Would love to see how the Global Warming idiots explain this one...

[Vintij]

she GW's me, she GW's me not....

may i interject a though here? image for a second GW becoming a bona fide, beyond a shadow of a doubt, no longer junk science, a real hard core reality

the next logical step , given that GW would affect the entire world, is to place blame on the particular nations who's lifestyle/industries are the chief culprits...

let that sink in , and get back to me....

Blame?

There is no blame, we as humans have benefited greatly from the industrial revolution.....nobody is saying we are all going to die thanks to technology. Not at all, and nobody is blaming anyone because the rise in c02 levels began far before we were all born. All anyone is saying is that once we officially make the connection between PRESENT c02 levels and how it effects tempurature, we can finally say that the data from the past showed us something that we did not know before and we were able to use that data to fix our mistakes. We have plenty of time and plenty of man power/ brain power to reverse the effects of rising c02 levels AND bring the carbon cycle back to within its natural level of equalibrium. What we can not do, is ignore it for the next 50-100 years. We have to accept as a global community within 50 years because it might be too late beyond that time. I am fully 100% confident that within 20 years, this will be an argument of he past, and we will be much improved on energy independence. We will have moved away from burning fossil fuels at such an alarming rate, and we will slowly (very slowly) ease our way into a new energy industry. Obviously right now we can not stop cold turkey, it would hurt us badly.

 

[-Cp]

ftp://cdiac.ornl.gov/pub/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2

Again, incase you did not read before....here is RAW data from the Vostok research facility in antarctica. This is c02 levels over the past 400 thousand years.



http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat

And here is the RAW data on tempurature over the same period.

I dont know how less biased you can get with this data. Its just plain and simple numbers that tell a clear story. Thats all, you dont have to even listen to me or anyone else, all you have to do is simply click on those links to see the data for yourself. Its not telling you how to vote or what to think, its just simple data. Its as unbiased and pure as it gets. Not to mention it has been scrutinized by the entire scientific community and has held up as legitimate. What do you know that has EVER been scrutinized so harshly yet still accepted as scientific fact among a global community of the best and brightest?

The .gov should be a flashing neon sign dont you think?

Not that you have the capacity to understand any of this data, which is why we leave the scientific predictions to scientists and not you.

I see nothing there that proves anything about "Man-made GW"...

 

[Vintij]

I see nothing there that proves anything about "Man-made GW"...

Are you really that dense?


You dont see the rising c02 levels at the start of the industrial revolution, and then the explosion of those levels within the last 100 years?

Even the temperature data shows slight increases. How can you be that blind? Or do I have to send it to Sean Hannity for approval before you read it?

Oh wait I get it, you dont understand the data. Its okay, not all of us are as gifted as people who can read numbers and compare them. I understand. You no longer are obligated to respond to my messages, I understand your situation. Thank you, you can now leave this conversation. Unless you have data that you can show me?????

 

[dilloduck]

A lot of ignorance on display here.

We have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 39% in the last 200 years. Soon we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 causes the earth to warm. No one disputes that.

Global warming deniers seem to be caught up in the politics of the situation, but politics is not melting the pole and the glaciers. Warmer temperatures are.

Wrong---politicians are using science as a means to scare people and control the political landscape.
I'm not paying a tax to try to cool off the earth---it will not work and nature has her own ways of regulating herself.

 

[Old Rocks]

Let's see, we have had satellites in orbit observing the sun for about 50 years. In that time, the total solar irradiance has had a slight, insignificant, decrease. So that cannot be the reason for the increase in the global temperatures. In fact, the only thing that has had a major change is the GHGs in the atmosphere. GHGs put there by mankind.

Now I constantly see someone posting that a brief cooling, such as that caused by this years La Nina, is proof that we are not warming. Very interesting point here. We had a strong La Nina through the last winter. But it was the 13th warmest winter, worldwide, on record. Not the 13th coldest, the 13th warmest. To put this in perspective, in 1910, Portland had a cold winter. Like occurred in most cold winters prior to 1910, the Colombia froze solid enough between Portland and Vancouver to drive wagons across it. For the last 20 years, a cold winter here in Portland is a winter in which the roses do not bloom for the whole of the winter. Last winter, during the strong La Nina, we got 1 inch of snow. For about 6 hours. That is climate change caused by global warming.

