Scientists and warnings.

[Iceweasel]

But every single Scientific Society, every single National Academy of Science, and every single major University states just the opposite.

You forgot to say ....Amen.

Articles: Scientists in Revolt against Global Warming
"In America, Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-winner in physics, resigned in protest from the American Physical Society this fall because of the Society's policy statement: "The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring." Dr. Giaver:

Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?

The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this "warming" period."

In 2008, Prof. Giaever endorsed Barack Obama's candidacy, but he has since joined 100 scientists who wrote an open letter to Obama, declaring: "We maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."

Fifty-one thousand Canadian engineers, geologists, and geophysicists were recently polled by their professional organization. Sixty-eight percent of them disagree with the statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled." Only 26% attributed global warming to "human activity like burning fossil fuels." APEGGA's executive director Neil Windsor said, "We're not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."

Dr. Joanne Simpson, one of the world's top weather scientists, expressed relief upon her retirement that she was finally free to speak "frankly" on global warming and announce that "as a scientist I remain skeptical." She says she remained silent for fear of personal attacks. Dr. Simpson was a pioneer in computer modeling and points out the obvious: computer models are not yet good enough to predict weather -- we cannot scientifically predict global climate trends.

Dr. Fred Singer, first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, and physicist Dr. Seitz, past president of the APS, of Rockefeller University and of the National Academy of Science, argue that the computer models are fed questionable data and assumptions that determine the answers on global warming that the scientists expect to see.

 

[westwall]

The world loses an area of rainforest the size of Panama each year.
Deforestation Facts, Deforestation Information, Effects of Deforestation - National Geographic

There is an area of plastic garbage in the Pacific ocean that is the size of the continental United States, accumulating more and feeding into the food chain.
https://www.google.com/search?q=pacific+plastic+gyre&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

We have burnt coal and oil continuously all over the world, 24 hours a day, for over 100 years.
https://www.google.com/search?q=industrial+revolution+fossil+fuels&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

The pollution over China can be seen from space.
https://www.google.com/search?q=china+pollution+seen+from+space&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

This combination of factors has created the Greenhouse Effect. Only the dumbest talking monkeys can look at the state of the world and think, "Everything is fine. GOD is in control."

Yes, it is true that human activity means less than nothing to the Earth. It is true that the planet can shake off the human race like a case of fleas. Plants and animals will reclaim the ruins of every major city within a couple of months after we're gone.

What we are trying to do is to prevent that from happening. We don't want the human race to overpopulate and consume the world's resources until the planet can no longer support us and everyone dies. That is not the ultimate goal of the human race.

Rain forest preservation is one of my big things. Mankind should do everything possible to prevent that irreparable harm.

Your Great Pacific Garbage patch is not visible to the naked eye for the most part. In fact when researchers skimmed the area a few years back they couldn't find anything but microscopic plastic bits.

Yes coal has been burned for over 100 years. However,a single major volcanic eruption puts more crap into the atmosphere than all of mans pollution for all of mans history. So, big deal.

Pollution from China should be greatly curtailed. Especially their particulate discharge. None of the GHG's they emit matter however.

AGW has been shown to be a false theory. You need no longer worry about it.

But every single Scientific Society, every single National Academy of Science, and every single major University states just the opposite.

So, who to believe, an ananymous poster on the internet, or virtually all the scientists in the world?

Hyperbole thy name is olfraud! I don't give a good gosh darn what the various societies say, they, like the charlatans of old, have a vested interest in continuing the fraud. And it is far, far from your claim of "virtually all the scientists in the world. That's just simple horse manure. There are more DOCUMENTED sceptics then there are koolaid drinkers. By over 10 to one.

 

[Old Rocks]

Do any of you liberals know the difference between pollution and climate? anyone?

you are claiming that man made pollution is changing the climate of the earth, right?

what man made pollution caused the last ice age?

Pollution is bad--for the planet and form every form of life on it------------BUT, there is absolutely no proof that man made pollution has caused the climate of the planet to change.

