• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How much proof do the global warming deniers need?

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
32,160
Reaction score
21,081
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Mr Hari hits the nail on the head yet again.

" Thank God man-made global warming was proven to be a hoax. Just imagine what the world might have looked like now if those conspiring scientists had been telling the truth. No doubt Nasa would be telling us that this year is now the hottest since humans began keeping records. The weather satellites would show that even when heat from the sun significantly dipped earlier this year, the world still got hotter. Russia's vast forests would be burning to the ground in the fiercest drought they have ever seen, turning the air black in Moscow, killing 15,000 people, and forcing foreign embassies to evacuate. Because warm air holds more water vapour, the world's storms would be hugely increasing in intensity and violence – drowning one fifth of Pakistan, and causing giant mudslides in China.

The world's ice sheets would be sloughing off massive melting chunks four times the size of Manhattan. The cost of bread would be soaring across the world as heat shrivelled the wheat crops. The increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be fizzing into the oceans, making them more acidic and so killing 40 per cent of the phytoplankton that make up the irreplaceable base of the oceanic food chain. The denialists would be conceding at last that everything the climate scientists said would happen – with their pesky graphs and studies and computers – came to pass. ... "




Johann Hari: How much proof do the global warming deniers need? - Johann Hari, Commentators - The Independent
 
Last edited:

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,899
Reaction score
32,554
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Mr Hari hits the nail on the head yet again.

" Thank God man-made global warming was proven to be a hoax. Just imagine what the world might have looked like now if those conspiring scientists had been telling the truth. No doubt Nasa would be telling us that this year is now the hottest since humans began keeping records. The weather satellites would show that even when heat from the sun significantly dipped earlier this year, the world still got hotter. Russia's vast forests would be burning to the ground in the fiercest drought they have ever seen, turning the air black in Moscow, killing 15,000 people, and forcing foreign embassies to evacuate. Because warm air holds more water vapour, the world's storms would be hugely increasing in intensity and violence – drowning one fifth of Pakistan, and causing giant mudslides in China.

The world's ice sheets would be sloughing off massive melting chunks four times the size of Manhattan. The cost of bread would be soaring across the world as heat shrivelled the wheat crops. The increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be fizzing into the oceans, making them more acidic and so killing 40 per cent of the phytoplankton that make up the irreplaceable base of the oceanic food chain. The denialists would be conceding at last that everything the climate scientists said would happen – with their pesky graphs and studies and computers – came to pass. ... "




Johann Hari: How much proof do the global warming deniers need? - Johann Hari, Commentators - The Independent
wait. so individual events can be used as evidence of anthropogenic global warming, but not evidence against it?

must be nice when your thesis is non-falsifiable.
 

theunbubba

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
96
Reaction score
20
Location
East Tennessee, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Here's the real problem with your theory of global warming being caused by mankind and also being hotter that ever.

Ice melts during hot climate times. When this occurs, it doesn't leave a layer of ice to trap CO2. It also doesn't leave a convenient gap in the ice cores to say "hey it was hot enough to not accumulate any ice this year". The next time there is ice accumulation, it doesn't magicly float in mid air to leave a gap in the ice cores. The use of ice cores to prove that there weren't any hotter periods is ludicrous on the very face of it.
This is also why they couldn't use most of the tree ring data to "match up" with the ice cores. Because it couldn't match what isn't there to match with. No ice layer doesn't correspond to no tree ring.
The entire data set is rife with this problem. There are no dates within the ice core data where the teams left a spot and said " We believe there was no ice accumulation for this year".

It's a completely false data set.
Do you get it now?
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
32,160
Reaction score
21,081
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It's all a massive conspiracy by experts in various fields of science! Why did nobody notice before! Thank you for your earth-shattering insight.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,113
Reaction score
21,519
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
It's all a massive conspiracy by experts in various fields of science! Why did nobody notice before! Thank you for your earth-shattering insight.
of course, scientists only study global warming so they can get more research grants so they can study global warming so they can get more research grants so they can study global warming.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I think it's arrogant at best and dishonest at worst, to say that we know without a doubt that man is causing the Earth's climate to warm.

