Global Warming

[driveby]

What is the concern about global warming? That we are going to have lots of hot days? NO.

The problem is that global warming will lead to rapid and unpredictable climate change.

What will we do when the great plains, America's bread basket becomes the great desert or the great swamp?

Oh yeah, the science denying right wingers have found a handful of 'scientists' paid by the oil and coal companies who say the science is wrong.

And besides the 'creation scientists' tell us that god will take care of the 'believers' so not to worry.

Wake up to the fact that we are being duped by the biggest fraud in history which is global warming. Note that term is no longer being used. It is now "climate change" because the computer models which predict the warming are not holding up to scrutiny or current temperature data. Therefore any extreme weather can be blamed to support this bogus issue. As stated by other posters, CO2 is NOT a pollutant and only constitutes 0.036% of our atmosphere. Human impact is so small it cannot be measured. The sun, oceans and clouds are the driving forces behind earths climate, not man. This cap and trade nonsense is just another money making scheme which WILL needlessly drive up costs on all consumables and kill our economy. But please keep promoting this bullshit, Al Gore and GE need your money .........

 

[Sinatra]

Unfortunately all the people who have bought the fossil fuels industry's propaganda will never listen to the vast majority of the world's scientists who agree that global warming is real, is at least in part man made and is a threat to human existence as we know it.

Also unfortunately, by the time that the negative impact of global warming is manifest, it will be too late to do anything about it. The results will have been 'baked in the cake'.

These people are the ones who really think that Fox News is fair and balanced and somehow think they are 'macho' when they ignore the warnings of the scientific community. They are the myth believers, always sure that evolution is a hoax and therefore global warming is also a hoax.

Our only hope is that the fence sitters will stop listening to them, stop being intimidated by them, stop being embarassed to speak up when as usual they attempt to shout down those of us who are not afraid to admit that maybe just maybe US industry doesn't have their best interests at heart, only their bottom line.

If someone accepts Evolution as a reasonable explanation of the developement of a spcies, rejecting Anthropogenic Global Warming as the cause of Climate Change would follow logically. Evolution is supported by proof, provides predictability and has results that once tested support the theory. Anthoropogenic Global Warming is not supported by proof, has no record of successful prediction and all of the results, when tested, fall apart.

As a science, Anthropogenic Global Warming is a joke.

Yes indeed! I have a friend and longtime instructor at Washington State University who is a highly regarded member of their NRS department. He said much the same as you a few years back. He is a hard core, tree hugging liberal who back in the day spent a summer working with Greenpeace during the anti-nuke movement back in the 1980s.

He is a proud atheist (I send him an over-the-top religious Christmas card every year) and lover of all things science, and while I disagree with him on almost all political points, he is among the brightest scientific minds I have had the pleasure to know.(His politics are all messed up, but the guy knows his science) He is mystified by the Global Warming movement and maintains it is all about money and government control. He says the science is so speculative as to render it pure conjecture.

I tend to agree...

 

[raceright]

Please Old Rocks, he's made up his mind, don't confuse him with facts.

There will always be someone who will tell him what he wants to hear.

The 'Creation Scientists' can prove that the Earth is six thousand years old and that evolution is a hoax!

So some scientists say its real some say its a hoax-we should go broke because you want to agree with the ones that say its real,do you ride your bike to work and never take a plane ride and do not cook your food . Well good for you when all the scientists agree then I'll act accordingly but till then I'll drive my caddy and my wife will drive her avalanche and we will cook our food and fly to where we wish (just like Gore and Kennedy) there making far to much green for me to take them as really caring total bullshit.

 

[KittenKoder]

Please Old Rocks, he's made up his mind, don't confuse him with facts.

There will always be someone who will tell him what he wants to hear.

The 'Creation Scientists' can prove that the Earth is six thousand years old and that evolution is a hoax!

So some scientists say its real some say its a hoax-we should go broke because you want to agree with the ones that say its real,do you ride your bike to work and never take a plane ride and do not cook your food . Well good for you when all the scientists agree then I'll act accordingly but till then I'll drive my caddy and my wife will drive her avalanche and we will cook our food and fly to where we wish (just like Gore and Kennedy) there making far to much green for me to take them as really caring total bullshit.

What do you have against capitalism? The "green" corporations need money to ...

 

[code1211]

Unfortunately all the people who have bought the fossil fuels industry's propaganda will never listen to the vast majority of the world's scientists who agree that global warming is real, is at least in part man made and is a threat to human existence as we know it.

