Any republican believers?

[daphillenium]

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?

 

[Oddball]

 

[flacaltenn]

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?

 

[freedombecki]

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.

 

[hortysir]

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

 

[whitehall]

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?

"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?

 

[daphillenium]

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?

"Climate change"? Did Neanderthals cause the ice age and a gigkantic 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?

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

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..

 

[martybegan]

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

Always we have the idiots that are stating, "wait twenty years". The consequences that we are seeing today is from the GHG levels in the atmosphere at least 30 years ago. That means, that even if we stopped putting GHGs into the atmosphere, we would still have another 30 years of increasing affects and warming.

The denial of reality by peope like Flatulance and Walleyes has nothing at all to do with science, and everything to do with politics. Why the GOP chose to make global warming and the resulting climate change a political issue I cannot fathom. For, as the extreme weather events increase, their position is increasingly going to be shown to be not only wrong, but very harmful to this nation.

Every scientific societiy, every National Academy of Science, and every major university in the world states that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. And all that the flap yaps on this board answer is that it is some kind of worldwide socialist conspiracy. Like the Arctic Ice or the continental glaciers have politics.

 

[martybegan]

Always we have the idiots that are stating, "wait twenty years". The consequences that we are seeing today is from the GHG levels in the atmosphere at least 30 years ago. That means, that even if we stopped putting GHGs into the atmosphere, we would still have another 30 years of increasing affects and warming.

The denial of reality by peope like Flatulance and Walleyes has nothing at all to do with science, and everything to do with politics. Why the GOP chose to make global warming and the resulting climate change a political issue I cannot fathom. For, as the extreme weather events increase, their position is increasingly going to be shown to be not only wrong, but very harmful to this nation.

Every scientific societiy, every National Academy of Science, and every major university in the world states that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. And all that the flap yaps on this board answer is that it is some kind of worldwide socialist conspiracy. Like the Arctic Ice or the continental glaciers have politics.

The politics is your solution of more government control of people's lives. Figure something else out, and maybe we will talk.

A reduction of liberty is not to be decided on studies and possible bad outcomes.

 

[Old Rocks]

Perhaps you need to be aware of what has happened in the last three years worldwide. It is not possible bad outcomes, it is outcomes that are bad right now. You are already seeing some of those in the grocery store. We lost a very significant portion of our corn and soy crop this year. Last year the Missiouri and Mississippi were above flood stage from March to September. Again, as in 2010, Russia lost a good deal of it's grain crop.

March of this year in North America was simply without precident.

Your liberty will be reduced as this change in climate eats more of the GDP for repair of infrastructure and damage to agriculture. Without a government capable of coordinating relief efforts for the worst affected areas, it will be even more adversly affected.

 

[martybegan]

Perhaps you need to be aware of what has happened in the last three years worldwide. It is not possible bad outcomes, it is outcomes that are bad right now. You are already seeing some of those in the grocery store. We lost a very significant portion of our corn and soy crop this year. Last year the Missiouri and Mississippi were above flood stage from March to September. Again, as in 2010, Russia lost a good deal of it's grain crop.

March of this year in North America was simply without precident.

Your liberty will be reduced as this change in climate eats more of the GDP for repair of infrastructure and damage to agriculture. Without a government capable of coordinating relief efforts for the worst affected areas, it will be even more adversly affected.

and this has happened before, and can happen again, all without our input.

how about you come up with some engineering solutions to the problem instead of taking the lazy way out by using government to make people do what you want them to do?

 

[Old Rocks]

No, it has not happened before in recorded history. Not the rate of extreme weather events.

But then, go ahead and take your science from an obese junkie on the radio and an undegreed ex-TV weatherman. In the meantime, I will continue to read what real scientists are finding out. Like Jennifer Francis.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg]Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Jennifer Francis - YouTube[/ame]

 

[martybegan]

No, it has not happened before in recorded history. Not the rate of extreme weather events.

But then, go ahead and take your science from an obese junkie on the radio and an undegreed ex-TV weatherman. In the meantime, I will continue to read what real scientists are finding out. Like Jennifer Francis.

Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Jennifer Francis - YouTube

So there has never ever before been the weather extremities we have seen before? It has nothing to do with observer bias, that basically before 1912 there are no remaining living witnesses to what has happened before?

The fact we can record and report what is going on worldwide is what has led to it appearing weather is worse recently. Now if you live in NYC you can see what is going on in Tulsain realtime. Before you never heard of it, or read about it or saw a 30 second news clip.


[EDIT]
I havent listened to Rush in years, and I was never a fan. I have a degree in Engineering, so unless you got a pure science degree in the applicable field dont try and pull intellectual superiority on me tough guy.

 

[Politico]

Weak attempt at a cheap shot. Being a Republican has nothing to do with believing in climate change. And of course it's happening. It always has, always will and no amount of CFL bulbs will stop it.

No, it has not happened before in recorded history. Not the rate of extreme weather events.

Methinks you need to pick up a book.

"Our years are turned upside down; our summers are no summers; our harvests are no harvests"

-John King, 1595

 

[Old Rocks]

No, it has not happened before in recorded history. Not the rate of extreme weather events.

But then, go ahead and take your science from an obese junkie on the radio and an undegreed ex-TV weatherman. In the meantime, I will continue to read what real scientists are finding out. Like Jennifer Francis.

Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Jennifer Francis - YouTube

So there has never ever before been the weather extremities we have seen before? It has nothing to do with observer bias, that basically before 1912 there are no remaining living witnesses to what has happened before?

The fact we can record and report what is going on worldwide is what has led to it appearing weather is worse recently. Now if you live in NYC you can see what is going on in Tulsain realtime. Before you never heard of it, or read about it or saw a 30 second news clip.


[EDIT]
I havent listened to Rush in years, and I was never a fan. I have a degree in Engineering, so unless you got a pure science degree in the applicable field dont try and pull intellectual superiority on me tough guy.

OK.

A23A

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW: The "Science" that cannot be proven, only believed

"We're ready to believe you!" -- motto of Ghostbusters and the Warmers

 

[Bfgrn]

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

The 'planet' is not going anywhere. It has and will survive. But the narrow conditions that allow human life forms to exist will not. And the 'earth' could care less. Just like the deniers.