The ecology of a planet is incredibly complex, spans several different micro ecosystems, not including the effects of non planetary sources of heat.
Our understanding is still in it's infancy.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,197
Reaction score
32,359
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think it's arrogant at best and dishonest at worst, to say that we know without a doubt that man is causing the Earth's climate to warm.

The ecology of a planet is incredibly complex, spans several different micro ecosystems, not including the effects of non planetary sources of heat.
Our understanding is still in it's infancy.
Global Average Temperature is not nearly as complex as you think it is. Yes, climate and weather are very complicated, but average temperature is really just a function of how much energy goes in versus how much goes out.

The planet's getting warmer. We are a primary cause. That second sentence is where the skeptics/deniers hang up on. (although there are some head-in-sanders who still somehow think the temperature is the same that it was 50 years ago) Really, the question at this point is how fast will it get warmer, how far will it go, and what effects will it have on us.
 
Last edited:

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Mr Hari hits the nail on the head yet again.

" Thank God man-made global warming was proven to be a hoax. Just imagine what the world might have looked like now if those conspiring scientists had been telling the truth. No doubt Nasa would be telling us that this year is now the hottest since humans began keeping records. The weather satellites would show that even when heat from the sun significantly dipped earlier this year, the world still got hotter. Russia's vast forests would be burning to the ground in the fiercest drought they have ever seen, turning the air black in Moscow, killing 15,000 people, and forcing foreign embassies to evacuate. Because warm air holds more water vapour, the world's storms would be hugely increasing in intensity and violence – drowning one fifth of Pakistan, and causing giant mudslides in China.

The world's ice sheets would be sloughing off massive melting chunks four times the size of Manhattan. The cost of bread would be soaring across the world as heat shrivelled the wheat crops. The increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be fizzing into the oceans, making them more acidic and so killing 40 per cent of the phytoplankton that make up the irreplaceable base of the oceanic food chain. The denialists would be conceding at last that everything the climate scientists said would happen – with their pesky graphs and studies and computers – came to pass. ... "




Johann Hari: How much proof do the global warming deniers need? - Johann Hari, Commentators - The Independent
Well - the problem you're running into is that you're grasping the 'global warming' straw.
When *really* the evidence points to GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE . . . which is *different* than a blanket cooling/blanket warming.

Meet me on a level within reality which takes an open mind of *all* facts and situations rather than accepting some things - but ignoring others.

Evidence of *change:*
In the last 2 years it *also* snowed excessively in Arkansas - and even in Iran (remember that?)
That's not *global warming* that's a climate-change.

Now - change is *only* change if it sticks around in some way. . .a brief 5 or 10 year shift is *not* permanent if it resets itself to previous levels.

That being said - I think the situation in Russia was exaggerated by lack of knowledge, funds and intervention.
In the US we experienced a temporary and unusual spike in heat, as well, but we're better equipped to handle it.
 
Last edited:

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sean Hannity (Fox) had a pretty good show on. I think it was called The Green Swindle. It will probably run again sometime.
He showed reasons why some really WANT there to be man made global warming. It's all about money, control and spreading the wealth around to other countries.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,197
Reaction score
32,359
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sean Hannity (Fox) had a pretty good show on. I think it was called The Green Swindle. It will probably run again sometime.
He showed reasons why some really WANT there to be man made global warming. It's all about money, control and spreading the wealth around to other countries.
The Great Global Warming Swindle?
(or something like that... I think that's the title?)
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Global Average Temperature is not nearly as complex as you think it is. Yes, climate and weather are very complicated, but average temperature is really just a function of how much energy goes in versus how much goes out.

The planet's getting warmer. We are a primary cause. That second sentence is where the skeptics/deniers hang up on. (although there are some head-in-sanders who still somehow think the temperature is the same that it was 50 years ago) Really, the question at this point is how fast will it get warmer, how far will it go, and what effects will it have on us.
Global average temperature can have multiple causes.