Also unfortunately, by the time that the negative impact of global warming is manifest, it will be too late to do anything about it. The results will have been 'baked in the cake'.

These people are the ones who really think that Fox News is fair and balanced and somehow think they are 'macho' when they ignore the warnings of the scientific community. They are the myth believers, always sure that evolution is a hoax and therefore global warming is also a hoax.

Our only hope is that the fence sitters will stop listening to them, stop being intimidated by them, stop being embarassed to speak up when as usual they attempt to shout down those of us who are not afraid to admit that maybe just maybe US industry doesn't have their best interests at heart, only their bottom line.

If someone accepts Evolution as a reasonable explanation of the developement of a spcies, rejecting Anthropogenic Global Warming as the cause of Climate Change would follow logically. Evolution is supported by proof, provides predictability and has results that once tested support the theory. Anthoropogenic Global Warming is not supported by proof, has no record of successful prediction and all of the results, when tested, fall apart.

As a science, Anthropogenic Global Warming is a joke.

Yes indeed! I have a friend and longtime instructor at Washington State University who is a highly regarded member of their NRS department. He said much the same as you a few years back. He is a hard core, tree hugging liberal who back in the day spent a summer working with Greenpeace during the anti-nuke movement back in the 1980s.

He is a proud atheist (I send him an over-the-top religious Christmas card every year) and lover of all things science, and while I disagree with him on almost all political points, he is among the brightest scientific minds I have had the pleasure to know.(His politics are all messed up, but the guy knows his science) He is mystified by the Global Warming movement and maintains it is all about money and government control. He says the science is so speculative as to render it pure conjecture.

I tend to agree...

This is all I'm saying. When something cannot be explained to me in terms that i understand, my BS Alert system starts to go off. I am by no means a scientist and any math beyond 10th grade geometry leaves me glassy eyed.

However, the math involved in this stuff is pretty simple. 2 degrees of total variation. 0.7 degrees of warming in 2000 years.

The PR part of the AGW argument is the part that really got my attention, though. Every presentation of their case includes a prediction of dire cosequence. Every one! If the case waas strong, the presented case would be enough.

 

[driveby]

Please Old Rocks, he's made up his mind, don't confuse him with facts.

There will always be someone who will tell him what he wants to hear.

The 'Creation Scientists' can prove that the Earth is six thousand years old and that evolution is a hoax!

So some scientists say its real some say its a hoax-we should go broke because you want to agree with the ones that say its real,do you ride your bike to work and never take a plane ride and do not cook your food . Well good for you when all the scientists agree then I'll act accordingly but till then I'll drive my caddy and my wife will drive her avalanche and we will cook our food and fly to where we wish (just like Gore and Kennedy) there making far to much green for me to take them as really caring total bullshit.

What do you have against capitalism? The "green" corporations need money to ...

When it's rigged by our own gov't, i have something against it and please don't come back with Halliburton, you're brighter than that.......

 

[Old Rocks]

So some scientists say its real some say its a hoax-we should go broke because you want to agree with the ones that say its real,do you ride your bike to work and never take a plane ride and do not cook your food . Well good for you when all the scientists agree then I'll act accordingly but till then I'll drive my caddy and my wife will drive her avalanche and we will cook our food and fly to where we wish (just like Gore and Kennedy) there making far to much green for me to take them as really caring total bullshit.

What do you have against capitalism? The "green" corporations need money to ...

When it's rigged by our own gov't, i have something against it and please don't come back with Halliburton, you're brighter than that.......

Yesireee, by gum, all them conspiring rock headed Geologists up there with blowtorchs melting the glaciers and ice caps, and blaming it on the poor oil and coal companies. Danged criminal conspiracy, that's what it is, by gum

 

[Old Rocks]

Please Old Rocks, he's made up his mind, don't confuse him with facts.

There will always be someone who will tell him what he wants to hear.

The 'Creation Scientists' can prove that the Earth is six thousand years old and that evolution is a hoax!

I am not adept at pulling up quotes in this forum, but I'll assume that you can read Old Rocks statement. Please note that the lynch pin of his argument is is science from BEFORE 1900. This would be the same science that blamed malaria on BAD AIR, measured bumps on the head to determine personality traits and concluded, scientifically, that white people were superior mentally and psychologically to all other races.

The Global Climate has risen by 0.7 degrees in 2000 years. In the first millenium of that 2000 years it rose by about 4 tenths and in the second millenium, it rose by another 3 tenths. Does that seem more like it's speeding up or slowing down?

The rise in Global Temperatures started before the Industrial Revolution. One would think that this might be cause for a question. Are you asking it? do you know what it is?

