Any republican believers?

Discussion in 'Environment' started by daphillenium, Sep 13, 2012.

  1. daphillenium
    Offline

    daphillenium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    62
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Illinois
    Ratings:
    +20
    Are there any republican believers in climate change on here?

    1. Do you believe the Earth is warming?

    2. If so, do you believe humans are causing it?

    3. If so, do you think it will effect humans slightly, moderately, or in a major way?

    4. Or do you not believe in it?
     
  2. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,061
    Thanks Received:
    4,661
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,356
    Yep -- A LARGE can o' worms.

    Let me ask you ---

    1) Considering the last real state of Earth's climate was a series of Ice Ages -- do you appreciate the warming?

    2) If I told you the answer to Global Warming was widespread adoption of Nuclear Power -- which would you be more afraid of?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  4. freedombecki
    Offline

    freedombecki Let's go swimmin'! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    23,690
    Thanks Received:
    5,924
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    My house
    Ratings:
    +5,933
    1. Do you believe the Earth is warming?

    Yep. every time the sun comes out it gets warmer. Every night when the sun goes down it gets cooler. Every summer, hotter; every winter, cooler. *sigh*

    2. If so, do you believe humans are causing it?

    Well, yes, I read somewhere humans are liable for approximately .0000635 of it.

    3. If so, do you think it will effect humans slightly, moderately, or in a major way?


    That is contraindicated in #2.

    4. Or do you not believe in it?

    Well, that all depends on what it is.

    /attitude.
     
  5. hortysir
    Offline

    hortysir In Memorial of 47

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    20,459
    Thanks Received:
    4,027
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Lakeland, FL
    Ratings:
    +6,296
    Sort of egotistical to believe that our tiny existence can unbalance a planet that has survived much bigger attacks than anything we can do to it
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  6. whitehall
    Offline

    whitehall Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,795
    Thanks Received:
    4,339
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Western Va.
    Ratings:
    +10,760
    "Climate change"? Did Neanderthals cause the ice age and a gigantic glacier that carved grooves in the rocks in Central Park in NYC? Climate change happens because....repeat after me children....changes in the earth's orbit and the sun's energy. I would suggest that the "man-made-climate-change diciples are influenced more by hatred for the United States than real science. Is it a coincidence that the global warmers came into power at the same time the US was undergoing a fiscal crisis? Why not table the global warming extortion scheme for ten or twenty years until we get back on our feet?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. daphillenium
    Offline

    daphillenium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    62
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Illinois
    Ratings:
    +20
    I'd have to disagree with your opinion that climate change disciples being influenced by hatred. I've been back and forth between believing and not over the years and read argumena and rebuttals from both sides. My motivation about the subject isn't due to hatred its all about my kids. I'm trying to understand how the decisions we make are going to effect them.

    Isn't it true that most scientists support global warming though?

    I thought the arguments of it not being a human factor and being caused by the sun/rotation was debunked?

    It's too hard to discover the truth these days.
     
  8. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,061
    Thanks Received:
    4,661
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,356
    The climate IS changing. It's getting nominally warmer. About 1degF in your lifetime as a GLOBAL average. Not many folks deny that. The argument is over whether this is exceptional given the Millions of years of previous climate change and whether CO2 is the principal cause.

    To prove that CO2 is the cause, you have to ignore that the earth came into and out of a series of Ice Ages WITHOUT any real reliance on CO2. You also have to ignore that there have periods where CO2 has been 10 times HIGHER (like during the dinosaurs) and the critters weren't attacked by killer hurricanes or the lush forests didn't roast and evaporate.

    The MAN-CAUSED warmers are so anxious to make their case that they've SUPPRESSED and outright falsified science. Like removing the Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period and Little Ice Age from their published papers. They INSIST that these events were NOT GLOBAL despite more than adequate evidence. BUT -- at the same time --- they point to any Globally isolated drought, storm or flood and declare that local event is evidence of "global warming"..

    In addition -- their models on which we rely for your kids predictions are notoriously bad in including the FEEDBACK effects that would determine how severe CO2 based warming will be. These models also assume the that the World has ONE GLOBAL CLIMATE and fight over a "climate sensitivity" variable that describes the temperature response to CO2 concentrations. Ask yourself whether the earth has ONE CLIMATE or many. In fact, they lecture us that the amplification of the warming in the Arctic is MUCH more severe than anywhere else on earth, but yet the models use ONE CLIMATE SENSITIVITY number to describe the planet in their precious models.

    There has been a filter applied to traditional scientific investigation of the topic. Nothing that it is not a MAN-MADE cause is interesting to the IPCC. THeir mission statement actually says they're not interested.

    IMO -- the effects from CO2 are HIGHLY over-estimated and the effects from natural causes are HIGHLY under-estimated. The warmers will look at the past 20 years of sun spots and tell you (mostly truthfully) that this can't be a significant cause of warming. But when they do that -- they ignore the VERY SIGNIFICANT increase in Total Solar Irradiance that's happened in the past 300 years. And we know there are 11, 22, 60, and other year cycles in NATURAL temp forcing..

    Which do you think would be easier to detect 0.1degree temp change? 40,000 Earth based thermometers? Or one orbiting satellite? If you're a star Warmer Scientist -- you'd pick the 40,000 Earth based thermometers -- because you can tinker with that data much more discretely than the one satellite record. And according to the satellite record -- a lot of the surface based data has been abused or down-right tampered with..

    Bottom line is --- we've only had satellite measurements available for about 30 yrs.. 1980s was the BEGINNING of full time orbiting solar observatories and satellite thermal measurements. That's MUCH too short a time to make pronouncements about the variability of the atmosphere and the sun and the orbital perturbations of the Earth.

    The mechanisms that cycled us thru Ice Ages are STILL THERE most likely. And maybe in 20 more years of space based study -- we'll have a better handle on the climate forecast..
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,329
    Thanks Received:
    4,002
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +10,948
    My main problems with the whole AGW movement:

    Inferred data: Any data prior to the invention of reliable thermometer records (1850) is via proxies, which are always prone to error in either calibration or interpretation

    The proposed solution: The proposed solution is always more government, more regulation, and less freedom for people.


    The Nuclear bugaboo: I know some AGW proponents are strong fission supporters, there is a significant subset that reject the use of fission for power generation.
     
  10. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,315
    Real information from real scientists, the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society in the world;

    The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

    As far as the rest of the nonsense from Flatulance is concerned, you can look that up yourself. For what is happening right now in the world of real science, here is a site with weekly updated articles from peer reviewed scientific journals, not twaddle from undegreed ex-TV weathermen.

    AGW Observer

    And the Scientific Society with the largest number of climatologists and people that are researching this issue, the American Geophysical Union, has this to say;

    AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate


    AGU Position Statement

    Human Impacts on Climate

    Adopted by Council December 2003
    Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

    The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

    During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

    With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.
     

Share This Page