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.
What kills me in this debate is how the right has such a knee-jerk reaction to people who are trying to do what's best for the planet.
Yes, I get that you think it's a radical plot to take over the government. Yes, there are wacky, flaky, hippie people who are fit to be tied.
The thing that baffles me most is right wing Americans (because this seems to happen only in the US) who think climate change science is a 'liberal' issue.
Folks, climate change is not political - it is scientific.
Which is why Most CONSERVATIVE parties around the world are very engaged in trying to save the planet - check out what the UK conservative party have to say on climate change - are they pinkos?
The Conservative Party | Policy | Where we stand | Climate Change and Energy
I'd hazard a guess that most right-wing Americans would find ALL Europeans (even the conservative ones) to be liberal. That is to say that the entire way of thinking is based on what the Dems here think. It's just that their conservatives are less liberal than their liberals.
What kills me in this debate is how the right has such a knee-jerk reaction to people who are trying to do what's best for the planet.
Yes, I get that you think it's a radical plot to take over the government. Yes, there are wacky, flaky, hippie people who are fit to be tied.
But the visceral reaction to people just trying to do the right thing...it's progressed to the point to where most of what I hear on local radio (in multiple states) is basically "we can trash the planet and the planet will absorb it all"
Really? Seriously? You're willing to cut off your nose to spite your face? It's deplorable.
What kills me is environmental kooks that think they know what's best for the planet.
How do you know this? Do you talk to the planet?
What kills me is environmental kooks that think they know what's best for the planet.
How do you know this? Do you talk to the planet?
No, we use science, and a lot of it is VERY simple.
For instance, we know that if ocean pH changes and/or the ocean warms, coral dies.
We know that if ocean level rise, increased salinity in soil will destroy a lot of plant life close to the coast.
We know that in global mean temperatures rise, diseases like malaria and yellow fever will spread every further north.
Not all the changes will be negative, and many of the changes we can't predict, but if you are uncomfortable with the idea of your kids dying of dengue fever, you should take this seriously.
1. BS and thats the reality. one will shrink and another will grow and it changes all the time..
2. Again BS there is no real evidence to support that beyond speculation..
3. More BS that is shown again and again to be either completely false or variable year to year.
4. More nonsense some parts collapsed while some expanded. During the whole last half of the 90's the antarctic ice was expanding overall.
5. more speculative nonsense that has been shown to be variable year to year..
What I have learned from gslack is that the bread and butter of scientific debating is simply to declare your opponents arguing points to be BS and nonsense, and then you win.
Is that roughly how it works?
I remember you... You are the one who acts like a child when he is wrong.... And look above and we see it..... Thanks junior now let the adults talk...
What I have learned from gslack is that the bread and butter of scientific debating is simply to declare your opponents arguing points to be BS and nonsense, and then you win.
Is that roughly how it works?
I remember you... You are the one who acts like a child when he is wrong.... And look above and we see it..... Thanks junior now let the adults talk...
So the answer is yes then I take it?
The bottom line is, in the court of public opinion..........the only place the "science" matters.......
We show you the facts....
We show you the facts....
By all means, I'm waiting.
rocks
No, that is not what was stated. It involved a lot more than just skin cancer. And we did remove the primary agent that was causing the problem.
You are most definately the one that is wrong here. Apparently you are woefully ignorant of the whole of science.
Once again, lack of anything real. I see a lot of reports on both sides but it seems that temperatures did decline in the last decade but sea temperatures rose. The quarralation(sp?) between the two may very well be why both sides seem to be having issues agreeing on this. It is also noteworthy that there may very well have been warmer periods in the last 2000 years and that global temperatures really are quite LOW when looking at the geological history regardless of the CO2 levels. At the moment the earth is relatively cool.Complete bullshit. 2000 to 2010 was the warmest decade on record.
You should do the same. There have been MANY instances in geological times that CO2 levels were far higher than current levels and many times they do not correlate with mass extinctions.Geological terms? Do you know what the P-T extinction was? Do you know what the PETM was? Do a little Goddamned research before you start throwing around terms.
There have been a number of times in geological past that there were natural very quick spikes in GHGs. And in each of those times, there was an extinction event. Just look up the two mentioned.