Cosmic rays and the internal works of the earth being a couple places that haven't been well explored in this topic.
Not to mention that since the Earths creation, the temperature of the planet has not been at a constant.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,197
Reaction score
32,359
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Global average temperature can have multiple causes.

Cosmic rays and the internal works of the earth being a couple places that haven't been well explored in this topic.
Not to mention that since the Earths creation, the temperature of the planet has not been at a constant.
Of course it has multiple causes. I don't understand where you could possibly have gotten the idea that I, or any other "warmer," thought otherwise. Of course the temperature hasn't been constant. What does that have to do with anything?

Just because there is more than one variable doesn't mean we're incapable of tracking and accounting for those variables. If you have any evidence to show that the earth's core temperature is somehow affecting temperature, or that cosmic rays are powerful enough to warm the earth (somehow unnoticed by all our satelites) I'd be happy to check it out.
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
wait. so individual events can be used as evidence of anthropogenic global warming, but not evidence against it?

must be nice when your thesis is non-falsifiable.
Any evidence that it is NOT caused by AGW? After all nearly every climatologist has been trying to prove the null hypothesis (that man has not caused these changes) for nearly 50 years now and they have not done so.
 

theunbubba

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
96
Reaction score
20
Location
East Tennessee, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's all a massive conspiracy by experts in various fields of science! Why did nobody notice before! Thank you for your earth-shattering insight.
I notice you can't rebut a single thing I said, so you resort to straw. Typical, just typical.
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Global average temperature can have multiple causes.

Cosmic rays and the internal works of the earth being a couple places that haven't been well explored in this topic.
Not to mention that since the Earths creation, the temperature of the planet has not been at a constant.

"Cosmic rays" - which ones would that be? Are these the mystery rays that no-one can measure but which seem to be affecting the atmosphere?

What the heck do you think NASA does? Do you not think the whole disciplines of astronomy and cosmology would not have investigated this?
Could cosmic rays be causing global warming?
How stupid do you think scientists are? Just because you have not read about it does not mean the theory has not been explored

Your second suggestion "internal works of the earth" - again there is this whole scientific discipline called geology - big field too with worldwide tens of thousands of members at least - and you think not one of those would have thought "Oooooh! Maybe I can keep my job with this big oil company and blame the climate change on the "internal works of the earth"?:doh

And yes climate has changed before which is why the science of paleoclimatology has been researching this
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well - the problem you're running into is that you're grasping the 'global warming' straw.
When *really* the evidence points to GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE . . . which is *different* than a blanket cooling/blanket warming.

Meet me on a level within reality which takes an open mind of *all* facts and situations rather than accepting some things - but ignoring others.

Evidence of *change:*
In the last 2 years it *also* snowed excessively in Arkansas - and even in Iran (remember that?)
That's not *global warming* that's a climate-change.

Now - change is *only* change if it sticks around in some way. . .a brief 5 or 10 year shift is *not* permanent if it resets itself to previous levels.

That being said - I think the situation in Russia was exaggerated by lack of knowledge, funds and intervention.
In the US we experienced a temporary and unusual spike in heat, as well, but we're better equipped to handle it.
No Russia the jet stream was derailed.

Now please when discussing GLOBAL climate changes do not include LOCAL weather changes or I will also be forced to include them - like the record heat wave in Japan than killed 60 people.

I hope you like eating because most of the world's agriculture depends on regular climatic occurrences - e.g. The Asian monsoon.

This disruption has been around longer than just a "couple of years"
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Great Global Warming Swindle?
(or something like that... I think that's the title?)
I'm pretty sure it was the Green Swindle. I think it was the first time showing.
 

hazlnut

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Mr Hari hits the nail on the head yet again.

" Thank God man-made global warming was proven to be a hoax. Just imagine what the world might have looked like now if those conspiring scientists had been telling the truth. No doubt Nasa would be telling us that this year is now the hottest since humans began keeping records. The weather satellites would show that even when heat from the sun significantly dipped earlier this year, the world still got hotter. Russia's vast forests would be burning to the ground in the fiercest drought they have ever seen, turning the air black in Moscow, killing 15,000 people, and forcing foreign embassies to evacuate. Because warm air holds more water vapour, the world's storms would be hugely increasing in intensity and violence – drowning one fifth of Pakistan, and causing giant mudslides in China.