Theories, yes, Proof, no.

You talk about proof as if absolutlely ironclad proof is necessary. In many, if not most things, it isn't. If there is sufficient evidence pointing in one direction, scientists develope a theory and THEN attempt to disprove it or eliminate it as a possible cause. In the process, they will look at other factors for some kind of correlation or possible causation. If they don't find any, they may very well be able to eliminate those other factors as being a cause. That's exactly what scientists have been doing for several decades.

As a result, the OVERWHELMING evidence found by thousands and thousands of scientist all around the world working in different areas of their respective disciplines have found that increased greenhouse gases which have previously been trapped in the ground for millions of years and have been recently released by human beings within the last 150 years is the causal link to the increased greenhouse gases in the environment which IS driving the climate change we are currently experiencing and will CONTINUE to experience for decades.

It's not a question of having changed. It IS changing now!

Frankly, ignorance doesn't bother me. What bothers me is people who wear their ignorance as a badge of honor.

No, the question is how severe the change will be, and how much it will cost us to alleviate it. Since the projected damage is less than 5% of global domestic productivity, and the projected cost is 20% of the same figure, is it really worth spending massive amounts of money really worth the return on investment?

Links to said predictions?

 

[Redfish]

Do any of you liberals know the difference between pollution and climate? anyone?

you are claiming that man made pollution is changing the climate of the earth, right?

what man made pollution caused the last ice age?

Pollution is bad--for the planet and form every form of life on it------------BUT, there is absolutely no proof that man made pollution has caused the climate of the planet to change.

Theories, yes, Proof, no.

You talk about proof as if absolutlely ironclad proof is necessary. In many, if not most things, it isn't. If there is sufficient evidence pointing in one direction, scientists develope a theory and THEN attempt to disprove it or eliminate it as a possible cause. In the process, they will look at other factors for some kind of correlation or possible causation. If they don't find any, they may very well be able to eliminate those other factors as being a cause. That's exactly what scientists have been doing for several decades.

As a result, the OVERWHELMING evidence found by thousands and thousands of scientist all around the world working in different areas of their respective disciplines have found that increased greenhouse gases which have previously been trapped in the ground for millions of years and have been recently released by human beings within the last 150 years is the causal link to the increased greenhouse gases in the environment which IS driving the climate change we are currently experiencing and will CONTINUE to experience for decades.

It's not a question of having changed. It IS changing now!

Frankly, ignorance doesn't bother me. What bothers me is people who wear their ignorance as a badge of honor.

No, the question is how severe the change will be, and how much it will cost us to alleviate it. Since the projected damage is less than 5% of global domestic productivity, and the projected cost is 20% of the same figure, is it really worth spending massive amounts of money really worth the return on investment?

If the climate is changing, there is not a damn thing we can do to stop it, reverse it, or slow it down. All we can do is adapt. What's so bad about orange orchards in Greenland anyway?

 

[Old Rocks]

Rain forest preservation is one of my big things. Mankind should do everything possible to prevent that irreparable harm.

Your Great Pacific Garbage patch is not visible to the naked eye for the most part. In fact when researchers skimmed the area a few years back they couldn't find anything but microscopic plastic bits.

Yes coal has been burned for over 100 years. However,a single major volcanic eruption puts more crap into the atmosphere than all of mans pollution for all of mans history. So, big deal.

Pollution from China should be greatly curtailed. Especially their particulate discharge. None of the GHG's they emit matter however.

AGW has been shown to be a false theory. You need no longer worry about it.

But every single Scientific Society, every single National Academy of Science, and every single major University states just the opposite.

So, who to believe, an ananymous poster on the internet, or virtually all the scientists in the world?

Hyperbole thy name is olfraud! I don't give a good gosh darn what the various societies say, they, like the charlatans of old, have a vested interest in continuing the fraud. And it is far, far from your claim of "virtually all the scientists in the world. That's just simple horse manure. There are more DOCUMENTED sceptics then there are koolaid drinkers. By over 10 to one.