Accepting things that you don't understand is superstition. I am merely questioning it. You are denying any other possible cause, and there are many, for results that you do not even care to research.

About 3 to 5 years ago I became aware of Global Warming and started to look into it. I was, as you are now, sold on the idea that Mankind was destroying th planet. We prabably are. However, in this particular area, the proof just isn't there. Sorry. I am willing to be convinced. Just show me the proof.

Code, you are purposely lying. I don't know why you are, but that is the case. You know damned well that the science concerned with global warming has constantly evolved over the last century. And it has confirmed Svante Arnnhenius's original work.

On the AOL board, Shardruker constantly published articles from peer reviewed journals, and other sites concerned with science. But you come to this board and pretend that the only data that you have seen is what is posted here. Not only that, either you failed to read the article at all, or purposely mischaracterized it as only having data from the time prior to 1900. It is a history, presented by the American Institute of Physics, of the reasearch into CO2 and other greenhouse gases, research that is followed right up to the present.

 

[Old Rocks]

Unfortunately all the people who have bought the fossil fuels industry's propaganda will never listen to the vast majority of the world's scientists who agree that global warming is real, is at least in part man made and is a threat to human existence as we know it.

Also unfortunately, by the time that the negative impact of global warming is manifest, it will be too late to do anything about it. The results will have been 'baked in the cake'.

These people are the ones who really think that Fox News is fair and balanced and somehow think they are 'macho' when they ignore the warnings of the scientific community. They are the myth believers, always sure that evolution is a hoax and therefore global warming is also a hoax.

Our only hope is that the fence sitters will stop listening to them, stop being intimidated by them, stop being embarassed to speak up when as usual they attempt to shout down those of us who are not afraid to admit that maybe just maybe US industry doesn't have their best interests at heart, only their bottom line.

If someone accepts Evolution as a reasonable explanation of the developement of a spcies, rejecting Anthropogenic Global Warming as the cause of Climate Change would follow logically. Evolution is supported by proof, provides predictability and has results that once tested support the theory. Anthoropogenic Global Warming is not supported by proof, has no record of successful prediction and all of the results, when tested, fall apart.

As a science, Anthropogenic Global Warming is a joke.

Yes indeed! I have a friend and longtime instructor at Washington State University who is a highly regarded member of their NRS department. He said much the same as you a few years back. He is a hard core, tree hugging liberal who back in the day spent a summer working with Greenpeace during the anti-nuke movement back in the 1980s.

He is a proud atheist (I send him an over-the-top religious Christmas card every year) and lover of all things science, and while I disagree with him on almost all political points, he is among the brightest scientific minds I have had the pleasure to know.(His politics are all messed up, but the guy knows his science) He is mystified by the Global Warming movement and maintains it is all about money and government control. He says the science is so speculative as to render it pure conjecture.

I tend to agree...

Climate Change - Global Warming - WSU Energy Program

What is global warming?
Natural gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide form a shield around the earth capturing some of the sun's energy, which otherwise would radiate back into space. Without this "greenhouse effect" Earth's temperatures would be inhospitably cool.

Human activity in the last century, however, has concentrated this blanket of gases, trapping additional heat. The earth's surface temperature is now about one degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was 100 years ago, according the National Academy of Sciences. Researchers believe the burning of fossil fuel is primarily responsible for the buildup of three important greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Fossil fuel is used to run cars and trucks, generate electricity, heat buildings and power factories.

Fossil fuel-burning activities account for 98 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 24 percent of methane emissions and 18 percent of nitrous oxide emissions, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production and mining also contribute to the problem.

Unless emissions are reduced, scientists predict the earth's atmosphere will continue to warm, resulting in flooding in some areas and drought in others. According to the EPA, in 1997, the United States emitted about one-fifth of total global greenhouse gases.

 

[KittenKoder]

In a couple of years, when nothing drastic happens, there will be another reason to blame humans for nature changing ... even though nature likes to mix it up on its own ... meh ...

 

[Old Rocks]

In a couple of years, when nothing drastic happens, there will be another reason to blame humans for nature changing ... even though nature likes to mix it up on its own ... meh ...

OK, Kitten. I will remind you of that prediction.

 

[KittenKoder]

In a couple of years, when nothing drastic happens, there will be another reason to blame humans for nature changing ... even though nature likes to mix it up on its own ... meh ...

OK, Kitten. I will remind you of that prediction.

Already have several examples ... remember CO?