The world's ice sheets would be sloughing off massive melting chunks four times the size of Manhattan. The cost of bread would be soaring across the world as heat shrivelled the wheat crops. The increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be fizzing into the oceans, making them more acidic and so killing 40 per cent of the phytoplankton that make up the irreplaceable base of the oceanic food chain. The denialists would be conceding at last that everything the climate scientists said would happen – with their pesky graphs and studies and computers – came to pass. ... "




Johann Hari: How much proof do the global warming deniers need? - Johann Hari, Commentators - The Independent
Most of them are motivated by money (the 'scientists'-for-hire) and/or partisan politics (politicians, pundits, and DP posters)... so all the science in the world isn't going to convince them.

The winters will get colder and longer, the summers will get hotter. Spring and Fall will become the short seasons. Climate change and extreme weather patters will continue.

There have been a few DoD studies about what this means for our National Security; third world countries overrun with flooding and famine, massive population migration. In this country, when one state suffers massive crop loss, property damage, etc. we bail them out... but for how long?

California is the world's 5th largest producer of agriculture and farm food products, however, we also have a uniquely mild climate. Only parts of southern Italy and Greece have the same climate. Should CA suffer massive crop loss, the country would feel it. Prices would sky-rocket.

This summer has seen more strange GW-related events, yet people even seem less aware of the connections. I blame the pundits and industry-funded propaganda.

There is problem of industry experts getting equal air time. Mainstream news shows will often try to have what they consider to be both points of view on this issue. The problem is, in the scientific community, there really aren't two points of view. The general consensus is that GW and climate change is man-made. There are a variety of opinions and theories as to the extent of the damage, timelines, and direct links to weather events, but few legitimate researchers are saying that GW is not man-made. But news shows insist on having the 'debate' format and presenting both sides.

Unfortunately, these shows don't differentiate the academic credentials of the deniers from that of legitimate climate-related scientists. And quite often, the deniers are more polished and use dumbed down talking points. So, the average viewer is allowed to hear legitimate science and industry-funded misinformation, and this confuses them, makes them think there is this non-existent debate.

On CNN last weekend Farreed Zakaria had Pat Michaels, a notorious industry shill, on and asked him the most important question: How much of your research is funded by the oil/energy industry? 40%, said Michaels.

Like the cigarette industry before them the energy industry has spent decades muddying the debate, making people think there are two sides. In fact, they used a lot of the same scientists-for-hire.

This has been one freaky summer. Dead fish, unprecedented heat waves. Massive flooding and fires in parts of world. Tracing each event back to GW is like tracing a heart attack back to a pack of cigarettes and deep-fried food. But, just like we know that a pattern of bad diet behavior will lead to health issues, a pattern of decades of CO2 emissions are now leading to major climate issues.

I almost wish Al Gore had never gotten into the debate. The partisan tug-o-war has done more to slow us down in terms of solutions. My hope is that cutting edge energy technologies are just around the corner: homes powered by a single battery and electronic appliances coming with batteries that will never need to be changed. Of course this raises waste disposal issues. But educating the consumer and incentivizing proper disposal has already begun. I've seen ads for solar installers popping up in CA. There are tax breaks available and some states allow power companies to credit the consumer when his meter runs backwards. (when you're generating more power than you use). Solar is perfect for CA; of course other states are going to have to figure out what works for them, wind farms, geothermal, and clean/safe nuclear power plants.

I am optimistic that cooler/cleaner heads will prevail.
 

hazlnut

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Evidence of *change:*
In the last 2 years it *also* snowed excessively in Arkansas - and even in Iran (remember that?)
That's not *global warming* that's a climate-change.
All weather, snow, drought, icestorms, tornados... ALL weather is a function of one thing. Heat.

Global warming (more heat) causes the climate to change.

Please try to remember this next winter, when pundits are making jokes about blizzards and Global Warming... The people going without power for days or weeks aren't laughing.

Global warming means longer, colder winters, and longer hotter summers.