Really? So why have not these scientists changed to policy statements of their societies? Oh wait, one has. The American Association of Petroleum Engineers had a policy statement that flat out denied AGW. And so many members threatoned to quit the society that they changed their statement. See, the scientists can change the policy statements of a scientfic society.

 

[Old Rocks]

You talk about proof as if absolutlely ironclad proof is necessary. In many, if not most things, it isn't. If there is sufficient evidence pointing in one direction, scientists develope a theory and THEN attempt to disprove it or eliminate it as a possible cause. In the process, they will look at other factors for some kind of correlation or possible causation. If they don't find any, they may very well be able to eliminate those other factors as being a cause. That's exactly what scientists have been doing for several decades.

As a result, the OVERWHELMING evidence found by thousands and thousands of scientist all around the world working in different areas of their respective disciplines have found that increased greenhouse gases which have previously been trapped in the ground for millions of years and have been recently released by human beings within the last 150 years is the causal link to the increased greenhouse gases in the environment which IS driving the climate change we are currently experiencing and will CONTINUE to experience for decades.

It's not a question of having changed. It IS changing now!

Frankly, ignorance doesn't bother me. What bothers me is people who wear their ignorance as a badge of honor.

No, the question is how severe the change will be, and how much it will cost us to alleviate it. Since the projected damage is less than 5% of global domestic productivity, and the projected cost is 20% of the same figure, is it really worth spending massive amounts of money really worth the return on investment?

If the climate is changing, there is not a damn thing we can do to stop it, reverse it, or slow it down. All we can do is adapt. What's so bad about orange orchards in Greenland anyway?

So you really think that is what will happen? Talk about simplistic dumb asses.

 

[Iceweasel]

Today, the myth of the 1970s global cooling consensus lives on through blanket statements, often cited back to cherry-picked news media coverage from the time.]

How stupid. I was taught that in the 60s and 70s. It was the consensus of the day. Making idiotic political comments doesn't make your point look any better.

Taught by whom? People as willfully ignorant as yourself?

It was made a big deal in Newsweek and Time. In the scientfic journals of that time, 6 to 1 the articles stated the real danger was from the increasing GHGs making the world warmer.

Now, if you believe that Newsweek and Time are adaquete sources of science, that is your problem. For the rest of us, we prefer what the real scientists were saying.

I'm convinced that you are at least mildly retarded.

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s - USATODAY.com
By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY
The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

 

[Old Rocks]

But every single Scientific Society, every single National Academy of Science, and every single major University states just the opposite.

You forgot to say ....Amen.

Articles: Scientists in Revolt against Global Warming
"In America, Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-winner in physics, resigned in protest from the American Physical Society this fall because of the Society's policy statement: "The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring." Dr. Giaver:

Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?

The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this "warming" period."

In 2008, Prof. Giaever endorsed Barack Obama's candidacy, but he has since joined 100 scientists who wrote an open letter to Obama, declaring: "We maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."

Fifty-one thousand Canadian engineers, geologists, and geophysicists were recently polled by their professional organization. Sixty-eight percent of them disagree with the statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled." Only 26% attributed global warming to "human activity like burning fossil fuels." APEGGA's executive director Neil Windsor said, "We're not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."

Dr. Joanne Simpson, one of the world's top weather scientists, expressed relief upon her retirement that she was finally free to speak "frankly" on global warming and announce that "as a scientist I remain skeptical." She says she remained silent for fear of personal attacks. Dr. Simpson was a pioneer in computer modeling and points out the obvious: computer models are not yet good enough to predict weather -- we cannot scientifically predict global climate trends.

Dr. Fred Singer, first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, and physicist Dr. Seitz, past president of the APS, of Rockefeller University and of the National Academy of Science, argue that the computer models are fed questionable data and assumptions that determine the answers on global warming that the scientists expect to see.

