Science: In Warming World, Critters Run to the Hills

[wirebender]

Astronomers tell us of galaxies thousands of light years from earth and we accept it or just ignore it. It has no effect on our lives so why should we care. Global warming does effect us and threatens our way of life. It's more socially acceptable to deny the facts than it is to deny our descendants a future.

IMHO, we may have passed the point where global warming can be stopped before our environment is destroyed. Scientists can't tell how much greenhouse gases have to be reduced to save the planet. In fact they can't tell us if it actually can be saved. That's not much of a basis to turn the world's economic system upside down.

Can you show me some facts that suggest that the temperature is presently at the optimum for life on earth?

Can you show me some facts that prove an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate?

Can you show me any facts that prove without doubt that lowering so called greenhouse gasses will decrease the global temperature?

Can you show me any fact that proves that so called greenhouse gasses raise the temperature?

Can you show me any fact that proves the existence of a greenhouse effect?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The equator is deserted! Run for the Hills!

LOL

That's "Science"

 

[Flopper]

Astronomers tell us of galaxies thousands of light years from earth and we accept it or just ignore it. It has no effect on our lives so why should we care. Global warming does effect us and threatens our way of life. It's more socially acceptable to deny the facts than it is to deny our descendants a future.

IMHO, we may have passed the point where global warming can be stopped before our environment is destroyed. Scientists can't tell how much greenhouse gases have to be reduced to save the planet. In fact they can't tell us if it actually can be saved. That's not much of a basis to turn the world's economic system upside down.

Can you show me some facts that suggest that the temperature is presently at the optimum for life on earth?

Can you show me some facts that prove an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate?

Can you show me any facts that prove without doubt that lowering so called greenhouse gasses will decrease the global temperature?

Can you show me any fact that proves that so called greenhouse gasses raise the temperature?

Can you show me any fact that proves the existence of a greenhouse effect?

Show you? There are none so blind as he who will not see.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[rdean]

People choose to believe what they want to believe and all the scientific studies are not going to convince them otherwise. Where science supports one's believe system, science is embraced but when it doesn't science is wrong. For example, only 4 in 10 believe in evolution even thou there is a huge amount of evidence to support it. We may never have enough proof of evolution, but we will certainly have plenty of proof of global warming.

I suspect we currently have much more proof of evolution. The study of earth's climate is still in it's infancy. "Study" being the operative word. Scientists "study", right wingers "wish and imagine". No study involved.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

People choose to believe what they want to believe and all the scientific studies are not going to convince them otherwise. Where science supports one's believe system, science is embraced but when it doesn't science is wrong. For example, only 4 in 10 believe in evolution even thou there is a huge amount of evidence to support it. We may never have enough proof of evolution, but we will certainly have plenty of proof of global warming.

I suspect we currently have much more proof of evolution. The study of earth's climate is still in it's infancy. "Study" being the operative word. Scientists "study", right wingers "wish and imagine". No study involved.

Why is it that whenever a right winger points out the fallacy of your positions you just imagine they have no idea what they are talking about if you are a wannabe scientist? Shouldn't you actually study the facts instead of just wishing yourself right?

 

[wirebender]

Astronomers tell us of galaxies thousands of light years from earth and we accept it or just ignore it. It has no effect on our lives so why should we care. Global warming does effect us and threatens our way of life. It's more socially acceptable to deny the facts than it is to deny our descendants a future.

IMHO, we may have passed the point where global warming can be stopped before our environment is destroyed. Scientists can't tell how much greenhouse gases have to be reduced to save the planet. In fact they can't tell us if it actually can be saved. That's not much of a basis to turn the world's economic system upside down.

Can you show me some facts that suggest that the temperature is presently at the optimum for life on earth?

Can you show me some facts that prove an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate?

Can you show me any facts that prove without doubt that lowering so called greenhouse gasses will decrease the global temperature?

Can you show me any fact that proves that so called greenhouse gasses raise the temperature?

Can you show me any fact that proves the existence of a greenhouse effect?

Show you? There are none so blind as he who will not see.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Actually, there are none so blind as those who are hopelessly dupted, but never mind.

