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.
I wish it was true because I went to see man kind go to the stars and explore those trillions of extra-solar planets. I believe human kind is best when exploring, but because of things right now in our history, we've become lazy. I support anthropogenic climate change because we need a fire lit under our asses to get us off this rock. I hope it warms 20c over the next 200 years. To do so.
But anyways, one can dream, but I doubt this lie of global warming is really happening. So I doubt humanity is going to get off its ass any time soon and do what it's good at.
What is the basis of your doubt, Mathew?
Obama is killing our space program at a time when we're finding hundreds of planets around almost every star. It is one big joke what he is doing to our space program. Also co2 as a green house is a joke. Don't point to Venus for your answers because its Atmosphere is 97 percent co2 and is 20 million miles closer to the sun then earth. Far more solar input. No oceans either like we on earth to have to trap it and to keep our planet at a constant temperature.
I just feel that we humans need a nice hot prod to get back into the exploring mood.
Here's the last two position statements, from 2003 and 2008, from one of the largest scientific societies in the world, the American Geophysical Union. A little info on them first.
American Geophysical Union
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The American Geophysical Union (or AGU) is a nonprofit organization of geophysicists, consisting of over 50,000 members from over 135 countries. AGU's activities are focused on the organization and dissemination of scientific information in the interdisciplinary and international field of geophysics. The geophysical sciences involve four fundamental areas: atmospheric and ocean sciences; solid-Earth sciences; hydrologic sciences; and space sciences.
The mission of the AGU is
* to promote the scientific study of Earth and its environment in space and to disseminate the results to the public,
* to promote cooperation among scientific organizations involved in geophysics and related disciplines,
* to initiate and participate in geophysical research programs,
* to advance the various geophysical disciplines through scientific discussion, publication, and dissemination of information.
The AGU was established in 1919 by the National Research Council and for more than 50 years operated as an unincorporated affiliate of the National Academy of Sciences. In 1972 AGU was incorporated in the District of Columbia and membership was opened to scientists and students worldwide.
AGU is the publisher of several scientific periodicals, including the weekly Eos newspaper and eighteen peer-reviewed research journals, most notably the Journal of Geophysical Research and Geophysical Research Letters.
**************************************************
AGU Position Statement on Human Impacts on Climate
Print Version (34781 bytes)
EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 84, NO. 51, doi:10.1029/2003EO510005, 2003
Abstract
Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.
AGU Position Statement on Human Impacts on Climate, Eos Trans. AGU, 84(51), doi:10.1029/2003EO510005.
Copyright 2003 by the American Geophysical Union.
&
Human Impacts on Climate
Print Version (43336 bytes)
EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 89, NO. 5, doi:10.1029/2008EO050006, 2008
Abstract
The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate systemincluding the temperatures of the atmosphere, land, and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasonsare now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 19562006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.
Published 29 January 2008.
Human Impacts on Climate, Eos Trans. AGU, 89(5), doi:10.1029/2008EO050006.
Copyright 2008 by the American Geophysical Union.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
Google Copernicus........CASE CLOSED!!! Sorry, science is not about "Consensus".
BLAH BLAH BLAH....BE AFRAID! BE VERY AFRAID!
The end is coming! Look at all my evidence which all comes from the same bullshit pseudo-science already shown to be fraudulent....
REPENT I SAY!
Google Copernicus........CASE CLOSED!!! Sorry, science is not about "Consensus".
LOL. You denier cultist are so funny with your silly straw-man arguments.
Science is based on evidence, collected data, analysis, theorizing and testing. The scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming/climate change is the result of massive amounts of evidence and data supporting that theory. Nobody claimed that the consensus proves the science but it does reflect the best understanding of the subject by the world scientific community and this is a useful benchmark in science. This description from Wikipedia sums it up pretty good.
<snip>
][/B]
Does it shake your confidence at all that the "best understanding of the subject" is so weak that it does not allow accurate prediction?
And yet the Warmers cannot point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment, not a single one, that show temperature and climate change as a direct result of a 200PPM increase in CO2.
There is not one single experiment.
Not one.
And yet the Warmers cannot point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment, not a single one, that show temperature and climate change as a direct result of a 200PPM increase in CO2.
There is not one single experiment.
Not one.
Hmmm........ P-T extinction period, PETM period. Both cases, rapid increases in GHGs, resulting in rapid climate changes which resulted in periods of extinction.
Little research is neccessary to find this information. However, most politically driven idiots eschew research, and just repeat the words of an obese drug addict.
at one point in time the consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth.
consensus wasn't science then and it isn't now.
That's the kind of lamebrained, dead ignorant twaddle that is so typical of you denier cultists.
We're talking about the current scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. 'Science' as we know it is a very recent phenomenon in human history. There was no organized 'science' as such to have a consensus back in time when the accepted religious belief was that the sun revolved around the Earth.
Moreover, nitwit, no one is claiming that "consensus is science". Science is science and it uses evidence and data to reach conclusions about the world around us. Once there is sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion and most of the scientists accept that conclusion as an accurate reflection of reality, then you have a scientific consensus. The consensus rests on the science, not the other way around.
Try to find a real argument and not these silly straw-men and maybe you won't look like such an idiot.
No scientist of any caliber at all has ever succesfully predicted climate change. One would suppose that if it really were science, it might be useful for something beyond gaining funding.