 

[Old Rocks]

CO, carbon monoxide? What about CO? I don't ever remember mentioning CO to anybody, out of the context of not running your automobile in a garage with the doors closed.

 

[KittenKoder]

CO, carbon monoxide? What about CO? I don't ever remember mentioning CO to anybody, out of the context of not running your automobile in a garage with the doors closed.

CO was blamed for global warming for almost 10 years ... you alarmists have such short memories, jump on the next scare and forget all about the last attempt.

 

[Sinatra]

If someone accepts Evolution as a reasonable explanation of the developement of a spcies, rejecting Anthropogenic Global Warming as the cause of Climate Change would follow logically. Evolution is supported by proof, provides predictability and has results that once tested support the theory. Anthoropogenic Global Warming is not supported by proof, has no record of successful prediction and all of the results, when tested, fall apart.

As a science, Anthropogenic Global Warming is a joke.

Yes indeed! I have a friend and longtime instructor at Washington State University who is a highly regarded member of their NRS department. He said much the same as you a few years back. He is a hard core, tree hugging liberal who back in the day spent a summer working with Greenpeace during the anti-nuke movement back in the 1980s.

He is a proud atheist (I send him an over-the-top religious Christmas card every year) and lover of all things science, and while I disagree with him on almost all political points, he is among the brightest scientific minds I have had the pleasure to know.(His politics are all messed up, but the guy knows his science) He is mystified by the Global Warming movement and maintains it is all about money and government control. He says the science is so speculative as to render it pure conjecture.

I tend to agree...

Climate Change - Global Warming - WSU Energy Program

What is global warming?
Natural gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide form a shield around the earth capturing some of the sun's energy, which otherwise would radiate back into space. Without this "greenhouse effect" Earth's temperatures would be inhospitably cool.

Human activity in the last century, however, has concentrated this blanket of gases, trapping additional heat. The earth's surface temperature is now about one degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was 100 years ago, according the National Academy of Sciences. Researchers believe the burning of fossil fuel is primarily responsible for the buildup of three important greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Fossil fuel is used to run cars and trucks, generate electricity, heat buildings and power factories.

Fossil fuel-burning activities account for 98 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 24 percent of methane emissions and 18 percent of nitrous oxide emissions, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production and mining also contribute to the problem.

Unless emissions are reduced, scientists predict the earth's atmosphere will continue to warm, resulting in flooding in some areas and drought in others. According to the EPA, in 1997, the United States emitted about one-fifth of total global greenhouse gases.

Is there a point to this post?

Besides showing yet another overly generalized statement from a university science department yearning for a bit of the GW funding? The very type of funding that drives my WSU science instructor absolutely nuts?

The key phrase in that entire post - "scientists predict..."

Why yes, I suppose they do...

 

[KittenKoder]

Yes indeed! I have a friend and longtime instructor at Washington State University who is a highly regarded member of their NRS department. He said much the same as you a few years back. He is a hard core, tree hugging liberal who back in the day spent a summer working with Greenpeace during the anti-nuke movement back in the 1980s.

He is a proud atheist (I send him an over-the-top religious Christmas card every year) and lover of all things science, and while I disagree with him on almost all political points, he is among the brightest scientific minds I have had the pleasure to know.(His politics are all messed up, but the guy knows his science) He is mystified by the Global Warming movement and maintains it is all about money and government control. He says the science is so speculative as to render it pure conjecture.

I tend to agree...

Climate Change - Global Warming - WSU Energy Program

What is global warming?
Natural gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide form a shield around the earth capturing some of the sun's energy, which otherwise would radiate back into space. Without this "greenhouse effect" Earth's temperatures would be inhospitably cool.

Human activity in the last century, however, has concentrated this blanket of gases, trapping additional heat. The earth's surface temperature is now about one degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was 100 years ago, according the National Academy of Sciences. Researchers believe the burning of fossil fuel is primarily responsible for the buildup of three important greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Fossil fuel is used to run cars and trucks, generate electricity, heat buildings and power factories.

Fossil fuel-burning activities account for 98 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 24 percent of methane emissions and 18 percent of nitrous oxide emissions, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production and mining also contribute to the problem.

Unless emissions are reduced, scientists predict the earth's atmosphere will continue to warm, resulting in flooding in some areas and drought in others. According to the EPA, in 1997, the United States emitted about one-fifth of total global greenhouse gases.

Is there a point to this post?

Besides showing yet another overly generalized statement from a university science department yearning for a bit of the GW funding? The very type of funding that drives my WSU science instructor absolutely nuts?