I see you are posting old rocks' scripture. I have read the whole thing and even checked the links that are imbedded within it. I have asked rocks repeatedly and he remains unable to answer so I will ask you; which part of that drivel do you believe represents any sort of proof that the present temperature is at the optimum for life on earth, or some sort of proof that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man, or that reducing the amount of socalled greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will lower the temperature, or that the presence of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere raise the temperature, or that the greenhouse effect even exists?

Rocks repeatedly posts that bit of sputum but remains unable to point to any part of it that constitutes proof of any of his beliefs. Which part do you beleive represents proof. Just state the paragraph and I will gladly explain how nothing there is proof of anything for you.

 

[wirebender]

I suspect we currently have much more proof of evolution. The study of earth's climate is still in it's infancy. "Study" being the operative word. Scientists "study", right wingers "wish and imagine". No study involved.

And yet it is us right wingers who are prepared to go to the physics and mathematical bare bones of the debate and show you why your beliefs violate some very basic laws of physics. You respond with meaningless appeals to authority. If you can't do the math yourself, then you have no idea whether or not those spoonfeeding you are feeding you truth or just so much pap. You are operating from a position of faith, not knowledge.

For example, can you describe the mechanism by which a trace gas that has no ability to absorb and retain energy can cause the earth to warm? That is an easy one and the basis upon which your religion rests. Surely you can explain the physical mechanism in minute detail. I am all ears.

 

[Jroc]

Astronomers tell us of galaxies thousands of light years from earth and we accept it or just ignore it. It has no effect on our lives so why should we care. Global warming does effect us and threatens our way of life. It's more socially acceptable to deny the facts than it is to deny our descendants a future.

IMHO, we may have passed the point where global warming can be stopped before our environment is destroyed. Scientists can't tell how much greenhouse gases have to be reduced to save the planet. In fact they can't tell us if it actually can be saved. That's not much of a basis to turn the world's economic system upside down.

Go move into a hut and make sure you don't start any fires ..all that carbon you know You people are a joke "man made global warming" the religion of the libs.

 

[skookerasbil]

Of course, we'll never know how many species are moving TOWARDS the equator..............will we?

 

[Flopper]

Can you show me some facts that suggest that the temperature is presently at the optimum for life on earth?

Can you show me some facts that prove an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate?

Can you show me any facts that prove without doubt that lowering so called greenhouse gasses will decrease the global temperature?

Can you show me any fact that proves that so called greenhouse gasses raise the temperature?

Can you show me any fact that proves the existence of a greenhouse effect?

Show you? There are none so blind as he who will not see.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Actually, there are none so blind as those who are hopelessly dupted, but never mind.

I see you are posting old rocks' scripture. I have read the whole thing and even checked the links that are imbedded within it. I have asked rocks repeatedly and he remains unable to answer so I will ask you; which part of that drivel do you believe represents any sort of proof that the present temperature is at the optimum for life on earth, or some sort of proof that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man, or that reducing the amount of socalled greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will lower the temperature, or that the presence of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere raise the temperature, or that the greenhouse effect even exists?

Rocks repeatedly posts that bit of sputum but remains unable to point to any part of it that constitutes proof of any of his beliefs. Which part do you beleive represents proof. Just state the paragraph and I will gladly explain how nothing there is proof of anything for you.

Proof? There is no proof. There is a huge amount of evidence. You won't have enough proof until the end of the century to convince governments to take decisive action. If we were dealing with just a bunch of temperature studies by climatologists, the whole issue could be dismissed but we aren't. We're seeing supporting evidence from oceanologists, botanists, zoologists, geophysicists, and glaciologists from around world. Loss of biodiversity, decline in polar bears, shrinking arctic sea ice, melting glaciers, rise in acidifying of oceans, thinning ice, rising sea levels, coral bleaching, shifting wildlife habitat are just few of hundreds of studies that provide supporting evidence that the climate is rapidly changing.

Of course the opposition will dismiss all the evidence as a great left wing conspiracy. NASA, NOAA, National Science Foundation, National Academy of Science, 32 national science academies, and 75 out of 79 climate scientists, have got it all wrong.

 

[westwall]

Astronomers tell us of galaxies thousands of light years from earth and we accept it or just ignore it. It has no effect on our lives so why should we care. Global warming does effect us and threatens our way of life. It's more socially acceptable to deny the facts than it is to deny our descendants a future.