100 scientists out of millions. And Dr. Fred Singer also stated that tabacco was not harmful to your health. In front of Congress.

How about some links to that poll? Might that be a poll of people in the petro-chemical industry? An open poll that their employers could view?

So one old Meteorologist is a denialist. What does the American Meteorological Society state concerning global warming?

https://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html

Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. While large amounts of CO2 enter and leave the atmosphere through natural processes, these human activities are increasing the total amount in the air and the oceans. Approximately half of the CO2 put into the atmosphere through human activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, with the other half remaining in the atmosphere. Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Having been introduced into the atmosphere it will take a thousand years for the majority of the added atmospheric CO2 to be removed by natural processes, and some will remain for thousands of subsequent years.

Water vapor also is an important atmospheric greenhouse gas. Unlike other greenhouse gases, however, the concentration of water vapor depends on atmospheric temperature and is controlled by the global climate system through its hydrological cycle of evaporation-condensation-precipitation. Water vapor is highly variable in space and time with a short lifetime, because of weather variability. Observations indicate an increase in globally averaged water vapor in the atmosphere in recent decades, at a rate consistent with the response produced by climate models that simulate human-induced increases in greenhouse gases. This increase in water vapor also strengthens the greenhouse effect, amplifying the impact of human-induced increases in other greenhouse gases.

Human activity also affects climate through changes in the number and physical properties of tiny solid particles and liquid droplets in the atmosphere, known collectively as atmospheric aerosols. Examples of aerosols include dust, sea salt, and sulfates from air pollution. Aerosols have a variety of climate effects. They absorb and redirect solar energy from the sun and thermal energy emitted by Earth, emit energy themselves, and modify the ability of clouds to reflect sunlight and to produce precipitation. Aerosols can both strengthen and weaken greenhouse warming, depending on their characteristics. Most aerosols originating from human activity act to cool the planet and so partly counteract greenhouse gas warming effects. Aerosols lofted into the stratosphere [between about 13 km (8 miles) and 50 km (30 miles) altitude above the surface] by occasional large sulfur-rich volcanic eruptions can reduce global surface temperature for several years. By contrast, carbon soot from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels warms the planet, so that decreases in soot would reduce warming. Aerosols have lifetimes in the troposphere [at altitudes up to approximately 13 km (8 miles) from the surface in the middle latitudes] on the order of one week, much shorter than that of most greenhouse gases, and their prevalence and properties can vary widely by region.

 

[Redfish]

No, the question is how severe the change will be, and how much it will cost us to alleviate it. Since the projected damage is less than 5% of global domestic productivity, and the projected cost is 20% of the same figure, is it really worth spending massive amounts of money really worth the return on investment?

If the climate is changing, there is not a damn thing we can do to stop it, reverse it, or slow it down. All we can do is adapt. What's so bad about orange orchards in Greenland anyway?

So you really think that is what will happen? Talk about simplistic dumb asses.

sarcasm dumbass, sorry if it was over your head.

tell me, have you ever flown across the pacific ocean? how about the indian ocean? how about Russia or Saudi arabia or Africa? how about the USA? If you have done any of these you know that the area of earth occupied by humans is very small compared to the entire surface of the planet. The idea that burning oil, coal and wood has changed the climate is just too stupid to even discuss. Its a fraud, a hoax, a lie. Wake the fuck up. the prophet algore said that half of florida would be under water by now and that there would be no more ice in the arctic----------HE LIED TO YOU, IDIOT.

 

[Redfish]

How stupid. I was taught that in the 60s and 70s. It was the consensus of the day. Making idiotic political comments doesn't make your point look any better.

Taught by whom? People as willfully ignorant as yourself?

It was made a big deal in Newsweek and Time. In the scientfic journals of that time, 6 to 1 the articles stated the real danger was from the increasing GHGs making the world warmer.

Now, if you believe that Newsweek and Time are adaquete sources of science, that is your problem. For the rest of us, we prefer what the real scientists were saying.

I'm convinced that you are at least mildly retarded.

