The Myth of Global Warming (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

This statement:

"The Earth is getting hotter because of human emissions."

...cannot be supported by evidence. It is as subjective and comically unscientific as saying:

"If humans would stop breathing hot air into the climate, there would be less hot air encountering cold air and there would be less hurricanes.

Total BS. The reason there is so much disagreement on global warming is because there are so many logical leaps required to accept it.

But liberals tell us we have to pass hundred-billion-dollar suicide pacts like Kyoto (while complaining about fiscal responsibility) because they can find scientists who agree with them...just like they could find scientists to agree with them about breast implants causing cancer, about PCBs, Alar, DDT, pesticides, and every other farce they've ever presented as gospel.

HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES WHY REASONABLE PEOPLE ARE LESS THAN CONVINCED:

-In January 2002, the journal Science reported the findings of NASA's Ian Joughin and University of California's Slawek Tulaczyk confirming that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is actually growing.

-One of the biggest periods of temperature increase in the Earth's history happened during the time of the dinosaurs, before humans were even here. Think about that.

-As noted by the journal Nature, Peter Doran of the University of Illinois proved that temperatures in Antarctica are actually increasing over the last 30 years.

-The intensity of the Sun's light significantly impacts the Earth's temperature.

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences/report-49939.html

-Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund responds to the evidence being discovered in Antarctica by saying this:

"There is simply not enough data to make a broad statement about all of Antarctica."

:lol:

But there IS enough data to make broad statements about the entire EARTH? UN computer models are the kind of "hard evidence" liberals have to offer, but when conservatives challenge the blatantly unscientific nature of global warming charges, liberals refuse to even consider it...until evidence starts to disprove their charges...THEN, they can grasp the subjectivity issues and lack of data. :roll:

Newt Gingrich hit the nail on the head...We should try to minimize our emissions regardless, just to be good custodians of the Earth, but basing that on such a laughably unscientific bandwagon is not rational.

 

[Strakera]

Boy that was quite an idiotic post.

Yes us humans is a factor of the global warming, it's because we live so unnatural an **** up the balance of nature, global warming isn't a myth; the is is really melting. And Another possible factor is that the earth rotation has changed a bit so that antarktis at arktis are closer to the sun but for that to be possible the equator must have moved.. and it hasn't since it hasn't become colder around the Amazons areas. Another possible thing is that the planet might have moved a very little little step closer to the sun. That would explain the heating increase the latest years. But It most likely has to do with us humans as well bro.

 

[jennyb]

pub, you mean if some people would stop blowing hot air, dont you.....
global warming is scientifically based. warming is the name for it, but it includes some areas getting colder, or having snow were there never was before... this is because global warming is a synonym for climate change. the earth does pass through cycles of warming and cooling..THAT is science..
that is nature. what we humans are doing, is nurture, and its not the good kind of nurture.
of course no one is talking about rediculous stuff such as cows expelling!!!thats nature..what we do with fossil fuels,(killing giant forests, flipping climates, heating the oceans so far down, providing fuel for monster hurricanes),is going to choke the worlds eco system to death.
even if there is a chance of it being true, shouldnt we start doing something now, not wait until it is to late,which hopefully it isnt YET.

so uuummmm:shock: you really think cancer is a liberal idea......wow thats........interesting

 

[Morrow]

You seem to be arguing that Global Warming is false because it wasn’t cause by Humans.
Between your statements:

"The Earth is getting hotter because of human emissions."

-One of the biggest periods of temperature increase in the Earth's history happened during the time of the dinosaurs, before humans were even here. Think about that.

You also argue that Global Warming can’t be real because

-In January 2002, the journal Science reported the findings of NASA's Ian Joughin and University of California's Slawek Tulaczyk confirming that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is actually growing.

You assume that ice sheets grow because of declining temperatures. That isn’t true, ice sheets grow because of snow adding more mass than is being melted away. If there is a lot of precipitation even a warming glacier can grow, and has been proven to do so. Higher temperatures evaporate more water.

I don’t understand this one:

-As noted by the journal Nature, Peter Doran of the University of Illinois proved that temperatures in Antarctica are actually increasing over the last 30 years.