Just because we are the cause of the very rapid increase in GHGs this time will not exempt us from the laws of physics.
Those are GW talking points. They continually talk about destroying the planet. BTW, CO2 AND heat are both good for agriculture. That is not the problem here.More stupid talking points. It is not going to "destroy the planet". What will happen is a climatic change that will adversly affect agriculture in a world rapidly approaching 8 billion people. And when that occurs, the population will decline. Unpleasantly.
And that may be true but that statement is a means and not an end. What are the real world implications of that rate of change? That is what I am interested in and what you and others have failed to provide.As has been pointed out, the problem is the rate of change in a very crowded world.
That's the rub, we could in no way destroy the world. What we could do is destroy ourselves many times over. The planet on the other hand will shrug us off like a bad dream. Of course, I am not interested in the planet. I am quite interested in not destroying ourselves thoughkonradv
What's astounding about it? We can already destroy the world several times over. To think we couldn't do the same to the climate is astounding in its naivete, if it were not for the total disregard of the science by the deniers and their total belief that AGW is a political controversy.
We show you the facts....
By all means, I'm waiting.
Talking points in hand, Spiderman Tuba sits drowning in a sea of facts he refuses to acknowledge. You can wait as long as you like faither.
rocks
No, that is not what was stated. It involved a lot more than just skin cancer. And we did remove the primary agent that was causing the problem.
You are most definately the one that is wrong here. Apparently you are woefully ignorant of the whole of science.
Nice, insults instead of facts. The 'science' of CFC failed to explain how they are capable of interacting with the upper atmosphere when they are quite a bit heaver than air.
I have posted this before and not received any intelligent response before but I will try again,
The major problem I have with climate change is the way supporters push the theory with a few facts and absolutely no real evidence. Mostly I hear "your an idiot if you deny global warming" - "global warming is a fact" - "everyone agrees that global warming is happening" - "all scientists (or intelligent people) agree that global warming is occurring and is a major problem" or some other iteration of the preceding. The fact is that none of that is true in the slightest and here we are on this thread arguing about a few emails that do not matter in the least when applied to the grater question. The fact that some scientists were cooking data really does not matter (or surprise me). It just reminds us that skepticism is GOOD. What matters is whether or not global warming is actually occurring and how we fit in to that equation.
No, as pointed out by the House of Commons Committee on Science and Technology, the data was not cooked, in fact, the worst you could state about Phil Jones and the University of East Anglia was that they acted as humans when unjustly attacked by the political hacks.
Professor Phil Jones, the climate scientist at the centre of the scandal over the leak of sensitive emails from a university computer, has been largely exonerated by a powerful cross-party committee of MPs who said his scientific reputation remains intact.
There was no evidence that Professor Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), deliberately withheld or manipulated data in order to support the idea that global warming was real and that it was influenced by human activities, according to a report by the Commons Science and Technology Committee.
Climate change scandal: MPs exonerate professor - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent
Every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.
The GW scare tactics remind me of the ozone scare tactics that were used some 15 years ago. The above statements were used in the exact same way and 'everyone' agreed that the damage to the ozone layer was a product of humans. I remember being told we were all going to die of skin cancer by the age of 30 if steps were not taken immediately because there would be NO ozone layer and it would take hundreds of years for the damage to be repaired by nature. As it turns out, 'everyone' was wrong and we are still here.
No, that is not what was stated. It involved a lot more than just skin cancer. And we did remove the primary agent that was causing the problem.
You are most definately the one that is wrong here. Apparently you are woefully ignorant of the whole of science.
Crutzen, Paul J. -
(born 1933): Dutch meteorologist and a world expert on the chemical interactions of trace gases and trace components in the atmosphere. He is originator of a viable theory for the causes of rapid ozone loss in the Antarctic winter and was involved in international negotiations regarding the restriction of the use of CFC’s (Chloroflourocarbons) that destroy ozone. In 1980, he became director of the Department of Atmospheric Chemistry at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz. In 1995 Crutzen, M.J. Molina and F.S. Rowland together won the Nobel Prize with for their work on the depletion of the ozone layer
Calspace - Glossary of Terms -
Not only was the theory concerning CFC's correct, but there are international treaties concerning it's use in place. And the researchers won a Nobel with their work.
