Reagan did not think much of AIDS... Republicans don't believe in global warming does not mean it is not real.
Al Gore is not an alarmist. He has been pushing Global Warming long before it was fashionable.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart
- Thread starter drjekyllus
- Start date
Reagan did not think much of AIDS... Republicans don't believe in global warming does not mean it is not real.
Al Gore is not an alarmist. He has been pushing Global Warming long before it was fashionable.
Quote from IShopAtPublix:
Reagan did not think much of AIDS... Republicans don't believe in global warming does not mean it is not real.
Al Gore is not an alarmist. He has been pushing Global Warming long before it was fashionable.
so, you're planning on 20 foot increases in ocean levels?
you sound pretty damn alarmed ...
don't worry, the democrats will pass the largest tax increase in US history, which will do EXACTLY NOTHING to stop "climate change"
Quote from IShopAtPublix:
Let me ask you this question: Do you continue to use your computer and believe in the existence of the solar systems knowing full well that people used to believe the earth was flat?
Why did I ask this weird question? Frequently a bunch of numbnuts parade around here and cite how scientists were concerned about global COOLING in the 1970s as "proof" that global warming is a hoax.
Just because scientists were wrong about something at one time, does not mean they are wrong now. Science is a continuous learning process that is self-correcting. I use my computer knowing full well that at one time ideas of scientists concerning aviation, electricity and even gravity were highly demented. Also, doctors used to bleed people to "cure" them. That does not mean medicine is a fraud.
A lot has changed since the 70s. The world consumes a lot more fossil fuels and there are a lot more people living on the planet. More cars, more stuff, less forests to absorb it.
Polar caps are melting this is an indisputable fact. It is not that Earth is heating up that is troubling it is the RATE at which it occurs. Processes that should take thousands of years take a lot less.
If you believe "the conservative" point of view, all the scientists who believe in man made global warming are a bunch of tree hugging lunatics who got into a frenzied state and decided to brainwash the world(as opposed to "honest" scientists working for good folks at exxon mobil who are trying to set us straight).
What is more believable(and what actually is true) is that certain groups of people have a vested interest in making sure the world cranks out and consumes as much stuff as possible. And fox news/talk radio being the conduit of big business puts those ideas into the heads of simpletons.
If you are an industrialist cranking stuff out in china or exxon mobil you don't give a shit about polluting or global warming you need the gravy train to move forward.
This whole post just affirms that both sides of the argument have their own agendas.
So how about this - forget all that stuff and let the facts speak for itself.
FACT - the IPCC identifies water vapor as THE major greenhouse gas.
FACT - the IPCC does not go into the effects of water vapor in its studies, and instead attributes ANY and ALL warming to CO2.
Why?
FACT - a 1996 graph from the IPCC clearly reflects the so called "Viking era" and also reflects the Little Ice Age.
FACT - the 2001 graph, which Gore used, and the IPCC uses to this day, has been sanitized and no longer shows these periods.
Why?
FACT - the relationship between CO2 and MMGW is in dispute, but the relationship between solar radiation and Natural GW is not.
FACT - the IPCC refuses to consider that increasing solar radiation causes increasing water vapor as the cause of GW.
Why?
FACT - Past levels of CO2 as touted by the MMGW crowd were taken by proxy for the period up to ~ 1950- ice core sample - but present levels are determined by air samples.
FACT - but air samples are available from as far back as the early 1800's that show CO2 levels as high as 550 ppm, which shows the claim that we have the highest levels ever to be false, yet the IPCC refuses to use this data.
Why?
you know whats unsettling ... global temperatures have been cooling the past decade ...
if these natural fluctuations continue downward, the idiots will claim "cap-and-trade" is responsible ...
if these natural fluctuations continue downward, the idiots will claim "cap-and-trade" is responsible ...
Quote from FeenixRizin:
you know whats unsettling ... global temperatures have been cooling the past decade ...
if these natural fluctuations continue downward, the idiots will claim "cap-and-trade" is responsible ...
Polar Ice caps would not be melting if the temperatures were falling.
Quote from IShopAtPublix:
Polar Ice caps would not be melting if the temperatures were falling.
Where do you get your facts? television commercials showing stranded polar bears with sarah mcclaugklin playing in the background?
friggin fools.
there is absolutely no way to measure the "effectiveness" of cap-and-trade. It will be like a "job saved or created", instead it will be "CO2 not emitted", or the obvious, temperatures continue to decline naturally
there are still credible people out there who forcast deep, deep declines in temperatures in the near future.
oh the insanity ...
Quote from FeenixRizin:
Where do you get your facts? television commercials showing stranded polar bears with sarah mcclaugklin playing in the background?
friggin fools.
there is absolutely no way to measure the "effectiveness" of cap-and-trade. It will be like a "job saved or created", instead it will be "CO2 not emitted", or the obvious, temperatures continue to decline naturally
there are still credible people out there who forcast deep, deep declines in temperatures in the near future.
oh the insanity ...
There are NASA shots of polar caps in the 1970s and now. Just because you are a moron does not mean everyone is. Fact of the matter is earth is warming up. For a long time people like rush denied it was even warming up but now that the evidence is overwhelming they switched gears to saying that is not man made but natural.
Quote from IShopAtPublix:
There are NASA shots of polar caps in the 1970s and now. Just because you are a moron does not mean everyone is. Fact of the matter is earth is warming up. For a long time people like rush denied it was even warming up but now that the evidence is overwhelming they switched gears to saying that is not man made but natural.
Huh, please show us these pictures. According to NASA the ice in Antartica INCREASED since the 1970's. This is your typical post by Publix, alot of bullshit and zero fact--an Obama supporter indeed.
Quote from drjekyllus:
http://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?idarticle=18798
"Data show that the Earth cooled last year rather than warmed, following a trend that began in 2000"
I don't know how many ways this can be repeated -- weather is not climate, thus a single year is not a sufficient sample size. Neither is nine years.
If we were to look since 2000, however, here's the data and as you can see it isn't a cooling trend at all -- just scroll to the bottom.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
, and in light of this evidence much of the doomsday talk has quieted down. However, while activists still cling to their flawed theory, they have replaced the term âglobal warmingâ with âclimate change,â using the same theory to now account for any change that occurs, warming or cooling.
Apparently some people thought that global warming meant that it had to be warm everywhere. This makes it easier for people to understand.
Scientists do not speak with one voice on this issue. Ivar Giaever is a Nobel Laureate in Physics, and is one of 650 dissenting scientists who argued against this theory at the United Nations global warming conference in Poland last December. âI am a skeptic,â he said. âGlobal warming has become a new religion.â
Great. What do other physicists say about global warming and climatology, and what do climatologists say about physics research?
Other opponents have made similar comments, like former NASA official, atmospheric scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, who declared, âSince I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ⦠As a scientist I remain skeptical.â
You win the award for "sleazy edit of the day." Here's what she went on to write in the same letter (and she's an expert in weather, not climatology -- very close, but not the same).
She writes:
"What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.â
Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires commented that, âThe [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.â Colorado State University hurricane expert William Gray was more direct, calling global warming âa big scam.â "
Paleontologists? Oh fer cryin' out loud.
Quote from drjekyllus:
How many times will the MMGW cult try this logically flawed argument? Simply posting a graph that shows an increase in temp proves NOTHING. As stated many times, the temp is not static. It changes. The temp has been increasing for the last 10,000-15,000 years. We aren't responsible for that.
That's some fascinating "logic." You understand that the ROC of recent global average temperatures has drastically increased, of course.