The Myth of Global Warming

[ludahai]

Well then it's a real shame that we're all not plants, huh?

But good if you are a vegetarian. :2razz:

 

[aquapub]

1) I just looked up your: National Registry of Environmental Professionals.

The website is here: http://www.nrep.org/

It is a scam.

2) You are such a pathetic joke dude. You get on here acting like you are some expert, and you don't even know the science behind the issue.

1) Based on what? Nothing you've provided here, including the link, indicates any kind of scam.

2) I guess you missed the intro, where I posted evidence from the journal, Science and the journal, Nature that deflates the left's hysteria about global warming.

Let me refresh your memory:

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.

Sun’s direct role in global warming may be underestimated

-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

Take your midol, then debate. :roll:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

1) Based on what? Nothing you've provided here, including the link, indicates any kind of scam.

2) I guess you missed the intro, where I posted evidence from the journal, Science and the journal, Nature that deflates the left's hysteria about global warming.

Let me refresh your memory:




Take your midol, then debate. :roll:

Read the thread, I refuted your claims with peer reviewed science here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/environment/14682-myth-global-warming-2.html#post417695

I will go ahead and refresh your memory though.

The bulk of the warming over the last century occured over the last 2 decades. Last year was the 6th warmest year on record. The 10 warmest years on record all occured in the last 15 years. The coming year is predicted to be the warmest year on record. They are getting lots of snow in Denver this year, but then again that is after about a decade of below average snowfall, and higher than average temps. In fact, even with the above average snowfall in parts of the Rockies, temperatures across the United States this winter, and in the Rockies have been above average for the winter.

Anthropogenic Global Warming does not mean that every place on earth will be warmer. It means that more places will be warmer than cooler. Just like one heat wave cannot be used as evidence of Global Warming, one cold snap cannot be used as evidence against it. Climate must be looked at on a Global Scale.

The Global Temps have risen by about 1 degree over the last one hundred years. That may seem like a small rise, but one must realize that the difference in average global temps today, and in the average Global Temps durring the last major ice age where the entire Northern Half of the United States was covered by a sheet of ice a mile thick, is just 5 degrees or so lower than the current climate. This is because a 1 degree increase at the equator is about a 12 degree increase at the poles.

The fact is, there is only a small handfull of scientists out there today with expertise in climate who challenge the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, and the vast majority of those who do work for various think tanks and propoganda groups being financed by the Fossil Fuels industry.

Anyway, the science behind this issue is quite straight forward actually:

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 and is only one degree of from being warmer than in millions of years.

Source: ABC News: Global Temperature Highest in Millennia

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 much of our current warming is due to Greenhouse Effect Warming.

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/...ort/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:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e...de_400kyr-2.png

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...rature-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 JunkScience.com -- Steven Milloy, Publisher. 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:

Global Change at the National Academies - Home

American Geophysical Society:

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechang...earch_2003.html

American Association for the Advancement of Science:

AAAS - AAAS News Release

 

[aquapub]

What is funny, is that you did not even read the site you quoted.

Because I posted the evidence from it that shows there is no consensus about the CAUSE of global warming?

Yeah, silly me, only posting relevant information to the point being made.

Devastating counterpoint there, Sparky. :lol:

 

[aquapub]

1) 82 percent of professionals report they think global warming is a real, measurable, climatic trend currently in effect.

2) 66 percent respond that the rate at which global warming may be occurring is a serious problem facing the planet.

3) 64 percent attribute certain phenomenon such as rising ocean levels, increased storm activity, severe drought, massive habitat loss, depletion of the Earth’s oxygen sinks, i.e. rain forests and ocean plankton, to the effects of global warming.

4) 68 percent agree that global warming is a trend that must be addressed as soon as possible.

5) 59 percent respond that current climactic activity exceeding norms calibrated by over 100 years of weather data collection can be, in large part, attributed to human activity.

1) This doesn't contradict my evidence about what scientists think CAUSES the current warming trend.

2) And my "scam" evidence stated that 31% disagreed that it was a serious problem. Thanks for confirming my point about there NOT being a consensus.

3) Again, this in no way contradicts my evidence.

4) And my evidence stated that 34% said global warming is not a serious problem. You aren't very good at math if you think this data contradicts mine.