Now - change is *only* change if it sticks around in some way. . .a brief 5 or 10 year shift is *not* permanent if it resets itself to previous levels.
With regard to climate, there has been no reset. Things have not returned to "normal". They've gotten progressively worse over the last decades.

Here is a NASA article that goes into more detail about this.

That being said - I think the situation in Russia was exaggerated by lack of knowledge, funds and intervention.
In the US we experienced a temporary and unusual spike in heat, as well, but we're better equipped to handle it.
This is true, in the U.S. we deal with GW and climate change better that Russia and third world countries. But the fact that those other countries feel GW harder than we do, does not mean it's not our problem.
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm pretty sure it was the Green Swindle. I think it was the first time showing.
Hope it holds up better than "The Great Global Warming swindle' which got to here and was absolutely decimated by Tony Jones who proved what a complete and utter fraud it was.

Looking forward to it - and if it does not contain a plethora of half-truths, hidden facts, and misrepresented graphics I will send you one spandy dandy stick of candy

I have yet to find a denialist website that either does not have a clue about climatology or could not tell a research paper from a pile of excrement or is a complete fraud - most often they are all three
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hope it holds up better than "The Great Global Warming swindle' which got to here and was absolutely decimated by Tony Jones who proved what a complete and utter fraud it was.

Looking forward to it - and if it does not contain a plethora of half-truths, hidden facts, and misrepresented graphics I will send you one spandy dandy stick of candy

I have yet to find a denialist website that either does not have a clue about climatology or could not tell a research paper from a pile of excrement or is a complete fraud - most often they are all three
It is the green Swindle but I couldn't find when it will be on again.
I'm thinking it was mostly about following the money. Who will profit if global warming is caused by man. Why the big push to prove it, even if it means fudging data, or refusing to publish scientists who doubt it. Why it is so important to some to pass a cap and trade bill.
I hope it's on again, I didn't really sit down and watch the whole thing.

Hmmm a spandy dandy stick of candy? :) Thanks, I think.
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
It is the green Swindle but I couldn't find when it will be on again.
I'm thinking it was mostly about following the money. Who will profit if global warming is caused by man. Why the big push to prove it, even if it means fudging data, or refusing to publish scientists who doubt it. Why it is so important to some to pass a cap and trade bill.
I hope it's on again, I didn't really sit down and watch the whole thing.

Hmmm a spandy dandy stick of candy? :) Thanks, I think.
Turn that question around

Who is most interested in keeping the status quo - in NOT seeing profits eke away? Who has the money to actually run campaigns to keep the money flowing? Hmmmm try Big Oil, the Energy industry etc.

Meanwhile the poor schmuck scientist sitting on his tushie in Antarctica trying to find answers is lucky and grateful for a pay check

Now I have a question and please answer it because I am conducting a bit of a survey

Who many scientists and technicians do you think are involved in climate science?
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Of course it has multiple causes. I don't understand where you could possibly have gotten the idea that I, or any other "warmer," thought otherwise. Of course the temperature hasn't been constant. What does that have to do with anything?

Just because there is more than one variable doesn't mean we're incapable of tracking and accounting for those variables. If you have any evidence to show that the earth's core temperature is somehow affecting temperature, or that cosmic rays are powerful enough to warm the earth (somehow unnoticed by all our satelites) I'd be happy to check it out.
"Cosmic rays" - which ones would that be? Are these the mystery rays that no-one can measure but which seem to be affecting the atmosphere?

What the heck do you think NASA does? Do you not think the whole disciplines of astronomy and cosmology would not have investigated this?
Could cosmic rays be causing global warming?
How stupid do you think scientists are? Just because you have not read about it does not mean the theory has not been explored

Your second suggestion "internal works of the earth" - again there is this whole scientific discipline called geology - big field too with worldwide tens of thousands of members at least - and you think not one of those would have thought "Oooooh! Maybe I can keep my job with this big oil company and blame the climate change on the "internal works of the earth"?:doh

And yes climate has changed before which is why the science of paleoclimatology has been researching this
Knowing that the Earth doesn't have a "right" temperature, how do you know what the correct temperature is and how can you conclude that we are the cause.
I believe in science but we haven't discovered everything and laying the claim that it is humans as the primary cause, is silly to me.