The key phrase in that entire post - "scientists predict..."

Why yes, I suppose they do...

You know a few other predictions they made, flying cars, moving sidewalks, and a moon colony ... how many have come true? Zero. I love science and technology, but come on, a prediction isn't fact, it's a possibility and the environuts talk about them as if they are a sure thing.

 

[Old Rocks]

CO, carbon monoxide? What about CO? I don't ever remember mentioning CO to anybody, out of the context of not running your automobile in a garage with the doors closed.

CO was blamed for global warming for almost 10 years ... you alarmists have such short memories, jump on the next scare and forget all about the last attempt.

Damn, Kitten, don't act that ignorant! Tyndall identified CO2 as a greenhouse gas in 1859.

CO2 Widget - Tyndall 200 | CO2 Widget | Current CO2

The Tyndall 200 widget is named in honour of John Tyndall. This is the Irish scientist who, in 1859, built the world's first ratio spectrophotometer and identified the natural greenhouse effect that is now recognized as an essential condition of life on Earth.

This widget is updated early each month so that only the world's most current data for atmospheric CO2 is displayed on your site. The colourful and informative "Tyndall 200" widget is 200 pixels wide and 300 pixels high.

There are two ways to add this widget to your site...

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes indeed! I have a friend and longtime instructor at Washington State University who is a highly regarded member of their NRS department. He said much the same as you a few years back. He is a hard core, tree hugging liberal who back in the day spent a summer working with Greenpeace during the anti-nuke movement back in the 1980s.

He is a proud atheist (I send him an over-the-top religious Christmas card every year) and lover of all things science, and while I disagree with him on almost all political points, he is among the brightest scientific minds I have had the pleasure to know.(His politics are all messed up, but the guy knows his science) He is mystified by the Global Warming movement and maintains it is all about money and government control. He says the science is so speculative as to render it pure conjecture.

I tend to agree...

Climate Change - Global Warming - WSU Energy Program

What is global warming?
Natural gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide form a shield around the earth capturing some of the sun's energy, which otherwise would radiate back into space. Without this "greenhouse effect" Earth's temperatures would be inhospitably cool.

Human activity in the last century, however, has concentrated this blanket of gases, trapping additional heat. The earth's surface temperature is now about one degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was 100 years ago, according the National Academy of Sciences. Researchers believe the burning of fossil fuel is primarily responsible for the buildup of three important greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Fossil fuel is used to run cars and trucks, generate electricity, heat buildings and power factories.

Fossil fuel-burning activities account for 98 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 24 percent of methane emissions and 18 percent of nitrous oxide emissions, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production and mining also contribute to the problem.

Unless emissions are reduced, scientists predict the earth's atmosphere will continue to warm, resulting in flooding in some areas and drought in others. According to the EPA, in 1997, the United States emitted about one-fifth of total global greenhouse gases.

Is there a point to this post?

Besides showing yet another overly generalized statement from a university science department yearning for a bit of the GW funding? The very type of funding that drives my WSU science instructor absolutely nuts?

The key phrase in that entire post - "scientists predict..."

Why yes, I suppose they do...

You "quote" one unidentified "scientist". I gave you the whole damned department from that University. The reality is that every major University on this planet states the reality of global warming and it's anthropogenic source.

 

[KittenKoder]

Air Pollution Control Efforts Will Add To Global Warming If Carbon Monoxide Is Not Curbed Along With Nitrogen Oxides
Other Greenhouse gases - CO
Air Pollution Control Efforts Will Add To Global Warming If Carbon Monoxide Is Not Curbed Along With Nitrogen Oxides

Really?

 

[elvis]

CO, carbon monoxide? What about CO? I don't ever remember mentioning CO to anybody, out of the context of not running your automobile in a garage with the doors closed.

CO was blamed for global warming for almost 10 years ... you alarmists have such short memories, jump on the next scare and forget all about the last attempt.

Damn, Kitten, don't act that ignorant! Tyndall identified CO2 as a greenhouse gas in 1859.

CO2 Widget - Tyndall 200 | CO2 Widget | Current CO2

The Tyndall 200 widget is named in honour of John Tyndall. This is the Irish scientist who, in 1859, built the world's first ratio spectrophotometer and identified the natural greenhouse effect that is now recognized as an essential condition of life on Earth.

This widget is updated early each month so that only the world's most current data for atmospheric CO2 is displayed on your site. The colourful and informative "Tyndall 200" widget is 200 pixels wide and 300 pixels high.

There are two ways to add this widget to your site...

It's a typo, you stupid ****.