Editec pointed out the importance of Chaos Theory in climate. By past geological evidence, that is the way that weather acts. It pretty much stays the same through a whole bunch of changes, then, with the another insignificant addition, suddenly changes to a whole new regime. So? Well, the whole of our agriculture, which supports 7 billion humans, is dependent on predictable weather.

Now every scientific society, every National Academy of Science, and every major university in the world publically states that global warming is happening and that the chief driver of it is the burning of fossil fuels. Against this overwhelming scientific consensus, and the evidence presented for that consensus, you expect us to acept the ideas of a few bloggers?

It is not a bunch of "liberals" melting the worlds glaciers. It is not a bunch of scientists seeking grants that are melting the North Polar Ice Cap, the Greenland Ice Cap, and that of Antarctica. The scientists are reporting on what the see. And what they see, anyone can go and see for themselves. In every mountain range in the US, glaciers are in rapid retreat. Many are already gone. The same is observed in every mountain range on Earth. Most of the water of the big rivers in Asia rise at the feet of glaciers. Glaciers which melt the snow recieved in the prior winter to keep the rivers flowing during the summer. However, today, the glaciers are running water in the summer that was recieved as snow centuries ago. At some point, the amount of water these rivers flow in the summer will no longer sustain the vast agriculture in Asia. Politics do not change these facts.

By making this issue a political one, as the evidence becomes more and more evident to the general populace, the people in denial will become looked upon as fools. As they well should be.

 

[dilloduck]

Let's see, we have had satellites in orbit observing the sun for about 50 years. In that time, the total solar irradiance has had a slight, insignificant, decrease. So that cannot be the reason for the increase in the global temperatures. In fact, the only thing that has had a major change is the GHGs in the atmosphere. GHGs put there by mankind.

Now I constantly see someone posting that a brief cooling, such as that caused by this years La Nina, is proof that we are not warming. Very interesting point here. We had a strong La Nina through the last winter. But it was the 13th warmest winter, worldwide, on record. Not the 13th coldest, the 13th warmest. To put this in perspective, in 1910, Portland had a cold winter. Like occurred in most cold winters prior to 1910, the Colombia froze solid enough between Portland and Vancouver to drive wagons across it. For the last 20 years, a cold winter here in Portland is a winter in which the roses do not bloom for the whole of the winter. Last winter, during the strong La Nina, we got 1 inch of snow. For about 6 hours. That is climate change caused by global warming.

Editec pointed out the importance of Chaos Theory in climate. By past geological evidence, that is the way that weather acts. It pretty much stays the same through a whole bunch of changes, then, with the another insignificant addition, suddenly changes to a whole new regime. So? Well, the whole of our agriculture, which supports 7 billion humans, is dependent on predictable weather.

Now every scientific society, every National Academy of Science, and every major university in the world publically states that global warming is happening and that the chief driver of it is the burning of fossil fuels. Against this overwhelming scientific consensus, and the evidence presented for that consensus, you expect us to acept the ideas of a few bloggers?

It is not a bunch of "liberals" melting the worlds glaciers. It is not a bunch of scientists seeking grants that are melting the North Polar Ice Cap, the Greenland Ice Cap, and that of Antarctica. The scientists are reporting on what the see. And what they see, anyone can go and see for themselves. In every mountain range in the US, glaciers are in rapid retreat. Many are already gone. The same is observed in every mountain range on Earth. Most of the water of the big rivers in Asia rise at the feet of glaciers. Glaciers which melt the snow recieved in the prior winter to keep the rivers flowing during the summer. However, today, the glaciers are running water in the summer that was recieved as snow centuries ago. At some point, the amount of water these rivers flow in the summer will no longer sustain the vast agriculture in Asia. Politics do not change these facts.

By making this issue a political one, as the evidence becomes more and more evident to the general populace, the people in denial will become looked upon as fools. As they well should be.

Cool--well let the UN break out the "Fairness Doctrine" and call for a worldwide moratarium that bans the burning of fossil fuel.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, be a silly ass, Ducky. The nation should concentrate on creating cheap alternative technologies that we can sell to the rest of the world at a good profit. Doing well while doing good, Adam Smith would like that.

 

[-Cp]

Are you really that dense?


You dont see the rising c02 levels at the start of the industrial revolution, and then the explosion of those levels within the last 100 years?

Even the temperature data shows slight increases. How can you be that blind? Or do I have to send it to Sean Hannity for approval before you read it?

Oh wait I get it, you dont understand the data. Its okay, not all of us are as gifted as people who can read numbers and compare them. I understand. You no longer are obligated to respond to my messages, I understand your situation. Thank you, you can now leave this conversation. Unless you have data that you can show me?????