The magnetic pole has been moving a lot recently, specifically the last 100 years.
It's also weaker than it was 100 years ago.

There is a possibility that it could be letting in an extra slight amount of cosmic rays.
That could on it's own produce an increase in the earths mean temperature.
Not to mention the extra geological activity having some sort of a climatic effect.


NASA - Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field

Earth's Magnetic Field Is Fading

To bowerbird, the link you provided didn't talk about cosmic rays impacting solid surfaces, which could create additional heat.
Also, do you go out of your way to be rude to everyone or is it just me?
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Turn that question around

Who is most interested in keeping the status quo - in NOT seeing profits eke away? Who has the money to actually run campaigns to keep the money flowing? Hmmmm try Big Oil, the Energy industry etc.

Meanwhile the poor schmuck scientist sitting on his tushie in Antarctica trying to find answers is lucky and grateful for a pay check

Now I have a question and please answer it because I am conducting a bit of a survey

Who many scientists and technicians do you think are involved in climate science?
I don't know anyone who wants the status quo.
I know people who don't want cap and trade. It would totally wreck our economy and way of living. Gas and utilities would skyrocket.
The people who will benefit from cap and trade are third world countries, industrialized countries like China (because China won't participate) Al Gore and any individual invested in green energy, Nancey Pelosi (I think she invested in wind) But the kicker and I believe this to be true big oil would profit or at least BP would have before the spill.They are all into green stuff. But most of all GE would make out like a bandit.
I think cap and trade is about profit for some and spreading the wealth around the globe.

Your scientist question. I can't answer that off the top of my head. All the GW stuff started making me want to pull my hair out a while back. i need a refresher course. I think I do remember that about 1700? pulled away from the pack and decided the science was flawed or something like that. They were ignored if I'm not mistaken.
Besides isn't science something that just because scientists agree doesn't mean they are correct?
I don't understand the science stuff that deals with GW. I do see something rotten when it comes to passing cap and trade and the CRISIS of GW. Never let a crisis go to waste is this administrations motto.
I hope this makes some kind of sense. I'm falling asleep.
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Knowing that the Earth doesn't have a "right" temperature, how do you know what the correct temperature is and how can you conclude that we are the cause.
I believe in science but we haven't discovered everything and laying the claim that it is humans as the primary cause, is silly to me.
83 million barrels of oil per day - that is the current global consumption - and you think we DON'T have an effect?

The magnetic pole has been moving a lot recently, specifically the last 100 years.
It's also weaker than it was 100 years ago.
This is called the "grasping at straws" hypothesis - now again how dumb do you think scientists are? Don't you think some physicist or geologist or even a geophysicist would not have investigated this - especially considering how many geologists are employed by Oil and coal companies - companies that will be paying extra tax if the climatologists do get the governments to introduce a carbon tax.

There is a possibility that it could be letting in an extra slight amount of cosmic rays.
That could on it's own produce an increase in the earths mean temperature.
Not to mention the extra geological activity having some sort of a climatic effect.
Yes and there is a possibility that it will rain champagne but I really don't think that is a strong probability. Now don't you think someone might have looked into this? Do you not think that neutron monitors might have detected the increase in the rays? The magnetosphere is very very very closely monitored, as is solar activity because if either of those change too much we get all sorts of electronic interference as well as things like increase in ultraviolet radiation.

NASA - Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field

Earth's Magnetic Field Is Fading

To bowerbird, the link you provided didn't talk about cosmic rays impacting solid surfaces, which could create additional heat.
Also, do you go out of your way to be rude to everyone or is it just me?
Thank-you for actually reading the link - this is only one link that talks of the effects of cosmic rays - but it would help if your theory was more defined - which rays are we talking about here? Where are these rays coming from - otherwise I am looking for boggarts in the bush.

As for "rude" sorry but what I am trying to do is get people to THINK outside the rightwing punditry that seems to clog the American synapses
 
Top Bottom