IMHO, we may have passed the point where global warming can be stopped before our environment is destroyed. Scientists can't tell how much greenhouse gases have to be reduced to save the planet. In fact they can't tell us if it actually can be saved. That's not much of a basis to turn the world's economic system upside down.

Just like the addition of MTBE to gasoline proved far more disastrous to the environment then the pollution it was meant to control, the proposed methods for the control of AGW are far worse then the actual "problem". Conservatively, the IPCC projects a cost of a few trillion dollars to possibly reduce the temperature of the globe by one degree in 100 years.

Just imagine what you could do with a few trillion dollars that currently will enrich a few dictators in Africa and a whole bunch of wealthy bankers like those who run Goldman Sachs. Just imagine what that money could do to fix real problems and invent new technologies that will render the current energy systems obsolete.

 

[westwall]

People choose to believe what they want to believe and all the scientific studies are not going to convince them otherwise. Where science supports one's believe system, science is embraced but when it doesn't science is wrong. For example, only 4 in 10 believe in evolution even thou there is a huge amount of evidence to support it. We may never have enough proof of evolution, but we will certainly have plenty of proof of global warming.

I suspect we currently have much more proof of evolution. The study of earth's climate is still in it's infancy. "Study" being the operative word. Scientists "study", right wingers "wish and imagine". No study involved.

No, we want real science to be performed with accuracy and honesty, something the AGW crowd have proven to be incapable of. Furthermore implementing "fixes" before all the facts are in leads to environmental disasters on an epic scale. Just look at the history of MTBE added to gasoline. It was an effort to control air pollution and it did a fairly good job of that (though the effect on some members of the public was quite severe). However, it poisoned the ground water all over the state of California. Most of the wells in the Lake Tahoe area are still closed because of MTBE contamination.

So, you see. Your fix was far worse then the problem. Imagine that result on a global scale which is what you folks advocate. Yep, I really want to see what happens when you really screw up the environment.

 

[westwall]

Show you? There are none so blind as he who will not see.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Actually, there are none so blind as those who are hopelessly dupted, but never mind.

I see you are posting old rocks' scripture. I have read the whole thing and even checked the links that are imbedded within it. I have asked rocks repeatedly and he remains unable to answer so I will ask you; which part of that drivel do you believe represents any sort of proof that the present temperature is at the optimum for life on earth, or some sort of proof that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man, or that reducing the amount of socalled greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will lower the temperature, or that the presence of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere raise the temperature, or that the greenhouse effect even exists?

Rocks repeatedly posts that bit of sputum but remains unable to point to any part of it that constitutes proof of any of his beliefs. Which part do you beleive represents proof. Just state the paragraph and I will gladly explain how nothing there is proof of anything for you.

Proof? There is no proof. There is a huge amount of evidence. You won't have enough proof until the end of the century to convince governments to take decisive action. If we were dealing with just a bunch of temperature studies by climatologists, the whole issue could be dismissed but we aren't. We're seeing supporting evidence from oceanologists, botanists, zoologists, geophysicists, and glaciologists from around world. Loss of biodiversity, decline in polar bears, shrinking arctic sea ice, melting glaciers, rise in acidifying of oceans, thinning ice, rising sea levels, coral bleaching, shifting wildlife habitat are just few of hundreds of studies that provide supporting evidence that the climate is rapidly changing.

Of course the opposition will dismiss all the evidence as a great left wing conspiracy. NASA, NOAA, National Science Foundation, National Academy of Science, 32 national science academies, and 75 out of 79 climate scientists, have got it all wrong.

Feel free to show us evidence that is not tainted and doesn't involve a computer model.

 

[Old Rocks]

People choose to believe what they want to believe and all the scientific studies are not going to convince them otherwise. Where science supports one's believe system, science is embraced but when it doesn't science is wrong. For example, only 4 in 10 believe in evolution even thou there is a huge amount of evidence to support it. We may never have enough proof of evolution, but we will certainly have plenty of proof of global warming.

I suspect we currently have much more proof of evolution. The study of earth's climate is still in it's infancy. "Study" being the operative word. Scientists "study", right wingers "wish and imagine". No study involved.