5) 59%. Like I said, FAR FROM a consensus.

:2funny:

So first you tell me that my evidence is a scam...with zero evidence...and then you post evidence that reinforces or has nothing to do with mine?

:ws

 

[aquapub]

Read the thread, I refuted your claims with peer reviewed science here:

The bulk of the warming over the last century occured over the last 2 decades. Last year was the 6th warmest year on record. The 10 warmest years on record all occured in the last 15 years. The coming year is predicted to be the warmest year on record. They are getting lots of snow in Denver this year, but then again that is after about a decade of below average snowfall, and higher than average temps. In fact, even with the above average snowfall in parts of the Rockies, temperatures across the United States this winter, and in the Rockies have been above average for the winter.

Points like this about what the climate is doing in no way addresses my assertions about other causes than human activity.

Nice try.

And you can try to get people to buy this subjective, unsubstantiated speculations from far left "news" sources like ABC, but MY evidence comes from the journals, Science, and Nature, and are equally peer-reviewed...hence my assertion that there is no consensus, which you unintentionally helped prove.

:doh

Maybe YOU don't remember watching these fictional liberal "consensus" mongers get proved wrong about PCBs, alar, Nutra-sweet, DDTs, breast implants, genetically modified foods, cyclamates, and all the other moronic farces they've hysterically shoved down our throats, but those of us who pay attention to history have learned to think for ourselves no matter how much of a "consensus" liberals tell us there is.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Points like this about what the climate is doing in no way addresses my assertions about other causes than human activity.

Nice try.

And you can try to get people to buy this subjective, unsubstantiated speculations from far left "news" sources like ABC, but MY evidence comes from the journals, Science, and Nature, and are equally peer-reviewed...hence my assertion that there is no consensus, which you unintentionally helped prove.

:doh

Maybe YOU don't remember watching these fictional liberal "consensus" mongers get proved wrong about PCBs, alar, Nutra-sweet, DDTs, breast implants, genetically modified foods, cyclamates, and all the other moronic farces they've hysterically shoved down our throats, but those of us who pay attention to history have learned to think for ourselves no matter how much of a "consensus" liberals tell us there is.

You quoted 10 and 15 year old articles. Do you not think that the science has matured a bit since then. I addressed every one of your points. When you actually take the time to learn the science behind this issue, then maybe you can actually join the scientific debate then.

Until then, its nutjob aquapub verses the National Academy of Sciences and every single major scientific society with expertise in climate in the industrialized world.

This is a scientific issue, you may think its a political issue, but its not, its simply a scientific one. So you might actually want to study the science behind it.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

1) This doesn't contradict my evidence about what scientists think CAUSES the current warming trend.

2) And my "scam" evidence stated that 31% disagreed that it was a serious problem. Thanks for confirming my point about there NOT being a consensus.

3) Again, this in no way contradicts my evidence.

4) And my evidence stated that 34% said global warming is not a serious problem. You aren't very good at math if you think this data contradicts mine.

5) 59%. Like I said, FAR FROM a consensus.

:2funny:

So first you tell me that my evidence is a scam...with zero evidence...and then you post evidence that reinforces or has nothing to do with mine?

:ws

The group you are quoting is not a scientific society. What is a "Environmental Professional" anyway? The poll included all of about 700 or so respondents. Do you not think there are more than 700 scientists with expertise in this issue out there?

 

[aquapub]

I addressed every one of your points.

Sure, for example, you addressed my point that scientists disagree about the human causes of global warming by explaining that the climate has recently become hotter.

And you responded to my 1-month old (not 10/15 year old) article on solar winds by showing me a far left "news" source disagreeing.

But you have yet to refute anything.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Sure, for example, you addressed my point that scientists disagree about the human causes of global warming by explaining that the climate has recently become hotter.

And you responded to my 1-month old (not 10/15 year old) article on solar winds by showing me a far left "news" source disagreeing.

But you have yet to refute anything.

Obviously you did not even read my post. In it I wrote the following:

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 much of our current warming is due to Greenhouse Effect Warming.

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/...ort/default.htm

How do you have warming due to solar forcing yet have a cooling stratosphere?

 

[aquapub]

1) The group you are quoting is not a scientific society.

2) What is a "Environmental Professional" anyway?