It's not and it's not.
And yet the Warmers cannot point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment, not a single one, that show temperature and climate change as a direct result of a 200PPM increase in CO2.
There is not one single experiment.
Not one.
Hmmm........ P-T extinction period, PETM period. Both cases, rapid increases in GHGs, resulting in rapid climate changes which resulted in periods of extinction.
Little research is neccessary to find this information. However, most politically driven idiots eschew research, and just repeat the words of an obese drug addict.
But you hypothesis states that deminimus increases (200PPM) causes the catastrophic changes. That should be a piece of cake to demonstrate in a laboratory setting.
The PT Event was planetwide, probably from a massive impact or gamma ray burst and yet you're putting our SUV's on par with it
Hmmm........ P-T extinction period, PETM period. Both cases, rapid increases in GHGs, resulting in rapid climate changes which resulted in periods of extinction.
Little research is neccessary to find this information. However, most politically driven idiots eschew research, and just repeat the words of an obese drug addict.
But you hypothesis states that deminimus increases (200PPM) causes the catastrophic changes. That should be a piece of cake to demonstrate in a laboratory setting.
The PT Event was planetwide, probably from a massive impact or gamma ray burst and yet you're putting our SUV's on par with it
There is plenty of proxy evidence for the event, the eruptions of the Siberian Trapps, and the resultant rapid increase in GHGs that caused the P-T Extinction. No evidence of a K-T type impact or Gamma ray burst.
Methane Catastrophe
Google Copernicus........CASE CLOSED!!! Sorry, science is not about "Consensus".
Sorry, Zander old boy, science is indeed about consensus. We accept evolution as the explanation of the life we see on this planet today because almost all the scientists in the world that study the subject state that by the evidence they see and present, that is the only explanation that fits.
Today, the vast majority of scientists in the field of earth sciences state that the globe is warming, and the primary driver of that warming is GHGs from the burning of fossil fuels. Thus far, no scientists have presented credible evidence to show that this is not the case. And the evidence for it has been presented since 1820.
At the time of Copernicus, there were no 'scientists'. The scientific method had yet to be invented. It was through the efforts of Copernicus, Galileo, and many, many others that the scientific method came into being much later than either gentleman.
LOL. You denier cultist are so funny with your silly straw-man arguments.
Science is based on evidence, collected data, analysis, theorizing and testing. The scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming/climate change is the result of massive amounts of evidence and data supporting that theory. Nobody claimed that the consensus proves the science but it does reflect the best understanding of the subject by the world scientific community and this is a useful benchmark in science. This description from Wikipedia sums it up pretty good.
<snip>
][/B]
Does it shake your confidence at all that the "best understanding of the subject" is so weak that it does not allow accurate prediction?
Does it shake your confidence in your purposeful lies that the predictions have all been on the conservative side? That the primary failure is that the warming is happening and accelerating at a faster rate than predicted?
And yet the Warmers cannot point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment, not a single one, that show temperature and climate change as a direct result of a 200PPM increase in CO2.
There is not one single experiment.
Not one.
Hmmm........ P-T extinction period, PETM period. Both cases, rapid increases in GHGs, resulting in rapid climate changes which resulted in periods of extinction.
Little research is neccessary to find this information. However, most politically driven idiots eschew research, and just repeat the words of an obese drug addict.
Does it shake your confidence at all that the "best understanding of the subject" is so weak that it does not allow accurate prediction?
Does it shake your confidence in your purposeful lies that the predictions have all been on the conservative side? That the primary failure is that the warming is happening and accelerating at a faster rate than predicted?
What predictions are you citing? Dr. Hansen's prediction missed by 300% on the warm side. MIT produces a prediction annually that is different from the previous year. One might suppose that if the prediction was right on the first go-round, the succeeding predictions might be similar.
Please post a link to a prediction from 30 years ago that has been shown to be accurate.
That's the kind of lamebrained, dead ignorant twaddle that is so typical of you denier cultists.
We're talking about the current scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. 'Science' as we know it is a very recent phenomenon in human history. There was no organized 'science' as such to have a consensus back in time when the accepted religious belief was that the sun revolved around the Earth.
Moreover, nitwit, no one is claiming that "consensus is science". Science is science and it uses evidence and data to reach conclusions about the world around us. Once there is sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion and most of the scientists accept that conclusion as an accurate reflection of reality, then you have a scientific consensus. The consensus rests on the science, not the other way around.
Try to find a real argument and not these silly straw-men and maybe you won't look like such an idiot.
No scientist of any caliber at all has ever succesfully predicted climate change. One would suppose that if it really were science, it might be useful for something beyond gaining funding.
It's not and it's not.
And when, in the period that we have had predictive science, have we had an adrupt climate change? No, we are not knowledgeable enough in this area at present to state that when we cross this clearly delineated threshold, we will see climate change.
But we do know from past geological history that the thresholds exist, and, that when crossed, the result has been very bad for life existing at that time.
What we are seeing the climatologists, atmospheric physicists, and geo-physicists engaged in today is real science. They are measuring the rapid changes in the atmospheric circulation, the changing wind patterns, and the changes in the ice in the alpine glaciers and ice caps. All the evidence points to the conclusion that we are near, or already past that threshold.
You who cackle with derision at the presentation of these scientists are the some type of people that put Galileo to torture. Luddites willfully ignorant and afraid of reality.