GW stinks of the same bullshit and corruption. Don't get me wrong, I am open to the idea but have yet to hear anything that pushes me into the 'we made this mess' boat. I just watched a national geographic that was claiming that 'the world plus 3' was essentially a barren wasteland of death. That is just insane and not helping the GW community on getting those of us that remain skeptical. This crap is always the same. Fear sells and pushes policy whilst reason and debate mean nothing. Points have been raised in this very thread and supporters are not addressing them.
Have you even bothered to read any real science on this issue? Because all you are doing is repeating shit talking points.
You want to debate the issue, post some science from a real scientist that gives evidence that AGW is not real.
Point I would like some answers to:
The temperature has been cooling for a decade. That point was ridiculed without the slightest attempt to address it. I am genuinely interested in this point as carbon emissions around the world have been increasing at an unprecedented rate. Given the feedback loop that GW theorists claim why is the earth cooling? the opposite should be true if the model is to be believed, temperatures should not only increase but be increasing faster.
Complete bullshit. 2000 to 2010 was the warmest decade on record.
Climate has changes before and will change again. Why are we stuck on the manmade carbon thing. Where is the evidence. I continually hear the faster than ever approach but we have no real data in this aria. In geological terms, we cannot see major temperature changes in the timescales that humans have even been able to measuring temperatures. How do we reconcile that with the dead set notion that it must be human CO2 emissions.
Geological terms? Do you know what the P-T extinction was? Do you know what the PETM was? Do a little Goddamned research before you start throwing around terms.
There have been a number of times in geological past that there were natural very quick spikes in GHGs. And in each of those times, there was an extinction event. Just look up the two mentioned.
Just because we are the cause of the very rapid increase in GHGs this time will not exempt us from the laws of physics.
Warmer temperatures are good for life in general. We know this is true. We are talking decimals of degrees here, not massive changes. Why would a few degrees higher destroy the planet? CO2 even directly helps plants and more plants help control CO2. Now, if this were put back as a deforestation issue as was brought up many years ago then I may be a little more inclined to agree but it is not.
More stupid talking points. It is not going to "destroy the planet". What will happen is a climatic change that will adversly affect agriculture in a world rapidly approaching 8 billion people. And when that occurs, the population will decline. Unpleasantly.
There have been several geological time periods where CO2 was HIGHER than it is now, by very large margins as a matter of fact (also brought up earlier but blown off). Why was the world okay at that point but is going to end now? It seems to me there was no problem then and there may not be much of a problem now.
As has been pointed out, the problem is the rate of change in a very crowded world.
Where is the science that quantifies the total impact. There have been several models put up and most of them were constructed to induce fear but none really show a story that is believable. This is the most important. If we establish the temperature IS rising AND it IS manmade AND it IS due to CO2 emissions (and that is a hefty charge) then we need to know what the impact is before doing anything. I have yet to see any impact that is not mere fear mongering and end of the world type rhetoric. Do you have real impact with facts to back them up?
Yes, from the geological record, here are impact facts from prior period of rapid GHG increases;
Methane catastrophe
As I understand it, nature releases far more carbon than man does. Magnitudes more in fact. Why is mans impact so radical then? If nature has been releasing and absorbing such large amounts of CO2 in the past what is it that makes the extra that man is releasing such a burden on the system that it cannot handle it?
You don't understand it at all. Nature cycles CO2. What we have been releasing is on top of that. We have gone from a normal of 280 ppm, to over 385 ppm. And, for CH4, we have gone from about 700 ppt to over 1800 ppt. And then we have the industrial GHGs, many of which are 20,000 times as effect of a GHG as CO2.
It is often stated that 450 ppm of CO2 is the tipping point. However, let us hope that is wrong, because when you add CH4 and the industrial GHGs in the equation, we are past that right now.
Yes, the CO2 that we are releasing is more than nature can handle without major changes taking place. You talk of the absorbtion of CO2. And the oceans are absorbing it. And turning acidic in doing so, enough to already negatively affect much of the single celled animals at the base of the food chain.
rocks
No, that is not what was stated. It involved a lot more than just skin cancer. And we did remove the primary agent that was causing the problem.