That supports Global Warming doesn’t it?

This one also makes no sense:

-The intensity of the Sun's light significantly impacts the Earth's temperature.

Yes, that’s why the temperatures are increasing, that energy is no longer being dissipated as fast as it once was.

You also argue that Global Warming isn’t real because breast implants don’t cause cancer.

Along with a large collection of unrelated facts. statements and emotional appeals.

Can you rephrase your objections to global warming more succinctly?

 

[WI Crippler]

What Bothers me about the whole debate is that if it snows more and is colder in the winter, its due to global warming and if it is warmer in the summer it global warming. Very fitting to the liberal arguement.

Listen, whether we humans were here or not, the earth would go through cooling, and warming periods due to all sorts of things that are just natural such as influence from the sun, our tilting axis etc.....
Sure we have an impact on the environment, and we should be more consious of our effect, but to say it is causing everything in the poles to melt is idiocy. The ice in the poles have melted and grown in the past of this planet without our influence and they will continue to do so until liberals figure out a way to stabilize our axis, and the influence from the sun.

 

[Diogenes]

pub, you mean if some people would stop blowing hot air, dont you.....
global warming is scientifically based. warming is the name for it, but it includes some areas getting colder, or having snow were there never was before... this is because global warming is a synonym for climate change. the earth does pass through cycles of warming and cooling..THAT is science..

Climate change is established historical fact, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it science. Perhaps it's just semantics but, to me, "science" implies an established cause and effect which we certainly do not have.

 

[Morrow]

Yes, science is very liberal. It was probably started by Clinton in a dark cloak room with the ACLU and Michael Moore.

98% of the worlds glaciers are disappearing, but the two percent that grow, whose cause of growth can clearly be drawn to increased evaporation because of higher temperatures, must counter the entire body of evidence of Global Warming. Further more, demonstrating why 2% of glaciers grow is consistent with Global Warming is a liberal plot.

Science isn’t political! Do I mean that global warming, and evolution, and the earth revolving around the sun aren’t plots to piss you off, but are instead an attempt to explain a body of evidence in a unified manner? YES!

Additionally, there is not a debate! One or two people who refute global warming does not constitute a debate. There is a debate about the causes, but not about Global Warming. If you want I can go find one or two people with the proper credential for people like you who I can pay to claim that world is flat. They can write papers to disprove the ‘round theory’. Ridiculous!

Perhaps now you will attempt to discredit the scientific process. I would like to point out that everything used to make reading this post possible was developed adhering to the scientific process. AC current, Dams, Computers, Chips, PHP bulletin board and that dim light over your head all relied on scientific theories to be developed, or themselves incorporate scientific practice or theory into their design construction and/or operation.

Politicians lie, including the Bushes. They lie to you and tell you that there is not such thing as Global Warming. They lie because their constituency wants them to lie. Their constituency doesn’t want to have to pay the money to deal with this problem. Money! That’s it, money! Then a few clever people like Rush figure out that if they refute Global Warming too, you’ll listen to them more because you need to believe that Global Warming isn’t real, because you don’t want to accept the fact your politicians lied, and you want to prove you’re a good little Republican. And what does Rush get out of lying?

Boy, you’re a sharp one, that’s right, money. More rating, more money. Anytime a politician says anything you need to ask the question, who makes money off of this? Then you can tell if they are telling the truth or lying.

 

[aquapub]

Boy that was quite an idiotic post.

Yes us humans is a factor of the global warming, it's because we live so unnatural an **** up the balance of nature, global warming isn't a myth; the is is really melting...

There are two things you have to be able to do in order to call a post idiotic:

1) Be able to refute the evidence presented.

2) be able to form a coherent English sentence.

2 strikes :lol:

 

[aquapub]

pub, you mean if some people would stop blowing hot air, dont you.....
global warming is scientifically based.

So were the left's assertions about breast implants causing cancer, PCBs, Alar, DDT, pesticides...all wrong.

Every time you people can't justify your hysteria, you say "it's scientifically based," and you are usually wrong.