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s - USATODAY.com
By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY
The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

I suspect senility and maybe the onset of alzheimers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You talk about proof as if absolutlely ironclad proof is necessary. In many, if not most things, it isn't. If there is sufficient evidence pointing in one direction, scientists develope a theory and THEN attempt to disprove it or eliminate it as a possible cause. In the process, they will look at other factors for some kind of correlation or possible causation. If they don't find any, they may very well be able to eliminate those other factors as being a cause. That's exactly what scientists have been doing for several decades.

As a result, the OVERWHELMING evidence found by thousands and thousands of scientist all around the world working in different areas of their respective disciplines have found that increased greenhouse gases which have previously been trapped in the ground for millions of years and have been recently released by human beings within the last 150 years is the causal link to the increased greenhouse gases in the environment which IS driving the climate change we are currently experiencing and will CONTINUE to experience for decades.

It's not a question of having changed. It IS changing now!

Frankly, ignorance doesn't bother me. What bothers me is people who wear their ignorance as a badge of honor.

No, the question is how severe the change will be, and how much it will cost us to alleviate it. Since the projected damage is less than 5% of global domestic productivity, and the projected cost is 20% of the same figure, is it really worth spending massive amounts of money really worth the return on investment?

Links to said predictions?

Read my first post in this thread.

 

[Meister]

Taught by whom? People as willfully ignorant as yourself?

It was made a big deal in Newsweek and Time. In the scientfic journals of that time, 6 to 1 the articles stated the real danger was from the increasing GHGs making the world warmer.

Now, if you believe that Newsweek and Time are adaquete sources of science, that is your problem. For the rest of us, we prefer what the real scientists were saying.

I'm convinced that you are at least mildly retarded.

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s - USATODAY.com
By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY
The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

I suspect senility and maybe the onset of alzheimers.

Sadly, rocks works at a steel mill in Or. that has been busted in the past for emitting pollution. He is a hypocrite, with all of this global warming mantra....true story

 

[ron4342]

Do any of you liberals know the difference between pollution and climate? anyone?

you are claiming that man made pollution is changing the climate of the earth, right?

what man made pollution caused the last ice age?

Pollution is bad--for the planet and form every form of life on it------------BUT, there is absolutely no proof that man made pollution has caused the climate of the planet to change.

Theories, yes, Proof, no.

You talk about proof as if absolutlely ironclad proof is necessary. In many, if not most things, it isn't. If there is sufficient evidence pointing in one direction, scientists develope a theory and THEN attempt to disprove it or eliminate it as a possible cause. In the process, they will look at other factors for some kind of correlation or possible causation. If they don't find any, they may very well be able to eliminate those other factors as being a cause. That's exactly what scientists have been doing for several decades.

As a result, the OVERWHELMING evidence found by thousands and thousands of scientist all around the world working in different areas of their respective disciplines have found that increased greenhouse gases which have previously been trapped in the ground for millions of years and have been recently released by human beings within the last 150 years is the causal link to the increased greenhouse gases in the environment which IS driving the climate change we are currently experiencing and will CONTINUE to experience for decades.

It's not a question of having changed. It IS changing now!

Frankly, ignorance doesn't bother me. What bothers me is people who wear their ignorance as a badge of honor.

OK dude, pay attention. I am not going to say this again.

The climate of earth is changing, it has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now, man is a pimple on a gnat on an elephant's ass when it comes to the climate of planet earth. We should stop polluting our planet, but pollution does not cause climate change.

