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.
There, fixed. That's how "Peer review" works
AGW, the only "Science" that is magnetically repelled from the laboratory
The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie deliberate, contrived and dishonest but the myth persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy
The human fingerprint in global warming
The skeptic argument...
It's not us
'What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.' (Neil Frank)
What the science says...
Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.
When presented with the overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming, many people react by asking "but how can we be sure that were causing the warming?" It turns out that the observed global warming has a distinct human fingerprint on it.
In climatology, as in any other science, establishing causation is more complicated than merely establishing an effect. However, there are a number of lines of evidence that have helped to convince climate scientists that the current global warming can be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions (in particular CO2). Here are just some of them:
The first four pieces of evidence show that humans are raising CO2 levels:
1) Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
2) Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide.
3) Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)
4) Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.
Another two observations show that CO2 is trapping more heat:
5)Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.
6) Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.
The last four indicators show that the observed pattern of warming is consistent with what is predicted to occur during greenhouse warming:
7) An increased greenhouse effect would make nights warm faster than days, and this is what has been observed.
8) If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.
9) This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed.
10) It was predicted that the ionosphere would shrink, and it is indeed shrinking.
(References for all of these findings can be found here.)
Often one hears claims that the attribution of climate change is based on modeling, and that nobody can really know its causes. But here we have a series of empirical observations, all of which point to the conclusion that humans are causing the planet to warm.
The human fingerprint in global warming
Why do people deny science? Because it might make them look in the mirror and accept a different truth than the one they wish to believe
The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie deliberate, contrived and dishonest but the myth persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy
The human fingerprint in global warming
The skeptic argument...
It's not us
'What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.' (Neil Frank)
What the science says...
Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.
When presented with the overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming, many people react by asking "but how can we be sure that were causing the warming?" It turns out that the observed global warming has a distinct human fingerprint on it.
In climatology, as in any other science, establishing causation is more complicated than merely establishing an effect. However, there are a number of lines of evidence that have helped to convince climate scientists that the current global warming can be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions (in particular CO2). Here are just some of them:
The first four pieces of evidence show that humans are raising CO2 levels:
1) Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
2) Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide.
3) Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)
4) Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.
Another two observations show that CO2 is trapping more heat:
5)Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.
6) Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.
The last four indicators show that the observed pattern of warming is consistent with what is predicted to occur during greenhouse warming:
7) An increased greenhouse effect would make nights warm faster than days, and this is what has been observed.
8) If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.
9) This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed.
10) It was predicted that the ionosphere would shrink, and it is indeed shrinking.
(References for all of these findings can be found here.)
Often one hears claims that the attribution of climate change is based on modeling, and that nobody can really know its causes. But here we have a series of empirical observations, all of which point to the conclusion that humans are causing the planet to warm.
The human fingerprint in global warming
Like I said s0n.....time for PLan B. The climate OC's have been trotting out this same crap for almost 2 decades and havent moved the goalposts a single yard. Nobody buys the whole "man-made" stuff anymore because people are spending 8 or 9 months out of their year freezing their asses off. Reality is 95% perception, except in the world of the climate OC's. If people were getting all hysterical over this stuff......like the climate k00ks.....representatives would be having their doors knocked down demanding climate change legislation. But nobody cares.......
From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com
The clouds of a thunderstorm roll over neighborhoods heavily damaged in a tornado in Moore, Oklahoma, May 23, 2013. (Credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson)
Excerpted from "Denial: Self-Deception, False Beliefs, and the Origins of the Human Mind"
The potent combination of our powerful intelligence with our massive reality denial has led to a dangerous world. Less obvious, but in the long term more dangerous, are threats resulting directly or indirectly from technological developments that have permitted us to increase our numbers well beyond the carrying capacity of the natural world. More efficient agriculture and the invention of artificial fertilizers permitted humans to produce food sufficient to support numbers that would be unthinkable for other animals of our physical size. Public health measures, vaccinations, antibiotics, and other medical advances also permitted population numbers to explode. The world is overpopulated already and is becoming more so at an alarming rate. And although we pay lip service to the resulting problems, we do relatively little to address their root causes. Indeed, some religions continue to promote the unrestrained propagation of their flocks. Planet Earth is sick, with a bad case of infection by humans....
... Why is it that ordinary citizens do not sit up and take notice of the danger? Unfortunately, the focus remains mostly on global warming instead of on the bigger concernthat we are disrupting the planets climate in completely unpredictable ways.
The intelligent and the educated are letting the stupid and the greedy kill our planet.