 

[aquapub]

You assume that ice sheets grow because of declining temperatures. That isn’t true, ice sheets grow because of snow adding more mass than is being melted away. If there is a lot of precipitation even a warming glacier can grow, and has been proven to do so. Higher temperatures evaporate more water.

:applaud

Finally, a liberal who at least attempts to refute the evidence. Congratulations.

All you need to do now is provide some form of evidence that your theory about why the ice sheet is growing is true.

 

[aquapub]

Science isn’t political!

Liberals have sodomized this economy with bad science policies since the 1970s (breast implants causing cancer, about PCBs, Alar, DDT, pesticides, etc.)

Now they're using the left's financial base-rich, sleazy trial lawyers-to take the left's unscientific environmental idiocy to a whole knew level-way past Kyoto:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15400060/


Science IS political.

 

[Morrow]

:applaud

Finally, a liberal who at least attempts to refute the evidence. Congratulations.

All you need to do now is provide some form of evidence that your theory about why the ice sheet is growing is true.

You have a gross misunderstanding of what constitutes a theory. And being a liberal has nothing to do with this.

What evidence did I attempt to refute? It's true, some glaciers continue to grow, despite the fact that most of them shrink.

I will ask about said evidence, be patient. Those comments are based on conversations I had with climatologists and glaciologists.

 

[Morrow]

Liberals have sodomized this economy with bad science policies since the 1970s (breast implants causing cancer, about PCBs, Alar, DDT, pesticides, etc.)

Now they're using the left's financial base-rich, sleazy trial lawyers-to take the left's unscientific environmental idiocy to a whole knew level-way past Kyoto:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15400060/


Science IS political.

It can be used poltically, you're correct. But most scientists don't sit around thinking about the political consequences of their findinfs or suggestions.

Here is an article I found on global warming and glacier growth, it was easier than I thought..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/5283278.stm

that is all the time i'm going to spend looking. If you want more I suggest you go to your local university and talk to a professor. They will more than likely love to help you. After all scientists like nothing more than talking about their field. You can spend all day with them asking quesitons, and they probably won't even be that liberal.

 

[aquapub]

1) It can be used poltically, you're correct. But most scientists don't sit around thinking about the political consequences of their findinfs or suggestions.

2) Here is an article I found on global warming and glacier growth, it was easier than I thought..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/5283278.stm

1) From my experience, more and more scientists ARE becoming more political and less scientific. Everyone everywhere is becoming more political.

2) BBC? :lol:

The only network that had to have its embedded reporters removed from coalition war ships for blatant propagandizing against the troops?

The network that has non-biased headlines like these?:

"Recipe for a Cooked Election."

"How George Bush Gave Crazy Kim The Bomb." (pretty miraculous considering that Kim Jong Il has admitted to developing nukes while the Democrats who appeased him were still in office :roll: )

"Project Censored 2007- All About the O.I.L."

Secret U.S. Plans for Iraq's Oil

Heist of Election 2004

Iraq: Palast & Gen. Garner

Bush Blocked Bin Laden Probes

Theft of the Presidency

Bush Energy Plan: Policy or Payback?

No wonder you're so misinformed. :lol:

I've provided you with university scientists who's findings contradict many global warming assertions.

You've provided me with the West's version of Al Jezeera claiming that a single study hypothesizes that warming temperatures MIGHT cause some glaciers to grow.

Here's the subtitle of the completely unsubstantiated theory you are misrepresenting as fact: "Global warming could be causing some glaciers to grow, a new study claims."

I win. :mrgreen:

 

[Morrow]

You also forgot to attack me because I had a typo in the word findings.

 

[aquapub]

You also forgot to attack me because I had a typo in the word findings.

:doh Damn!

Just when I thought I might be encountering a liberal who can actually refute evidence and offer counterpoints (i.e., debate)...then you had to start acting like my discrediting of your "evidence" was a personal attack like some grade school girl with a skinned knee.

You provided me with an unsubstantiated theory, misrepresented as fact, from an overtly biased source...attempting to refute the ACTUAL evidence I provided.

THAT'S what I was attacking.

It's called, "debate."

 

[ALiberalModerate]

This statement:

"The Earth is getting hotter because of human emissions."

...cannot be supported by evidence. It is as subjective and comically unscientific as saying:
....