Hummmm ...."... pollution does not cause climate change"
Here is another one that is a favorite of mine: "Tobacco does not cause lung cancer." That little phrase was brought to us courtesy of the tobacco lobby during the 40's, 50's, 60's, and into the 70's. They spent billions selling that lie. Because of that lie millions and millions of people died and the tobacco lobby made a bunch of money on the deaths of others.
Did you know that the energy lobby is using some of the same techniques as the tobacco lobby. They have even purchased scientists and labs much like the tobacco industry.
Here is a thought, 'big anything' will do whatever it takes to remain "big." If that means lying and putting out false propaganda they will do so. They love people like you who refuse to question and accept facts. They really do. You make their job easy. As for me, I will remember what the tobacco lobby did and I will accept the research of 90+% of climate scientists who say pollution causes climate change.
You, on the other hand, can stick with the less that 10% of climate scientists who are bought and paid for by big energy. Hopefully when it dawns on you and the rest of the deniers it will not be to late.

 

[Redfish]

You talk about proof as if absolutlely ironclad proof is necessary. In many, if not most things, it isn't. If there is sufficient evidence pointing in one direction, scientists develope a theory and THEN attempt to disprove it or eliminate it as a possible cause. In the process, they will look at other factors for some kind of correlation or possible causation. If they don't find any, they may very well be able to eliminate those other factors as being a cause. That's exactly what scientists have been doing for several decades.

As a result, the OVERWHELMING evidence found by thousands and thousands of scientist all around the world working in different areas of their respective disciplines have found that increased greenhouse gases which have previously been trapped in the ground for millions of years and have been recently released by human beings within the last 150 years is the causal link to the increased greenhouse gases in the environment which IS driving the climate change we are currently experiencing and will CONTINUE to experience for decades.

It's not a question of having changed. It IS changing now!

Frankly, ignorance doesn't bother me. What bothers me is people who wear their ignorance as a badge of honor.

OK dude, pay attention. I am not going to say this again.

The climate of earth is changing, it has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now, man is a pimple on a gnat on an elephant's ass when it comes to the climate of planet earth. We should stop polluting our planet, but pollution does not cause climate change.

Hummmm ...."... pollution does not cause climate change"
Here is another one that is a favorite of mine: "Tobacco does not cause lung cancer." That little phrase was brought to us courtesy of the tobacco lobby during the 40's, 50's, 60's, and into the 70's. They spent billions selling that lie. Because of that lie millions and millions of people died and the tobacco lobby made a bunch of money on the deaths of others.
Did you know that the energy lobby is using some of the same techniques as the tobacco lobby. They have even purchased scientists and labs much like the tobacco industry.
Here is a thought, 'big anything' will do whatever it takes to remain "big." If that means lying and putting out false propaganda they will do so. They love people like you who refuse to question and accept facts. They really do. You make their job easy. As for me, I will remember what the tobacco lobby did and I will accept the research of 90+% of climate scientists who say pollution causes climate change.
You, on the other hand, can stick with the less that 10% of climate scientists who are bought and paid for by big energy. Hopefully when it dawns on you and the rest of the deniers it will not be to late.

So, lets see here. smoking causes lung cancer so burning wood in your fireplace causes the climate of the planet to change ----------- Uhhh, OK.

said another way, your attempt at analogy FAILS

might be time for your paxil. take it with vodka tonight.

 

[ron4342]

I'm convinced that you are at least mildly retarded.

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s - USATODAY.com
By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY
The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

I suspect senility and maybe the onset of alzheimers.

Sadly, rocks works at a steel mill in Or. that has been busted in the past for emitting pollution. He is a hypocrite, with all of this global warming mantra....true story

Your story may be true (or not) but either way it is immaterial. First of all it is doubtful that Old Rocks makes the decisions regarding how pollution is handled at the plant. Second, for all we know he has worked there for years and there may not be any other jobs available in the area. Quitting may not be an option for him. And finally, he better than many might have a insight that the rest of us don't.

 

[Redfish]

You talk about proof as if absolutlely ironclad proof is necessary. In many, if not most things, it isn't. If there is sufficient evidence pointing in one direction, scientists develope a theory and THEN attempt to disprove it or eliminate it as a possible cause. In the process, they will look at other factors for some kind of correlation or possible causation. If they don't find any, they may very well be able to eliminate those other factors as being a cause. That's exactly what scientists have been doing for several decades.