Why is it that whenever a right winger points out the fallacy of your positions you just imagine they have no idea what they are talking about if you are a wannabe scientist? Shouldn't you actually study the facts instead of just wishing yourself right?

Really, you have shown the fallacy of global warming and GHGs? Since most here that have actually studied the issue post articles from real scientists, versus the nonsense from Heritage, it would seem that you are the one that is ignoring the facts.

Simple, show one Scientific Society, one National Academy of Science, or even one major University that states that AGW is not a fact.

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually, there are none so blind as those who are hopelessly dupted, but never mind.

I see you are posting old rocks' scripture. I have read the whole thing and even checked the links that are imbedded within it. I have asked rocks repeatedly and he remains unable to answer so I will ask you; which part of that drivel do you believe represents any sort of proof that the present temperature is at the optimum for life on earth, or some sort of proof that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man, or that reducing the amount of socalled greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will lower the temperature, or that the presence of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere raise the temperature, or that the greenhouse effect even exists?

Rocks repeatedly posts that bit of sputum but remains unable to point to any part of it that constitutes proof of any of his beliefs. Which part do you beleive represents proof. Just state the paragraph and I will gladly explain how nothing there is proof of anything for you.

Proof? There is no proof. There is a huge amount of evidence. You won't have enough proof until the end of the century to convince governments to take decisive action. If we were dealing with just a bunch of temperature studies by climatologists, the whole issue could be dismissed but we aren't. We're seeing supporting evidence from oceanologists, botanists, zoologists, geophysicists, and glaciologists from around world. Loss of biodiversity, decline in polar bears, shrinking arctic sea ice, melting glaciers, rise in acidifying of oceans, thinning ice, rising sea levels, coral bleaching, shifting wildlife habitat are just few of hundreds of studies that provide supporting evidence that the climate is rapidly changing.

Of course the opposition will dismiss all the evidence as a great left wing conspiracy. NASA, NOAA, National Science Foundation, National Academy of Science, 32 national science academies, and 75 out of 79 climate scientists, have got it all wrong.

Feel free to show us evidence that is not tainted and doesn't involve a computer model.

Well, well, Walleyes continues to call what the leading Physicists in the world write, drivel.

Come on, old fool, does the American Geophysical Union present 'tainted' evidence? Tainted by what and whom?

You are nothing but a posieur fronting for the energy companies.

 

[Old Rocks]

Show you? There are none so blind as he who will not see.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Actually, there are none so blind as those who are hopelessly dupted, but never mind.

I see you are posting old rocks' scripture. I have read the whole thing and even checked the links that are imbedded within it. I have asked rocks repeatedly and he remains unable to answer so I will ask you; which part of that drivel do you believe represents any sort of proof that the present temperature is at the optimum for life on earth, or some sort of proof that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man, or that reducing the amount of socalled greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will lower the temperature, or that the presence of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere raise the temperature, or that the greenhouse effect even exists?

Rocks repeatedly posts that bit of sputum but remains unable to point to any part of it that constitutes proof of any of his beliefs. Which part do you beleive represents proof. Just state the paragraph and I will gladly explain how nothing there is proof of anything for you.

Proof? There is no proof. There is a huge amount of evidence. You won't have enough proof until the end of the century to convince governments to take decisive action. If we were dealing with just a bunch of temperature studies by climatologists, the whole issue could be dismissed but we aren't. We're seeing supporting evidence from oceanologists, botanists, zoologists, geophysicists, and glaciologists from around world. Loss of biodiversity, decline in polar bears, shrinking arctic sea ice, melting glaciers, rise in acidifying of oceans, thinning ice, rising sea levels, coral bleaching, shifting wildlife habitat are just few of hundreds of studies that provide supporting evidence that the climate is rapidly changing.

Of course the opposition will dismiss all the evidence as a great left wing conspiracy. NASA, NOAA, National Science Foundation, National Academy of Science, 32 national science academies, and 75 out of 79 climate scientists, have got it all wrong.

As with evolution, there will never be enough definative evidence to convince those that are willfully ignorant.

Virtually every branch of science that deals with the earth, geology, biology, oceanography, ect. has seen major changes in the last five decades. Changes that can only be accounted for by a warming earth.