I am not even sure where to begin here Aquapub. It seems that you are trying to use what would primarily be an ideological / partisan argument, against a scientific theory. In doing so, frankly, you just look stupid.

I think the best thing I could do is provide the scientific case for Anthropogenic Global Warming, with the most current Peer Reviewed Science that I know is available.

First off, The National Academy of Sciences, the worlds most respected Scientific Society, released a peer reviewed study recently that found that the Earth's Climate is now warmer than it has been in over 12,000 years.

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2489742

Now there are those who have argued that warming is simply due to "natural variances". They make the claim that it could simply be due to solar variances. The problem with that argument, is that last May the U.S. Climate Change Science Program released a peer reviewed study on warming at the Surface, the Troposphere, and Stratosphere.

They found that the Earth has warmed at the surface, warmed in the Troposphere, yet cooled in the Stratosphere. This is very important to this debate. The reason is that warming due to natural variances, such as solar or orbital variances, is contingent on a warming Stratosphere. Greenhouse Warming, is contingent on a cooling Stratosphere. The reason for this is basic thermal physics. Increased solar activity or orbital variations would result in top down warming, essentially, the stratosphere would have to be warming as well. On the otherhand, Greenhouse Effect Warming results in a cooling Stratosphere, because more heat is trapped at the surface and the troposphere and less heat escapes into the stratosphere and thus back into space.

Therefore, we can definitively state today, as a result of this study and others like it, that our current warming is due to Greenhouse Effect Warming.

Source: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm

The next question is: Do we know that Human Activity has resulted in an increased level of Carbon Dioxide since the Industrial Revolution? The answer is yes we do. There is a direct correlation between worldwide economic growth and development, and Atmospheric CO2 concentrations as shown here:

We also know that there is a direct correlation between Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations, and Global Temperatures as shown here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/Co2-temperature-plot.png

Of course, warm climatic periods are not always preceded by increases in CO2 concentrations, as other climatic forces can force climate changes as well. However, the trend is very clear. Absent other mitigating factors, such as orbital and or solar variations, increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations results in climatic warming. The causation is basic thermal physics, and the correlation is backed by multiple lines of peer reviewed evidence. Moreover, as sourced earlier, those possible mitigating factors have been ruled out by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Study released last May.

There is a great deal of missinformation related to Anthropogenic Global Warming being put out by various ideological and industry funded groups. One of the principle sources for this information is the appropriately named www.junkscience.com. A site ran by a paid lobbyist for the chemical industry. The common theme for Anthropogenic Global Warming Deniers though, is that they never actually subject any of their articles and or "studies" to peer review.

The Scientific Concensus behind Anthropogenic Global Warming is extremely strong. Every single Scientific Society in the industrialized world with expertise in Climate Officially backs the theory. You can read their official positions here:

National Academy of Sciences:
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument

American Geophysical Society:
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html

American Association for the Advancement of Science:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/0616climate.shtml

If we are going to discuss Anthropogenic Global Warming, then instead of starting threads with petty ideological attacks, and intellectually dishonest snippets, we really should debate the actual science here. For example, instead of just calling it some liberal conspiracy, which frankly is just absurd, why not just make statements like "The earth has been through warming periods before, why is this different?". Then someone can provide some sourced data that shows why the vast majority of the world's scientists believe our current warming is anthropogenic. This is a complicated subject, and it deserves a thoughtful and objective discussion, not some blindly partisan and missleading attack.

 

[Morrow]

:doh Damn!

Just when I thought I might be encountering a liberal who can actually refute evidence and offer counterpoints (i.e., debate)...then you had to start acting like my discrediting of your "evidence" was a personal attack like some grade school girl with a skinned knee.

You provided me with an unsubstantiated theory, misrepresented as fact, from an overtly biased source...attempting to refute the ACTUAL evidence I provided.

THAT'S what I was attacking.

It's called, "debate."

apologizes, I thought you were more intent on bashing liberals.
Because of your long post refuting the authenticity of the BBC, who did not conduct the study, rather than the study you can understand me being skeptical of your willingness to discuss global warming and instead suspect you of desiring to make this partisan.