As a result, the OVERWHELMING evidence found by thousands and thousands of scientist all around the world working in different areas of their respective disciplines have found that increased greenhouse gases which have previously been trapped in the ground for millions of years and have been recently released by human beings within the last 150 years is the causal link to the increased greenhouse gases in the environment which IS driving the climate change we are currently experiencing and will CONTINUE to experience for decades.

It's not a question of having changed. It IS changing now!

Frankly, ignorance doesn't bother me. What bothers me is people who wear their ignorance as a badge of honor.

OK dude, pay attention. I am not going to say this again.

The climate of earth is changing, it has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now, man is a pimple on a gnat on an elephant's ass when it comes to the climate of planet earth. We should stop polluting our planet, but pollution does not cause climate change.

Hummmm ...."... pollution does not cause climate change"
Here is another one that is a favorite of mine: "Tobacco does not cause lung cancer." That little phrase was brought to us courtesy of the tobacco lobby during the 40's, 50's, 60's, and into the 70's. They spent billions selling that lie. Because of that lie millions and millions of people died and the tobacco lobby made a bunch of money on the deaths of others.
Did you know that the energy lobby is using some of the same techniques as the tobacco lobby. They have even purchased scientists and labs much like the tobacco industry.
Here is a thought, 'big anything' will do whatever it takes to remain "big." If that means lying and putting out false propaganda they will do so. They love people like you who refuse to question and accept facts. They really do. You make their job easy. As for me, I will remember what the tobacco lobby did and I will accept the research of 90+% of climate scientists who say pollution causes climate change.
You, on the other hand, can stick with the less that 10% of climate scientists who are bought and paid for by big energy. Hopefully when it dawns on you and the rest of the deniers it will not be to late.

I think you mean too late. but too late for what? If you want to give up your car, air conditioning, heat, and electricity----go right ahead. Do it and save the planet.

My gawd but you libs are stupid and gullible.

 

[ron4342]

OK dude, pay attention. I am not going to say this again.

The climate of earth is changing, it has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now, man is a pimple on a gnat on an elephant's ass when it comes to the climate of planet earth. We should stop polluting our planet, but pollution does not cause climate change.

Hummmm ...."... pollution does not cause climate change"
Here is another one that is a favorite of mine: "Tobacco does not cause lung cancer." That little phrase was brought to us courtesy of the tobacco lobby during the 40's, 50's, 60's, and into the 70's. They spent billions selling that lie. Because of that lie millions and millions of people died and the tobacco lobby made a bunch of money on the deaths of others.
Did you know that the energy lobby is using some of the same techniques as the tobacco lobby. They have even purchased scientists and labs much like the tobacco industry.
Here is a thought, 'big anything' will do whatever it takes to remain "big." If that means lying and putting out false propaganda they will do so. They love people like you who refuse to question and accept facts. They really do. You make their job easy. As for me, I will remember what the tobacco lobby did and I will accept the research of 90+% of climate scientists who say pollution causes climate change.
You, on the other hand, can stick with the less that 10% of climate scientists who are bought and paid for by big energy. Hopefully when it dawns on you and the rest of the deniers it will not be to late.

So, lets see here. smoking causes lung cancer so burning wood in your fireplace causes the climate of the planet to change ----------- Uhhh, OK.

said another way, your attempt at analogy FAILS

might be time for your paxil. take it with vodka tonight.