The only major factor that has changed in the prior 150 years that would account for that warming is the increased retention of heat by the GHGs emitted from the use of fossil fuel.

But no action will be taken, and no precautionary measures will be put into place, and even the funding for the study of what is happening will be cut, in our nation. Sad, but the citizenery of this nation are so much into the 'way things oughta be', that they can no longer see the way that things are. And those that try to point out what is happening will have their funds cut, the Knownothings have won.

 

[Truthmatters]

I suspect we currently have much more proof of evolution. The study of earth's climate is still in it's infancy. "Study" being the operative word. Scientists "study", right wingers "wish and imagine". No study involved.

And yet it is us right wingers who are prepared to go to the physics and mathematical bare bones of the debate and show you why your beliefs violate some very basic laws of physics. You respond with meaningless appeals to authority. If you can't do the math yourself, then you have no idea whether or not those spoonfeeding you are feeding you truth or just so much pap. You are operating from a position of faith, not knowledge.

For example, can you describe the mechanism by which a trace gas that has no ability to absorb and retain energy can cause the earth to warm? That is an easy one and the basis upon which your religion rests. Surely you can explain the physical mechanism in minute detail. I am all ears.

think about the MEANING of the phrase GreenHouse effect?

can you really be this stupid?

 

[Old Rocks]

http://web4.audubon.org/news/pressroom/bacc/pdfs/Birds and Climate Report.pdf

Birds on the Move Show
Significant Changes Underway

Analysis of four decades of Christmas Bird Count observations reveal that birds seen in North America during the first weeks of winter have moved dramatically northward—toward colder latitudes—over the past four decades. Significant northward movement occurred among 58% of the observed species—177 of 305. More than 60 moved in excess of 100 miles north, while the average distance moved by all studied species—including those that did not reflect the trend—was 35 miles northward.
There was also movement inland, from warmer coastal states into areas not long accustomed to winter temperatures suitable for their new arrivals.
The analysis found these trends among nearly every type of species; their sheer numbers and variety pointing to a powerful common force contributing to the movements.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wisconsin Bird Conservation Initiative

Migration rates for plant species due to climatic warming may not keep pace with potential rates of warming (Malcom et al. 2005). Forest landscape models show that climate change may quickly and dramatically alter the present status and geographic range of plant communities in Wisconsin (Mladenoff, 2007), and bird communities along with them. As global temperatures rise, our Wisconsin climate will no longer be suitable for some plant species, which will likely result in profound changes to our native plant communities. In turn, many of Wisconsin’s bird species will be markedly affected as they are intricately tied to the plant communities they inhabit. Precisely how these changes will affect bird populations and distribution in Wisconsin is not yet fully understood. However, two climate change models, the Canadian Climate Center (CCC) and the Hadley (U.K.) Center for Climate Prediction and Research (Hadley), forecast the extirpation or decrease in abundance by the year 2100 of many bird species that typically breed in Wisconsin, due to changes in habitat or inability to tolerate temperature increases. The list of species that will be extirpated includes such familiar birds as White-throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis), Mourning Warbler (Oporornis philadelphia), Pine Warbler (Dendroica pinus), Blackburnian Warbler (Dendroica fusca) and others (Matthews et al. 2004). In fact, upwards of 78 bird species in the eastern United States will decrease in abundance as the result of climate change (Matthews et al. 2004; Table 1). These two climate change models provide overlapping interpretations of the data, but each suggests detrimental changes may be in store for many of Wisconsin’s birds

 

[Old Rocks]

Nature Canada - Birds and Climate Change

6. Extinction risks are on the rise.

Birds most at risk of extinction from climate change are those with restricted ranges, poor ability to move their range, small populations, or those already facing conservation challenges.

Migratory birds are particularly vulnerable to climate change effects, because they depend on multiple habitats and sites.

Arctic birds are particularly vulnerable – warming is occurring rapidly here, and at least 85 of the world’s bird species breed in global Arctic regions. Vast areas of habitat, including tundra and sea ice, will be lost. Sea ice retreat could have severe consequences for Ivory Gulls, which forage along sea ice. Canadian Ivory Gulls have already declined in number by 90% over the past two decades.