So you're saying that your "RAW DATA" about the co2 levels clearly point to man-made? Where and how - from looking at your own data - do you draw those conclusions? Oh, that's right, you're the one who's brainwashed into the religion of global warming..

 

[dilloduck]

OK, be a silly ass, Ducky. The nation should concentrate on creating cheap alternative technologies that we can sell to the rest of the world at a good profit. Doing well while doing good, Adam Smith would like that.

great--lets do it-- but screw the cap and trade BS which looks inevitable.

 

[Chris]

So you're saying that your "RAW DATA" about the co2 levels clearly point to man-made? Where and how - from looking at your own data - do you draw those conclusions? Oh, that's right, you're the one who's brainwashed into the religion of global warming..

No, someone who denies that adding 8 billion metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year is having no effect.

You are the very definition of brainwashed.

 

[Chris]

Wrong---politicians are using science as a means to scare people and control the political landscape.
I'm not paying a tax to try to cool off the earth---it will not work and nature has her own ways of regulating herself.

Switching to green energy is good for the planet and good for us because it is energy produced by AMERICANS, not ARABS.

If you can't see that, you really are dense.

 

[xsited1]

As a Global Warming Idiot myself, I would just like to say that whatever Al Gore says on the subject should be treated as Gospel. After all, he did win the Nobel Peace Prize AND invented the internet.

 

[dilloduck]

Switching to green energy is good for the planet and good for us because it is energy produced by AMERICANS, not ARABS.

If you can't see that, you really are dense.

Kirk--"make" green---I'll use it but take those carbon taxes and shove em up your ass.

 

[no1tovote4]

Wrong---politicians are using science as a means to scare people and control the political landscape.
I'm not paying a tax to try to cool off the earth---it will not work and nature has her own ways of regulating herself.

They are called hurricanes.

How is it that nobody can remember the 70s when it was absolutely certain, and a preponderance of the evidence was used to create a "consensus of scientists" around the globe, that the Earth was cooling? We were causing it with our pollution back then too.

 

[Chris]

Kirk--"make" green---I'll use it but take those carbon taxes and shove em up your ass.

You and who else's army.

You don't even have the guts to admit you are wrong.

 

[dilloduck]

You and who else's army.

You don't even have the guts to admit you are wrong.

no--pay attention---I told YOU to do it. If you need help, check in with the Obama reserves.

 

[no1tovote4]

He's basically right though.

We need to get off the foreign energy teat. The best way to do it is to produce our own energy. The simplest and most effective change we could make is using natural gas to run our cars, we have a plentiful supply and the conversion is not hugely costly, and it runs cleaner than using gasoline. The same companies take it from the ground as do the oil, they won't be losing, but it will be from here. Less traveling is also better.

Again, the 70s come to mind. Remember when we were 26% dependent on foreign oil and it was a big deal? Now we have reversed that number and now get about 20% of our oil domestically. Instead of decreasing our dependency we are stuck in a rut, addicted to the foreign oil teat when we have a good solution right in our own soil.

We need to convert to nuclear energy when we can for electricity. Run the cars on natural gas. I would also like to see some kind of real competition for the next generation of energy, producing it here and selling it to the rest of the world will ensure our economic dominance for another century to come.

 

[Old Rocks]

They are called hurricanes.

How is it that nobody can remember the 70s when it was absolutely certain, and a preponderance of the evidence was used to create a "consensus of scientists" around the globe, that the Earth was cooling? We were causing it with our pollution back then too.

Now that is purest bullshit. Never happened.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html

 

[no1tovote4]

Now that is purest bullshit. Never happened.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html

It isn't.

Here is Newsweek's article on it:

Newsweek on the cooling world

Seriously, Climatologists were, well read it yourself:

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Seriously, anybody older than 5 (I was 4 when this article was published) during the 70s will remember them talking about it at school. It was the mantra that we were killing our planet with our pollution and causing global cooling.

While it may have been media based, it was very real.

 

[Chris]

It isn't.

Here is Newsweek's article on it:

Newsweek on the cooling world

Seriously, Climatologists were, well read it yourself:



Seriously, anybody older than 5 (I was 4 when this article was published) during the 70s will remember them talking about it at school. It was the mantra that we were killing our planet with our pollution and causing global cooling.

While it may have been media based, it was very real.

Here is the real science. The rest is just bullshit....

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation