What is Your Opinion on Global Warming, Evolution and Politics?

[JimBowie1958]

Simple poll since so many libtards are claiming that conservatives are ignorant neanderthals who all replace science with their Bibles.

Terms used to mean the following:
Evolution: gradual change from one species to another. This does not include biogenesis which is a seperate theory.

Global Warming is a reference to the theory that MOST if not ALL climate change on this planet is driven by human activity.

Conservative: you self identify as conservative or do not no matter what someone else may think.

 

[Mr. H.]

What the hell, I'm bored.

Yeah, conservative but not a right wing wack job.
Global smarming- on the fence with this one. Really.
Evolution- for sure. Creation was a one-off. All the ingredients were there.
Now we're here.

 

[konradv]

Global Warming is a reference to the theory that MOST if not ALL climate change on this planet is driven by human activity.

False premise, the theory states that man is having an effect, NOT "MOST if not ALL". FAIL!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Hmmm...... Just what the hell does being either a conservative or liberal have to do with scientific evidence concerning global warming. Like evolution, the scientific evidence supporting the theory that adding GHGs to the atmosphere will result in the warming of the Earth is well beyond reasonable doubt. Were it not, the policy statements of virtually all the Scientific Societies, all of the National Academy of Sciences of the industrial nations, and all the major Universities would not be stating what they state, that AGW is real, and a clear danger to our civilization.

One can flap yap all they want about a lack of scientific consensus, but there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW. Not a single Scientific Society denies that AGW is not occurring. Not a singe National Academy of Science, not a single major university. That you will not accept that the scientific community considers AGW a proven fact hardly reflects on the scientific community, rather on the quality of your ability to process the data that has been given you by the scientists.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Global Warming is a reference to the theory that MOST if not ALL climate change on this planet is driven by human activity.

False premise, the theory states that man is having an effect, NOT "MOST if not ALL". FAIL!!!

Oh, bull. Hell, *I* think human activity has *some* effect, but not nearly enough to justify the draconian power grab that most nations are going for under the AGW banner.

No, these people generally insist that human activity is the primary driving force and thus it is called anthropogenic global warming.

 

[konradv]

Global Warming is a reference to the theory that MOST if not ALL climate change on this planet is driven by human activity.

False premise, the theory states that man is having an effect, NOT "MOST if not ALL". FAIL!!!

Oh, bull. Hell, *I* think human activity has *some* effect, but not nearly enough to justify the draconian power grab that most nations are going for under the AGW banner.

No, these people generally insist that human activity is the primary driving force and thus it is called anthropogenic global warming.

No, it's not considered the primary driving force, just one of many. The part that's due to man is AGW, but that doesn't mean it outranks the sun or earth's orbit or the GHGs already in the atmosphere. It's just the realization that since GHGs keep the earth warmer than if they weren't there, adding more will inevitably lead to even warmer temps. It's simple logic.

 

[Old Rocks]

And sooner, rather than later.

 

[Ernie S.]

Global Warming is a reference to the theory that MOST if not ALL climate change on this planet is driven by human activity.

False premise, the theory states that man is having an effect, NOT "MOST if not ALL". FAIL!!!

I think "significant effect" would be more in line with the AGW cult's claim.
I'll buy that humans contribute to local conditions and did, 50 years ago, to a much greater extent, but these days, with the anti pollution measures taken since the early 60's, our effect on global climate is negligible.
I'm on board with evolution, but see a master plan or maybe a guiding intelligence that I call God.

 

[hortysir]

False premise, the theory states that man is having an effect, NOT "MOST if not ALL". FAIL!!!

Oh, bull. Hell, *I* think human activity has *some* effect, but not nearly enough to justify the draconian power grab that most nations are going for under the AGW banner.

No, these people generally insist that human activity is the primary driving force and thus it is called anthropogenic global warming.

No, it's not considered the primary driving force, just one of many. The part that's due to man is AGW, but that doesn't mean it outranks the sun or earth's orbit or the GHGs already in the atmosphere. It's just the realization that since GHGs keep the earth warmer than if they weren't there, adding more will inevitably lead to even warmer temps. It's simple logic.

Here's a freebie:

Anthropogenic | Define Anthropogenic at Dictionary.com
adjective:
caused or produced by humans

 

[hortysir]

I'll tip-toe out a bit.....

Conservative

Humans are but proverbial fleas on a dog. This planet has cooled and warmed on much grander scales through the ions without our minimal existence.

