Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So global warming is just like development and pollution?
Are you drunk?
If it's the result of man's actions it is. Look at the logic of it. If we're putting out more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year, how can we expect not to be having an effect?
How is that logical? Is there some optimal amount of CO2 that can be emitted? What is the effect of X amount of CO2 on the global temperature? Where is the proof?
A simple greenhouse experiment you can try at home:
Line a large open bowl with dark cloth or paper.
Place the bowl in the sun and put an inverted paper cup in the bowl. Lay a thermometer across the top of the cup so that you are measuring the air temperature in the bowl.
Note the temperature.
Cover the bowl with a sheet of clear plastic wrap. Note the new temperature reading. The increase in air temperature is due to the trapped heat.
- - - - - - -
The greenhouse effect is a pretty straightforward theory and easily demonstrable.
If CO2 was the equivalent of cellophane, you might have a point. I've checked and it doesn't resemble anything like cellophane.
My cousin a life long strong conservative Republican was a Naval officer for 20 years. He was a submariner. He spoke of the first time they were in the ice near the shelfs in the north sea. He stated that the naval scientists were there to study the ice shelfs. Bud said that the soot was all over the snow on the ice and the land. Soot is black and holds onto heat. White deflects heat.
Do the math. Even the US military supports the thesis that the earth is warming and man has caused part of it.
Soot is from man. No doubt we do not know how much man's pollution has contributed but fact is we have.
No offense but it makes us Republicans look terribly stupid to deny basic scientific fact. Same with evolution. Republicans are being very ignorant there also.
If CO2 was the equivalent of cellophane, you might have a point. I've checked and it doesn't resemble anything like cellophane.
My cousin a life long strong conservative Republican was a Naval officer for 20 years. He was a submariner. He spoke of the first time they were in the ice near the shelfs in the north sea. He stated that the naval scientists were there to study the ice shelfs. Bud said that the soot was all over the snow on the ice and the land. Soot is black and holds onto heat. White deflects heat.
Do the math. Even the US military supports the thesis that the earth is warming and man has caused part of it.
Soot is from man. No doubt we do not know how much man's pollution has contributed but fact is we have.
No offense but it makes us Republicans look terribly stupid to deny basic scientific fact. Same with evolution. Republicans are being very ignorant there also.
Oh yeah? My wife's cousin's husband once went to the Sahara. He came back 20 years later and commented on how much cooler it was. Especially at night.
Do the math!
Appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
Not really. That was more like providing research material to someone making a dogmatic, unsupported claim.
Yes, really. It's an appeal to authority. It's the entire argument of the AGW cult. "Dogmatism" normally is supported with logical fallacies rather than sound arguments.
Oh, as for that consensus:
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If wiki doesn't do it for you, feel free to cross check the references.
As for the dissenters, big tobacco paid doctors to say that cigarettes were good for you in the early 60s. I am not claiming that anti-global warmers are on the take, but it's something to keep in mind.
So you don't think that carbon monoxide, burning of fossil fuels, and the pollution of the oceans is having any effect at all on global climate?
Spitting in the ocean will cause sea level to rise. That doesn't make it something to worry about.
The only people who still don't believe in global warming are either ignorant of the facts, or just misguided mouthpieces for the right-wing.
It's time to move past the 'IF' and move forward with solutions.
Wasting our time to try to convince a very small minority of ignorant misguided mouthpieces for the rightwing is only slowing down our progress forward in saving our planet.
I have postulated (Along with many other scientists) that it is simply a cyclical period of atmospheric destabilization (Similar to the switching magnetic poles). Certainly a theory can be developed from it but we need more geological evidence to support the stance I consider. Right now it is an acceptable Theory that the climate IS changing, we need to determine by how much and if there is some form of tipping point.
Oh, as for that consensus:
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If wiki doesn't do it for you, feel free to cross check the references.
As for the dissenters, big tobacco paid doctors to say that cigarettes were good for you in the early 60s. I am not claiming that anti-global warmers are on the take, but it's something to keep in mind.
Why not? They make the claim so often about the "warmers" it reminded me of when I ran a sports league and there were people who repeatedly accussed others of cheating. More than a few of them were the biggest cheaters themselves and just used the charge as a smokescreen to try and distract me from the real source of the cheating. That always enters my mind, because who has the greater resources, scientists writing peer-reviewed grants to get funding or mouthpieces for industry with no oversight as to how much they're getting or the claims they're making?
Oh, as for that consensus:
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If wiki doesn't do it for you, feel free to cross check the references.