redfish, having to explain things to you on a third grade level will be embarrassing to you but I will do what I have to do.
The tobacco companies DID NOT want to admit that smoking was bad for a persons health. They knew it would cut into their profits. So, they hired PR firms to muddy the water and to put out false and misleading propaganda. They put out lovely commercials of actors in white coats wearing stethoscopes talking about how smoking wasn't dangerous. They purchased labs and had them do phony research proving smoking wasn't harmful. As more and more data came in they were eventually forced to admit that smoking had severe health risks associated with it. Even people who didn't smoke but were in rooms with smokers were at risk. Their ploy worked for a long time. The tobacco companies made billions and millions and millions died because they believed those tobacco companies.
Now, jump ahead to the turn of the century. The big energy companies DID NOT want to admit that their products produced green house gases that caused global warming. They knew it would cut into their profits. They wanted people to use more oil, coal, and gas. So, they hired PR firms to muddy the water and to put out false and misleading propaganda. The ads were lovely showing nature and wildlife and telling us that energy companies were really, really concerned about the environment. And like the tobacco lobby they hired scientists and labs to produce propaganda that could be used to fool people.
As for me, I will remember what the tobacco lobby did and I will accept the research of 90+% of climate scientists who say pollution causes climate change.
You, on the other hand, can stick with the less that 10% of climate scientists who are bought and paid for by big energy. Hopefully when it dawns on you and the rest of the deniers it will not be to late.
Do you understand it now? Gosh, I hope so. I don't believe I can make it any simpler unless I am forced to go to "Once upon a time there was this dinosaur who ....."

 

[mamooth]

If you want to give up your car, air conditioning, heat, and electricity----go right ahead. Do it and save the planet.

You're the only one saying such things. We're not. You're lying by saying we said such a thing. So why did you choose to lie?

You don't have to answer that. We already know the answer. The science says you're full of shit, your idiot positions are wildly illogical and hypocritical, hence making crap up is the only alternative you have.

 

[ron4342]

OK dude, pay attention. I am not going to say this again.

The climate of earth is changing, it has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now, man is a pimple on a gnat on an elephant's ass when it comes to the climate of planet earth. We should stop polluting our planet, but pollution does not cause climate change.

Hummmm ...."... pollution does not cause climate change"
Here is another one that is a favorite of mine: "Tobacco does not cause lung cancer." That little phrase was brought to us courtesy of the tobacco lobby during the 40's, 50's, 60's, and into the 70's. They spent billions selling that lie. Because of that lie millions and millions of people died and the tobacco lobby made a bunch of money on the deaths of others.
Did you know that the energy lobby is using some of the same techniques as the tobacco lobby. They have even purchased scientists and labs much like the tobacco industry.
Here is a thought, 'big anything' will do whatever it takes to remain "big." If that means lying and putting out false propaganda they will do so. They love people like you who refuse to question and accept facts. They really do. You make their job easy. As for me, I will remember what the tobacco lobby did and I will accept the research of 90+% of climate scientists who say pollution causes climate change.
You, on the other hand, can stick with the less that 10% of climate scientists who are bought and paid for by big energy. Hopefully when it dawns on you and the rest of the deniers it will not be to late.

I think you mean too late. but too late for what? If you want to give up your car, air conditioning, heat, and electricity----go right ahead. Do it and save the planet.

My gawd but you libs are stupid and gullible.

Just like that, IT STRUCK ME!!!! You don't have any imagination!!!!! It never dawned on you that what needs to be done is work to uncover/create new renewable energy sources. You are perfectly ready to accept whatever lie the big energy community wants you to believe.
What needs to be done is that new energy sources need to be researched and put in place. However, THIS IS THE LAST THING BIG ENERGY WANTS! What big energy wants is for people to use more gas, oil, and goal so they can make bigger profits. They also want bigger dummies who will not question them and push for alternate energy sources they can not control or profit from.

 

[mamooth]

How stupid. I was taught that in the 60s and 70s. It was the consensus of the day. Making idiotic political comments doesn't make your point look any better.

Taught by whom? People as willfully ignorant as yourself?

It was made a big deal in Newsweek and Time. In the scientfic journals of that time, 6 to 1 the articles stated the real danger was from the increasing GHGs making the world warmer.

Now, if you believe that Newsweek and Time are adaquete sources of science, that is your problem. For the rest of us, we prefer what the real scientists were saying.

There was supposedly a Weekly Reader issue (that little pamphlet grade school kids got) with an ice age story. That level of writing would be consistent with the level of science knowledge displayed by most deniers.