3) The poll included all of about 700 or so respondents. Do you not think there are more than 700 scientists with expertise in this issue out there?

1) Based on? This is the part where you were supposed to provide some kind of basis for saying that. Merely repeating it doesn't validate anything, Sparky.

2) The poll specifies that it is referring to environmental scientists and practitioners.

3) If you don't believe the poll results are representative, then take the wprd of the data YOU provided that confirms it.

:lol:

 

[aquapub]

AGAIN...

Maybe YOU don't remember watching these fictional liberal "consensus" mongers get proved wrong about PCBs, alar, Nutra-sweet, DDTs, breast implants, genetically modified foods, cyclamates, and all the other moronic farces they've hysterically shoved down our throats, but those of us who pay attention to history have learned to think for ourselves no matter how much of a "consensus" liberals tell us there is.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

1) Based on? This is the part where you were supposed to provide some kind of basis for saying that. Merely repeating it doesn't validate anything, Sparky.

2) The poll specifies that it is referring to environmental scientists and practitioners.

3) If you don't believe the poll results are representative, then take the wprd of the data YOU provided that confirms it.

:lol:

You don't get it, Go to the website for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, look at the member societies. It is a list of every recognized Scientific Society in the United States, this group are are refering to is not in the list. Thus, it is not a scientific society. Thus, it is meaningless in the debate on a scientific issue like this one.

Of course, if you knew the first thing about modern science, you would know that.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

AGAIN...

Maybe YOU don't remember watching these fictional liberal "consensus" mongers get proved wrong about PCBs, alar, Nutra-sweet, DDTs, breast implants, genetically modified foods, cyclamates, and all the other moronic farces they've hysterically shoved down our throats, but those of us who pay attention to history have learned to think for ourselves no matter how much of a "consensus" liberals tell us there is.

PCBs, ALAR, DDT are all horrible for you or the environment. What are you even talking about? Why don't you actually get your information on science from actually scientific journals rather than talk radio and books written by Ann Coulter.

Polychlorinated biphenyl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daminozide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DDT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again, back to the subject of the thread, how do you have a cooling stratosphere, and warming due to solar forcing?

 

[Sauwan]

The February edition of Environment and Climate News has a report about a new non-partisan study that further demonstrates liberals are full of crap about there being a consensus among experts on global warming.

They also lobby for tobacco industries.

-34% said global warming is not a serious problem.

If 34% think global warming is is not a serious problem, then 66% do think it is a serious problem. And those who don't think it's a serious problem, yet a problem none-the-less would fall under your 34% statistic. Thus, this data is meaningless to anyone who has a functional brain.

-41% disagreed that warming trends are a result of human behavior.

So you acknowledge that a fairly large majority do believe it is a result of human behavior?

-71% disagreed with the notion that Katrina had anything to do with human activity.

Who cares? Gore wanted to make it seem like the problem was an immediate threat because the public is undeniably apathetic towards issues which do not immediately pertain to them.

-33% disagreed that the U.S. government isn't doing enough.

A lot of people still think our efforts are futile because china and india don't have the capabilities/power to change their established industry without disastrous effects.

-47% disagreed with Kyoto.

On what? Everything? This is meaningless drivel. This whole article is written for those who want to disagree.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide


Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening.

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

 

[aquapub]

You don't get it, Go to the website for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, look at the member societies. It is a list of every recognized Scientific Society in the United States, this group are are refering to is not in the list. Thus, it is not a scientific society. Thus, it is meaningless in the debate on a scientific issue like this one.

Of course, if you knew the first thing about modern science, you would know that.

Actually YOU don't get it. You are so fixated on discrediting this source that you have missed the fact that YOUR evidence CONFIRMS it.

If this source is so invalid, how did it come to the same conclusions as yours? :lol:

Example...

YOUR evidence: "66 percent respond that the rate at which global warming may be occurring is a serious problem facing the planet."

MY evidence: "31% disagreed that it was a serious problem."

These statements say the same thing, oh sharp one. If I don't know anything about science, then you apparently don't either.

:ws

http://www.debatepolitics.com/environment/14682-myth-global-warming-11.html

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Actually YOU don't get it. You are so fixated on discrediting this source that you have missed the fact that YOUR evidence CONFIRMS it.

If this source is so invalid, how did it come to the same conclusions as yours? :lol:

Example...