As for the dissenters, big tobacco paid doctors to say that cigarettes were good for you in the early 60s. I am not claiming that anti-global warmers are on the take, but it's something to keep in mind.
Why not? They make the claim so often about the "warmers" it reminded me of when I ran a sports league and there were people who repeatedly accussed others of cheating. More than a few of them were the biggest cheaters themselves and just used the charge as a smokescreen to try and distract me from the real source of the cheating. That always enters my mind, because who has the greater resources, scientists writing peer-reviewed grants to get funding or mouthpieces for industry with no oversight as to how much they're getting or the claims they're making?
Mostly because I really abhor people who toss out baseless accusations without proper sourcing and didn't want to hunt for credible links.
I fully acknowledge the other side does this (in fact I think I did), I just want to hold myself to a higher standard.
If CO2 was the equivalent of cellophane, you might have a point. I've checked and it doesn't resemble anything like cellophane.
My cousin a life long strong conservative Republican was a Naval officer for 20 years. He was a submariner. He spoke of the first time they were in the ice near the shelfs in the north sea. He stated that the naval scientists were there to study the ice shelfs. Bud said that the soot was all over the snow on the ice and the land. Soot is black and holds onto heat. White deflects heat.
Do the math. Even the US military supports the thesis that the earth is warming and man has caused part of it.
Soot is from man. No doubt we do not know how much man's pollution has contributed but fact is we have.
No offense but it makes us Republicans look terribly stupid to deny basic scientific fact. Same with evolution. Republicans are being very ignorant there also.
The Navy, as well as the other service branchs, are scrambling to look hard at the various scenerios that arise from global warming that will be a threat to our security. The papers that are being written are not pleasant reading.
opinions arent science. Even if they are made by scientists.
Agreed that "opinions aren't science". NASA scientists back up their assertions with data. What are you basing your opinions upon? Are you saying the world isn't warming? That the ice caps aren't melting?
Climate Change: Key Indicators
MY NASA DATA GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Their data is "homogenized," which is a euphemism meaning it's doctored to produce the desired result.
I know enough to realize when the temperature goes down it's not going up. I know enough to realize that if the planet is warming it won't cause an ice age. I know enough to realize that the temperature of the earth has gone up and down throughout all of earth's long history. I know enough to realize that when so called global warming scientists have to make up data that the data doesn't support what the politicians are trying to push on us.
You have no clue how much I know or don't know of the research I've actually studied. You just presume that since I call junk science for what it is, that I don't know anything about it.
Tell me something, why is it that the so called "solution" to global warming just happens to be the same policies the socialists couldnt convince the American people to enact for economic reasons? They can't convince people on the merits of the argument so they have to scare people into enacting their policies with a "crisis" that is always far off in the future.
Isn't it interesting that no matter whether the tempature goes up or goes down it's global warming? Global warming is going to warm the planet. No it's going to cause the next ice age. It causes hurricanes and earthquakes, except when it's not politically expedient for the left. Isn't that such an amazing coincidence?
You realize that according to those global warming "scientists" New York and many other Coastal cities were supposed to be underwater last year? Funny how that didnt happen and now it's completely ignored.
See, the problem with this so called "science" is that no matter how contrary the data is, it all seems to "prove" that it's happening for the left. And somehow questioning the inconsistancy of the facts is taboo. Since when is it anti-science to question the data? THAT IS SCIENCE! Science is all about questioning the data. Rejecting false theories. Yet, no matter how much we learn about the so called scientists making up data, no matter how many times the predictions are wrong, no matter how much data completely contradicts the theories, we are told we are crazy for questioning, that the debate is settled, and we need to give more control of our lives to an ever expanding government.
Well guess what. People are going to keep questioning. We aren't going to blindly follow you. When your data is inconsistant, when you have to out and out lie to support your position, we are going to question you even if you falsely claim it's all science.
Science doesn't stop questioning. And those who claim we shouldn't question or that anyone who does is crazy aren't being honest. If you have the truth on your side you aren't afraid of other opinions because the truth shines brighter and clearer than the lies. It's only the people who are afraid of the truth that need to shut down debate and pretend that it's over when it's never actually occured.
We realize that most of your assertions are pure bullshit and lies.
No, science never stops questioning. And all the anwers keep coming back that we are creating the rapid warming that we are experiancing by burning fossil fuels, adding GHGs to the atmosphere.
It has yet to be proven however that humans make up the majority of the cause, we still need to rule out natural climate destabilization. Some of the numbers are a bit dubious (up to 90%) because caused by humans.