From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com
The clouds of a thunderstorm roll over neighborhoods heavily damaged in a tornado in Moore, Oklahoma, May 23, 2013. (Credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson)
Excerpted from "Denial: Self-Deception, False Beliefs, and the Origins of the Human Mind"
The potent combination of our powerful intelligence with our massive reality denial has led to a dangerous world. Less obvious, but in the long term more dangerous, are threats resulting directly or indirectly from technological developments that have permitted us to increase our numbers well beyond the carrying capacity of the natural world. More efficient agriculture and the invention of artificial fertilizers permitted humans to produce food sufficient to support numbers that would be unthinkable for other animals of our physical size. Public health measures, vaccinations, antibiotics, and other medical advances also permitted population numbers to explode. The world is overpopulated already and is becoming more so at an alarming rate. And although we pay lip service to the resulting problems, we do relatively little to address their root causes. Indeed, some religions continue to promote the unrestrained propagation of their flocks. Planet Earth is sick, with a bad case of “infection by humans.”...
... Why is it that ordinary citizens do not sit up and take notice of the danger? Unfortunately, the focus remains mostly on “global warming” instead of on the bigger concern—that we are disrupting the planet’s climate in completely unpredictable ways.
The intelligent and the educated are letting the stupid and the greedy kill our planet.
Why do people deny science? Because it might make them look in the mirror and accept a different truth than the one they wish to believe
The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie deliberate, contrived and dishonest but the myth persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy
The human fingerprint in global warming
The skeptic argument...
It's not us
'What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.' (Neil Frank)
What the science says...
Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.
When presented with the overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming, many people react by asking "but how can we be sure that were causing the warming?" It turns out that the observed global warming has a distinct human fingerprint on it.
In climatology, as in any other science, establishing causation is more complicated than merely establishing an effect. However, there are a number of lines of evidence that have helped to convince climate scientists that the current global warming can be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions (in particular CO2). Here are just some of them:
The first four pieces of evidence show that humans are raising CO2 levels:
1) Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
2) Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide.
3) Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)
4) Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.
Another two observations show that CO2 is trapping more heat:
5)Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.
6) Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.
The last four indicators show that the observed pattern of warming is consistent with what is predicted to occur during greenhouse warming:
7) An increased greenhouse effect would make nights warm faster than days, and this is what has been observed.
8) If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.
9) This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed.
10) It was predicted that the ionosphere would shrink, and it is indeed shrinking.
(References for all of these findings can be found here.)
Often one hears claims that the attribution of climate change is based on modeling, and that nobody can really know its causes. But here we have a series of empirical observations, all of which point to the conclusion that humans are causing the planet to warm.
The human fingerprint in global warming
Like I said s0n.....time for PLan B. The climate OC's have been trotting out this same crap for almost 2 decades and havent moved the goalposts a single yard. Nobody buys the whole "man-made" stuff anymore because people are spending 8 or 9 months out of their year freezing their asses off. Reality is 95% perception, except in the world of the climate OC's. If people were getting all hysterical over this stuff......like the climate k00ks.....representatives would be having their doors knocked down demanding climate change legislation. But nobody cares.......
In a country where over 90% of citizens support universal background checks, but it fails to pass because well funded corporate lobbyists decide it is not a good idea?
Have you ever had the curiosity to investigate who funds these so called 'scientists' who deny global warming can be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions? It is the greenhouse gas emitters. The biggest polluters on the planet. Can you fathom they might have a monetary interest in undermining science??
These are the same 'scientists' and think tanks who offered the same 'scientific' evidence for years that cigarettes don't cause cancer.
Are you really THAT obtuse???
)
Shit.....even the EU gave a huge kick to the balls on green energy last week = they're all in on coal and nautral gas
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement “Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to returnto good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.”
Read more at http://www.environmentalgraffiti.co...ntal-extremist-groups/742#riqQ1Z7bqIj1Y8EZ.99 Movement “Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to returnto good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.”
Read more at Top 4 Environmental Extremist Groups
Earth First! “To put it simply, the Earth must come first.” This sums up the basic ideology of ‘Earth First!ers. Earth First! is a radical environmentalist group that believes anything must be done in order to protect mother earth. Members of the group believe in biocentrism, the belief that every life of every species is equally valuable.
Read more at http://www.environmentalgraffiti.co...ntal-extremist-groups/742#hREUqEUEJzGY5ppg.99
Greenpeace Greenpeace started in 1970, when activists from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament wanted to stop a planned nuclear test in Alaska. The test was not prevented, but it laid the groundwork for the Greenpeace organization.
Read more at Top 4 Environmental Extremist Groups
ELF, ALF, RCALB, ARM, the Justice Department, and all other associated groups
The Earth Liberation Front (ELF); the Animal Liberation Front (ALF); the Revolutionary Cells—Animal Liberation Brigade (RCALB); the Animal Rights Militia (ARM); the Justice Department (not the government’s). These are all animal and environmental extremist groups. Are they all basically the same movement under different names? Most likely
Read more at Top 4 Environmental Extremist Groups
Why do people deny science? Because it might make them look in the mirror and accept a different truth than the one they wish to believe
That's not a bad take on things; not bad at all.