Evolution was created but not across species.

 

[Old Rocks]

Such a lot of statements with zero knowledge of the science involved in AGW.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[hortysir]

Such a lot of statements with zero knowledge of the science involved in AGW.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

OMG!!!

You're right!!!


How could I ever be so naive??

 

[rdean]

As if the SCIENCE of Evolution is "opinion based".

 

[JimBowie1958]

False premise, the theory states that man is having an effect, NOT "MOST if not ALL". FAIL!!!

Oh, bull. Hell, *I* think human activity has *some* effect, but not nearly enough to justify the draconian power grab that most nations are going for under the AGW banner.

No, these people generally insist that human activity is the primary driving force and thus it is called anthropogenic global warming.

No, it's not considered the primary driving force, just one of many. The part that's due to man is AGW, but that doesn't mean it outranks the sun or earth's orbit or the GHGs already in the atmosphere. It's just the realization that since GHGs keep the earth warmer than if they weren't there, adding more will inevitably lead to even warmer temps. It's simple logic.

At least three-quarters of climate change is man-made : Nature News & Comment

At least three-quarters of climate change is man-made

Independent study quantifies human influence on global warming.Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years, reports a pair of Swiss climate modellers in a paper published online today. Most of the observed warming — at least 74 % — is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience1.

Since 1950, the average global surface air temperature has increased by more than 0.5 °C. To separate human and natural causes of warming, the researchers analysed changes in the balance of heat energy entering and leaving Earth — a new ‘attribution' method for understanding the physical causes of climate change.

Their findings, which are strikingly similar to results produced by other attribution methods, provide an alternative line of evidence that greenhouse gases, and in particular carbon dioxide, are by far the main culprit of recent global warming. The massive increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times would, in fact, have caused substantially more surface warming were it not for the cooling effects of atmospheric aerosols such as black carbon, they report.

Three quarters sounds an awful lot like 'most' to me, but maybe they have changed that with the new Math 3.0 these days.

 

[JimBowie1958]

As if the SCIENCE of Evolution is "opinion based".

Who ever said it was opinion based?

 

[JimBowie1958]

And sooner, rather than later.

Based on what?

Malthusianists like Ehrlich have been predicting the destruction of the human race for decades now, and back in the 1990's we were told by the Warmistas that we only had seven years to save the Earth.

Either they were wrong or something weird has happened cause I sure dont feel like I'm dead.

Could it be that these people make dramatic predictions in order to sell their books or to justify giving more control to the government, or to get more grant money so they can continue to study how we are all going to die at any moment?

I am just curious which of these Doomster Poobahs you get your impression from, Rocks.

 

[Photonic]

Evolution has as much supporting evidence as gravity. You wouldn't jump off a building believing you could fly without being crazy, and I think the same thing of creationists.


Global Warming - While climate change is an incredibly well established fact, with millions of years of documented cyclic patterns in geological and arctic samples. We may be going through a period of warming. If this is human assisted, natural, or completely caused by humans is the real question. Either way we should figure it out how to change the cycle fast or we could find ourselves in an ice age with no preparation. The people that deny the Earth is warming at all though, see the above statement.

Politics? I lean more conservative on fiscal issues, more liberal on social issues. I consider myself a centrist.

 

[konradv]

Oh, bull. Hell, *I* think human activity has *some* effect, but not nearly enough to justify the draconian power grab that most nations are going for under the AGW banner.

No, these people generally insist that human activity is the primary driving force and thus it is called anthropogenic global warming.

No, it's not considered the primary driving force, just one of many. The part that's due to man is AGW, but that doesn't mean it outranks the sun or earth's orbit or the GHGs already in the atmosphere. It's just the realization that since GHGs keep the earth warmer than if they weren't there, adding more will inevitably lead to even warmer temps. It's simple logic.

Here's a freebie:

Anthropogenic | Define Anthropogenic at Dictionary.com
adjective:
caused or produced by humans

What's that supposed to tell me? I know what AGW means. Little arguments about defintions don't impress me or change my argument one iota. It's just the skeptics trying to muddy the waters, anyway, since neither science nor logic are on their side.

 

[konradv]

malthusianists like ehrlich have been predicting the destruction of the human race for decades now, and back in the 1990's we were told by the warmistas that we only had seven years to save the earth.

Cite???

 

[PredFan]

Conservative.

Man - made global warming is a fraud, Evolution is true, and politics is a necessary evil.