I’ll say this, the only think either of us can really do is cite other peoples work. Neither of us really know enough to talking about scientific method or evidence. I trust that the scientific community is being truthful in it’s claim of Global Warming. I trust that the evidence being provided is accurate and is not being misrepresented. Therefore I believe not only that Global Warming is happening, but that it’s effects are being contributed to by humans. And that the consequences of that, some of which are unknown, will be bad.

You seem to say that this is all political hogwash. Do you believe that because you want to, or you do trust that you’re not being lied to?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Folks, here is the common theme with extremist wingnuts like aquapub. They start a thread, throw out a few disinformation bombs, make the claim that they have a monopoly on reason and science, and make the claim that liberals do not debate in that realm.

Then, when someone actually refutes their entire claims with Peer Reviewed Science, and thus makes them out to look like an idiot, they never respond back.

A little while later they start a new thread on the same subject, with much of the same missinformation, and the cycle repeats itself.:roll:

 

[Diogenes]

The next question is: Do we know that Human Activity has resulted in an increased level of Carbon Dioxide since the Industrial Revolution? The answer is yes we do. There is a direct correlation between worldwide economic growth and development, and Atmospheric CO2 concentrations as shown here:

The graph implies that CO2 concentration is directly related to the Industrial Revolution, but would it not be as accurate to relate the CO2 concentration to population increase?

As I recall, the world population was about one billion in 1800 when Malthus prduced his doomsday scenario and it's now about six billion. How much of the CO2 is due to industrial development, and how much to increased population?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The graph implies that CO2 concentration is directly related to the Industrial Revolution, but would it not be as accurate to relate the CO2 concentration to population increase?

As I recall, the world population was about one billion in 1800 when Malthus prduced his doomsday scenario and it's now about six billion. How much of the CO2 is due to industrial development, and how much to increased population?

I am not sure what your point is. Absent the industrial revolution, the CO2 emissions from humanity collectively exhaling would be fairly minuscule in terms of atmospheric concentrations.

For example, when we compare per-capita CO2 emissions between the United States, and the developing world, we find:

19.8 US carbon dioxide emissions per capita, in metric tons

1.8 Developing world's carbon dioxide emissions per head, in tons

As you can see, the difference is pretty stagering. So while I think there is some correlation between population growth worldwide and carbon emissions as a result of more people using more energy, the correlation is much stronger between economic development and growth and carbon emissions. This of course is because our current economy is largely powered by fossil fuels of various forms. Which of course is the challenge before us. We have to figure out a way to transition fairly quickly to a more sustainable economy without doing serious damage to our economy in the process.

That all said, this is great, just sticking to the science. I firmly believe that by just sticking to the peer reviewed science behind this issue, that most reasonable people will come to see just how strong the science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming is.

 

[tecoyah]

Folks, here is the common theme with extremist wingnuts like aquapub. They start a thread, throw out a few disinformation bombs, make the claim that they have a monopoly on reason and science, and make the claim that liberals do not debate in that realm.

Then, when someone actually refutes their entire claims with Peer Reviewed Science, and thus makes them out to look like an idiot, they never respond back.

A little while later they start a new thread on the same subject, with much of the same missinformation, and the cycle repeats itself.:roll:

You noticed that too...huh? Kinda takes the joy out of science sometimes.

 

[LeftyHenry]

My god! There are people who actually believe that the world is in as good condition as it has always been? WTF? Where are the mental wards when you need them?

 

[Diogenes]

This of course is because our current economy is largely powered by fossil fuels of various forms. Which of course is the challenge before us. We have to figure out a way to transition fairly quickly to a more sustainable economy without doing serious damage to our economy in the process.

Nuclear power would go a long way toward solving that problem, and the technology is available today -- if only the environmentalists would stop their fear-mongering and let us do it.

My god! There are people who actually believe that the world is in as good condition as it has always been? WTF? Where are the mental wards when you need them?

Actually the world is much better than it was in the past when a person could freeze to death on a glacier (like the Iceman) or get eaten by a sabre-tooth tiger. Happiness is a warm planet.

 

[Andy]

Here's my question: who should I believe, aquapub or the National Academy of Science?