You are most definately the one that is wrong here. Apparently you are woefully ignorant of the whole of science.
Nice, insults instead of facts. The 'science' of CFC failed to explain how they are capable of interacting with the upper atmosphere when they are quite a bit heaver than air.
Ozone itself is heavier than air as well, maybe you'd like to explain to us how it ends up in the upper atmosphere, smarty pants.
Another perfect example of the first quote in my sig!Point I would like some answers to:
The temperature has been cooling for a decade. ?
Actually, no, it isn't - so I can understand why people laughed at that earlier. Here's something a little more realistic:
2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.
Except for a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s, Earth's surface temperatures have increased since 1880. The last decade has brought the temperatures to the highest levels ever recorded. The graph shows global annual surface temperatures relative to 1951-1980 mean temperatures. As shown by the red line, long-term trends are more apparent when temperatures are averaged over a five year period.
Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade, due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 1998 and 2007 as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began.
NASA GISS: Research News: 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade
I know this wasn't addressed to me but I had to respond to it. The sheer subtlety of its bullshit is astounding.... let me show you....
its starts off saying... "2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record"
Sounds scary and given its from NASA or one of their centers even believable. but then it goes and tells on itself.... follow me...
"...in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880."
Okay so the southern hemisphere is the warmest since modern records began... got it... Wait 1880? We were just told 1850's was when modern records began before... So which is it? I mean thats a 30 year gap man we need to be accurate after all this is science right.... Right?
And it gets better... I love this next bit LOL....
"Except for a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s, Earth's surface temperatures have increased since 1880."
Hold on... From 1880 to 2010 is 130 years. Of that 130 years about 30 of them you claim leveled off..... Well thats funny because according to historical records the 1930's was the one of the hottest decades since recorded temps.... SO thats not exactly a leveling off anymore now is it....
Don't leave it gets even better....
"Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade, due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean,..."
Really 2008 was the coolest year of the decade? So where does it stand over all? Wow we can't find that in your post now can we... Well it was the coldest in 7 years. but wait thats not exactly in line with the out of control warming scenario is it.. Nope its not... And incidentally, the flow of the oceans or the Thermohaline circulation, shows the colder water coming down from the arctic into the pacific. And the warmer Atlantic flowing up into the arctic. So the cooling of the pacific is a natural thing and not a freak occurence to give a colder winter...
Even more....
"The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 1998 and 2007 as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began. "
So second warmest decade... And what was the first? LOL well we are pretty sure it was the 1930's.... Seems odd they are so far apart given the claims of out of control warming... Also, the word play here is amazing lol...
"The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005..."
Okay only a bit cooler than 2005, so whats that mean? well it means it was colder than 2005 by a small amount.... Wait colder? Yep... Okay....
"2005, the warmest year on record,..."
Uh ok but what record, before 1934 was the warmest on record so which is it? Well as you will find the warmest can refer to almost any obscure reason these days. ok so 2005 was warmest and the past year was colder than that by a fraction. got it, so we did cool down since 2005....
"...2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 1998 and 2007 as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began."
Wait a minute.... if 2005 was warmest on record and its tied with 98,02, 03, 06, 07, and whatever else as the second warmest since record keeping began.... WTH?????? How can some thing be tied with so many years like that and still be called evidence of AGW?
Dude you are full of shit, and whats worse you are so full of it you get started and before you know it your BS overshadows your other BS...... UN- Fing - BELIEVABLE man.... YOu just rambled off nonsensical crap like a BS fountain.... You should really be ashamed of that...
Temps didn't decline the last decade, it was the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement. And temps rose on BOTH land and sea.Once again, lack of anything real. I see a lot of reports on both sides but it seems that temperatures did decline in the last decade but sea temperatures rose. The quarralation(sp?) between the two may very well be why both sides seem to be having issues agreeing on this. It is also noteworthy that there may very well have been warmer periods in the last 2000 years and that global temperatures really are quite LOW when looking at the geological history regardless of the CO2 levels. At the moment the earth is relatively cool.Complete bullshit. 2000 to 2010 was the warmest decade on record.
