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?