Yes, it IS important we find out how much of this rests on the shoulders of humans, because it's stupid to think that we have no impact on this planet as a sentient species.
Agreed that "opinions aren't science". NASA scientists back up their assertions with data. What are you basing your opinions upon? Are you saying the world isn't warming? That the ice caps aren't melting?
Climate Change: Key Indicators
MY NASA DATA GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Their data is "homogenized," which is a euphemism meaning it's doctored to produce the desired result.
So, if I understand this correctly, NASA is a bogus organization if they produce data with which you disagree, but when they do something you like, such as put astronauts in space or a new robot on Mars, then they are the world's greatest science organization. Is that correct?....or are you one of those that believe the Moon landings were a hoax too?
Their data is "homogenized," which is a euphemism meaning it's doctored to produce the desired result.
So, if I understand this correctly, NASA is a bogus organization if they produce data with which you disagree, but when they do something you like, such as put astronauts in space or a new robot on Mars, then they are the world's greatest science organization. Is that correct?....or are you one of those that believe the Moon landings were a hoax too?
Everyone knows the moon landings were staged in the back room of a country music bar in Hahira, Ga.
We realize that most of your assertions are pure bullshit and lies.
No, science never stops questioning. And all the anwers keep coming back that we are creating the rapid warming that we are experiancing by burning fossil fuels, adding GHGs to the atmosphere.
It has yet to be proven however that humans make up the majority of the cause, we still need to rule out natural climate destabilization. Some of the numbers are a bit dubious (up to 90%) because caused by humans.
Yes, it IS important we find out how much of this rests on the shoulders of humans, because it's stupid to think that we have no impact on this planet as a sentient species.
Never said humans make up the majority of the cause.
But if humans are part of the cause what other area do we focus on other than HUMAN CAUSE?
BTW, what about all of the others here that state categorically that humans PLAY NO PART AT ALL in the warming?
Are you on their side or not? Or are you sitting on the bench?
Have you noticed how the cult members invariably support their religion with logical fallacies? Yet, they claim they are the ones on the side of science. The last time I checked, logic was one of the most important parts of the scientific method.
If that isn't the indication of a cult, I don't know what is.
Do you even know what the scientific method is?
The scientific method states that truth is arrived at by reproducible experiments. Thus if 5000 scientists say one thing and one scientist says something different and he can produce a reproducible experiment then the one scientist is correct and the 5000 scientists are wrong.
That is scientific method.
Where is the reproducible experiment on man made global warming?
It has yet to be proven however that humans make up the majority of the cause, we still need to rule out natural climate destabilization. Some of the numbers are a bit dubious (up to 90%) because caused by humans.
Yes, it IS important we find out how much of this rests on the shoulders of humans, because it's stupid to think that we have no impact on this planet as a sentient species.
Never said humans make up the majority of the cause.
But if humans are part of the cause what other area do we focus on other than HUMAN CAUSE?
BTW, what about all of the others here that state categorically that humans PLAY NO PART AT ALL in the warming?
Are you on their side or not? Or are you sitting on the bench?
I'm a scientist. I'm on the side of reason and evidence. The one that produces the model that predicts the most accurately is the one we should be striving for, not one with a political agenda attached to it.
So, if I understand this correctly, NASA is a bogus organization if they produce data with which you disagree, but when they do something you like, such as put astronauts in space or a new robot on Mars, then they are the world's greatest science organization. Is that correct?....or are you one of those that believe the Moon landings were a hoax too?
Everyone knows the moon landings were staged in the back room of a country music bar in Hahira, Ga.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hKSYgOGtos]R.E.M. Man On the Moon - YouTube[/ame]
(And there is even a tie-in to Georgia. This song is brilliant.)
Never said humans make up the majority of the cause.
But if humans are part of the cause what other area do we focus on other than HUMAN CAUSE?
BTW, what about all of the others here that state categorically that humans PLAY NO PART AT ALL in the warming?
Are you on their side or not? Or are you sitting on the bench?
I'm a scientist. I'm on the side of reason and evidence. The one that produces the model that predicts the most accurately is the one we should be striving for, not one with a political agenda attached to it.
So what evidence do you have that 1 billion cars a day do not cause pollution as everyone knows they emit cold air into the environment?
Growing up in the deep south I am all too familiar with the "it is a political agenda" when billy clubs were connecting to black heads in the 60s and folks objected to it. They called civil rights marches organized by the communist party.
Hate to inform you there my man, but it is YOUR TEAM that is making it a political agenda. I have seen my Republican party go from a firm stance on fiscal responsibility to a party indoctrinated with the religous right and their war on science.