There is also a VERY clear link between denial and extreme right wing politics. At least oneof deniers here has claimed that Conservatism is not right wing!
Why do people deny science? Because it might make them look in the mirror and accept a different truth than the one they wish to believe
That's not a bad take on things; not bad at all.
There is also a VERY clear link between denial and extreme right wing politics. At least oneof deniers here has claimed that Conservatism is not right wing!
Saigon, I strongly believe there is also a VERY clear link to neurological and psychological elements of the conservative brain that explain their thinking, or should I say FEAR. Conservatives have larger amygdalas, almond shaped areas in the center of the brain often associated with anxiety, fear and emotions.
Intolerance of Ambiguity
Intolerance of doubt or ambiguity is another measured trait that has been found to strongly correlate with subsequent predictions of conservative thought and behavior. Dislike of uncertainty leads to dichotomous thinking styles (good and evil, black and white types of stereotyping of both people and issues, denial of complexity, and intolerance for any idea that there is no absolutes in terms of dealing with social issues).
Intolerance of ambiguity constituted a general personality variable that related positively to prejudice as well as to more general social and cognitive variables. Individuals who are intolerant of ambiguity are significantly more often given to dichotomous conceptions of the sex roles, of the parent-child relationship, and of interpersonal relationships in general. They are less permissive and lean toward rigid categorization of cultural norms. Powerweakness, cleanlinessdirtiness, moralityimmorality, conformancedivergence are the dimensions through which people are seen. . . . There is sensitivity against qualified as contrasted with unqualified statements and against perceptual ambiguity; a disinclination to think in terms of probability.
Intolerance of ambiguity has been defined as:
"the tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as sources of threat". Intolerance of ambiguity, by increasing cognitive and motivational tendencies to seek certainty, is hypothesized to lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliche´s and stereotypes.
The consequences of this tendency towards intolerance lead to dogmatically sticking with a single solution, disregarding all contrary evidence that might introduce ambiguity, or any of those troubling shades of grey, and a tendency to think in terms of good and evil' (much as people are sorted into rigid catagories such as saved and unsaved' or saint or sinner' by the religious right), and a tendency to jump to conclusions before sufficient evidence has been accumulated and then rigidly stick with a half thought out solution through thick and thin, while remaining closed to new experience or ideas. The researchers describe the consequences of such rigidity in thinking as,
Resistance to reversal of apparent fluctuating stimuli, the early selection and maintenance of one solution in a perceptually ambiguous situation, inability to allow for the possibility of good and bad traits in the same person, acceptance of attitude statements representing a rigid, black-white view of life, seeking for certainty, a rigid dichotomizing into fixed categories, premature closure, and remaining closed to familiar characteristics of stimuli.
Like I said s0n.....time for PLan B. The climate OC's have been trotting out this same crap for almost 2 decades and havent moved the goalposts a single yard. Nobody buys the whole "man-made" stuff anymore because people are spending 8 or 9 months out of their year freezing their asses off. Reality is 95% perception, except in the world of the climate OC's. If people were getting all hysterical over this stuff......like the climate k00ks.....representatives would be having their doors knocked down demanding climate change legislation. But nobody cares.......
In a country where over 90% of citizens support universal background checks, but it fails to pass because well funded corporate lobbyists decide it is not a good idea?
Have you ever had the curiosity to investigate who funds these so called 'scientists' who deny global warming can be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions? It is the greenhouse gas emitters. The biggest polluters on the planet. Can you fathom they might have a monetary interest in undermining science??
These are the same 'scientists' and think tanks who offered the same 'scientific' evidence for years that cigarettes don't cause cancer.
Are you really THAT obtuse???
Beyond obtuse s0n......FTMFW I might add.
In our country, the people decide and they've sided overwhelmingly that they like the 2nd ammendment and reject having to open their wallets for the green energy fraud.
evidently s0n........the obtuse are in the distinct majority = winning.
Shit.....even the EU gave a huge kick to the balls on green energy last week = they're all in on coal and nautral gas ( ummm......those are fossil fuels last time I checked
Indeed......climate science is closer to philosophy than science. And people who are obtuse do consider costs!!!!
Bfgrn said:Hi, you have received -276 reputation points from Bfgrn.
Reputation was given for this post.
Comment:
Why can\'t you debate you fucking ****? Back at ya you PEA brain.
Regards,
Bfgrn
Note: This is an automated message.
Post a list of all the right wing environmental radicals.
