocks lack perspective. In terms of Earth history our time here barely registers a blip on the radar. The amount of time that we could have been effecting would require a high power microscope to see on Earth's timeline. Despite the contention that we have possibly doubled the amount of CO2 in the air that would still be only about .3% of the entire atmosphere.

What we are being asked to buy into is that about .0003% increase in total atmospheric content in one gas is going to have, by some estimates, a 1% increase in avg global temperature (that'a bout 5 degrees fahrenheit). We're suppossed to believe that relatively insiginficant increase in a gas will somehow yield a 10,000 fold result. Then we're suppossed to believe that 1% is signifcant.

 

[Red Dawn]

The earth has not been warming for decades, it in fact has cooled over the last 8 years. .

Wrong

U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Adminstration Website:

"The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle. "

 

[sealybobo]

The point is people like yourself and rocks lack perspective. In terms of Earth history our time here barely registers a blip on the radar. The amount of time that we could have been effecting would require a high power microscope to see on Earth's timeline. Despite the contention that we have possibly doubled the amount of CO2 in the air that would still be only about .3% of the entire atmosphere.

What we are being asked to buy into is that about .0003% increase in total atmospheric content in one gas is going to have, by some estimates, a 1% increase in avg global temperature (that'a bout 5 degrees fahrenheit). We're suppossed to believe that relatively insiginficant increase in a gas will somehow yield a 10,000 fold result. Then we're suppossed to believe that 1% is signifcant.

I don't know because I'm not a scientist. I'm sure a scientist would be able to show you studies and facts that shoot down your "small percentage" arguments.

For example, your argument that volcano's do more damage than we do to the atmosphere. I think scientists have probably taken that into consideration. Don't you?

I would LOVE to see a show on Discovery that discusses your side and our side all in one show.

So regardless of Global Warming, don't you think for the sake of your lungs and the water you drink that we should force corportions to stop polluting so much?