YOUR evidence: "66 percent respond that the rate at which global warming may be occurring is a serious problem facing the planet."

MY evidence: "31% disagreed that it was a serious problem."

These statements say the same thing, oh sharp one. If I don't know anything about science, then you apparently don't either.

:ws

http://www.debatepolitics.com/environment/14682-myth-global-warming-11.html

Because I used your source, not one of mine. I simply pointed out that your lame source even disagreed with your contention. Look at the links I posted, they link to your source. :roll:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide


Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening.

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

Dr. Tim Ball is nothing but a paid hack for the Oil and Chemical industries.

Tim Ball - SourceWatch

I wonder if he got his 10,000 dollars from AEI for writing this latest spew of misinformation.

http://www.playfuls.com/news_10_11978-Scie...udy-Report.html

You would think you guys would wake up to the fact that the only people out here disputing this are the ones who are paid to do so. The fact that anyone would put any stock into these hacks over the IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences is just beyond irrational.

 

[aquapub]

On what? Everything? This is meaningless drivel. This whole article is written for those who want to disagree.

Whether or not that's true is irrelevant because Southern Democrat has already confirmed with a liberal source that those results were accurate.

 

[aquapub]

Dr. Tim Ball is nothing but a paid hack for the Oil and Chemical industries.

Do you think the oil industry paid off the other 1/3 of scientists who still disagree?

I forgot, you're a liberal, everything's a conspiracy. :roll:

 

[aquapub]

Because I used your source, not one of mine. I simply pointed out that your lame source even disagreed with your contention.

I didn't see any post of yours that showed my cut and paste quotes from my source contradicted my source. Besides, if these numbers make my source "lame" and YOUR source confirms those numbers, then YOUR source must also be "lame."

Duh.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Whether or not that's true is irrelevant because Southern Democrat has already confirmed with a liberal source that those results were accurate.

Dude you are so full of yourself that you don't even pay attention to which source I used. Read the thread again, I quoted your own source: The National Registry of Environmental Professionals to show that your own source did not agree with you.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I didn't see any post of yours that showed my cut and paste quotes from my source contradicted my source. Besides, if these numbers make my source "lame" and YOUR source confirms those numbers, then YOUR source must also be "lame."

Duh.

Once again, what is the National Registry of Environmental Professionals? What is an "Environmental Professional"? How do they define that? What is their criteria for becoming a member? For example, could a gas station worker claim to be an "Environmental Professional", pay the fee, and be a member?

Once again, you don't even understand the nature of modern science.

 

[aquapub]

Dude you are so full of yourself that you don't even pay attention to which source I used. Read the thread again, I quoted your own source: The National Registry of Environmental Professionals to show that your own source did not agree with you.

Here's what I cited from the article:

1) 34% said global warming is not a serious problem.
2) 41% disagreed that warming trends are a result of human behavior.
3) 71% disagreed with the notion that Katrina had anything to do with human activity.
4) 33% disagreed that the U.S. government isn't doing enough.
5) 47% disagreed with Kyoto."

Here are DIRECT QUOTES from the source you are saying disagrees with me:

1) 67 percent report they think the U.S. Government is NOT doing enough to address the effects of global warming (That matches what I said).

2) 59 percent respond that current climactic activity exceeding norms calibrated by over 100 years of weather data collection can be, in large part, attributed to human activity (That matches what I said).

3) 71 percent of environmental professionals, however, do consider the recent increase in hurricane activity in the Atlantic through 2005 and the Pacific through 2006, to be part of a larger natural cycle and not, for the most part, attributable to human activity (That matches what I said).

4) 67 percent report they think the U.S. Government is NOT doing enough to address the effects of global warming (That matches what I said).

5) 53 percent of professionals polled consider international agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol, provide a solid framework from which large volume energy producing countries like the U.S. can play a positive role in combating the effects of global climate change (That matches what I said).

http://www.nrep.org/globsurv.htm

So no, this source I provided DOESN'T contradict anything I've said, and portraying it as some conservative fraud, DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT IS ADVOCATING IN FAVOR OF THE LIBERAL POSITION, merely reinforces my contention about liberals and literacy. Although now I am considering expanding the mental deficiency liberals are known for to include mathematics.

:lol: