97% of Scientists agree..........Al Gore knows what he is talking about

What's the acceptance rate of other scientific bodies? (For example the AMJ accepts only 6-8% of all the material submitted to it and JAMA is 8%. ) That number is meaningless standing alone. You could argue that papers aren't accepted based on their conclusions but I suspect it has more to do with how those conclusions are reached.

AMJ and JAMA don't have political agendas...IPCC does.

Anyone who can still deny that just isn't living in reality.

Medical journals do not have political agendas?
Dude, respectfully, you need to think real hard on that one and get back to us.
American health care is the fastest growing part of the economy for the last 50 years and you claim they are not politically motivated.
Much more than the IPCC.
They don't have a political agenda that stands to reach into each and every pocket on the face of the Earth, and control who gets to produce how much of what for whom, as does the IPCC, if not the UN itself.

There, you happy now?
 
AMJ and JAMA don't have political agendas...IPCC does.

Anyone who can still deny that just isn't living in reality.

Medical journals do not have political agendas?
Dude, respectfully, you need to think real hard on that one and get back to us.
American health care is the fastest growing part of the economy for the last 50 years and you claim they are not politically motivated.
Much more than the IPCC.
They don't have a political agenda that stands to reach into each and every pocket on the face of the Earth, and control who gets to produce how much of what for whom, as does the IPCC, if not the UN itself.

There, you happy now?

No.

Politicians have a political agenda.

Nations have a political agenda.

If the "pro-global-warming" crowd has any agenda - it is probably a very real fear that climate change may cause serious problems down the line and it needs to be addressed now.

Don't blame them for the actions and rhetoric of politicians.

My personal feelings - based on evidence, are that climate change is a reality, and that while it may not be wholly caused by humane activities, it is strongly influenced by it.

So what to do?

That's where the politics comes in. Denying it doesn't change the reality that is is very likely occuring and very likely -based on evidence - influenced by human activities? Why waste time on denying it? Isn't it better to prepare for it and try to carve out solutions that are at least somewhat beneficial to us as oppposed to the head-in-the-sand gambit being expoused by the skeptics?
 
Medical journals do not have political agendas?
Dude, respectfully, you need to think real hard on that one and get back to us.
American health care is the fastest growing part of the economy for the last 50 years and you claim they are not politically motivated.
Much more than the IPCC.
They don't have a political agenda that stands to reach into each and every pocket on the face of the Earth, and control who gets to produce how much of what for whom, as does the IPCC, if not the UN itself.

There, you happy now?

No.

Politicians have a political agenda.

Nations have a political agenda.

If the "pro-global-warming" crowd has any agenda - it is probably a very real fear that climate change may cause serious problems down the line and it needs to be addressed now.

Don't blame them for the actions and rhetoric of politicians.

My personal feelings - based on evidence, are that climate change is a reality, and that while it may not be wholly caused by humane activities, it is strongly influenced by it.

So what to do?

That's where the politics comes in. Denying it doesn't change the reality that is is very likely occuring and very likely -based on evidence - influenced by human activities? Why waste time on denying it? Isn't it better to prepare for it and try to carve out solutions that are at least somewhat beneficial to us as oppposed to the head-in-the-sand gambit being expoused by the skeptics?

Plan A for the conservatives is to deny global warming exists

Plan B is to admit it exists but deny that humans have anything to do with it

Plan C is to admit humans caused global warming but claim it is too late to do anything about it.

In any case, nothing gets done
 
They don't have a political agenda that stands to reach into each and every pocket on the face of the Earth, and control who gets to produce how much of what for whom, as does the IPCC, if not the UN itself.

There, you happy now?

No.

Politicians have a political agenda.

Nations have a political agenda.

If the "pro-global-warming" crowd has any agenda - it is probably a very real fear that climate change may cause serious problems down the line and it needs to be addressed now.

Don't blame them for the actions and rhetoric of politicians.

My personal feelings - based on evidence, are that climate change is a reality, and that while it may not be wholly caused by humane activities, it is strongly influenced by it.

So what to do?

That's where the politics comes in. Denying it doesn't change the reality that is is very likely occuring and very likely -based on evidence - influenced by human activities? Why waste time on denying it? Isn't it better to prepare for it and try to carve out solutions that are at least somewhat beneficial to us as oppposed to the head-in-the-sand gambit being expoused by the skeptics?

Plan A for the conservatives is to deny global warming exists

Plan B is to admit it exists but deny that humans have anything to do with it

Plan C is to admit humans caused global warming but claim it is too late to do anything about it.

In any case, nothing gets done



So........what? We put a windmill in everybodys back yard? Drive an electric car that goes for 40 miles and then take out the bike for the rest of the trip to work?? But 14 chords of wood to heat our homes for the winter?


The fcukking k00ks............whats always absent from their sh!t is the discussion of the reality that even if we were to embrace GW hook line and stinker, we are decades from having the technology to be doing ANYTHING about it. Anybody with half a brain knows that there are huge winners attached to this hoax. Every single one of them knows that their conventional solutions are a bunch of expensive as hell BS.


Curious people should take a read here............about how much of a total sham wind and solar power is. Its a fcukking joke.................http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/11311/Dont_Get_Burned_by_Solar_Power.html
 
Last edited:
They don't have a political agenda that stands to reach into each and every pocket on the face of the Earth, and control who gets to produce how much of what for whom, as does the IPCC, if not the UN itself.

There, you happy now?

No.

Politicians have a political agenda.

Nations have a political agenda.

If the "pro-global-warming" crowd has any agenda - it is probably a very real fear that climate change may cause serious problems down the line and it needs to be addressed now.

Don't blame them for the actions and rhetoric of politicians.

My personal feelings - based on evidence, are that climate change is a reality, and that while it may not be wholly caused by humane activities, it is strongly influenced by it.

So what to do?

That's where the politics comes in. Denying it doesn't change the reality that is is very likely occuring and very likely -based on evidence - influenced by human activities? Why waste time on denying it? Isn't it better to prepare for it and try to carve out solutions that are at least somewhat beneficial to us as oppposed to the head-in-the-sand gambit being expoused by the skeptics?

Plan A for the conservatives is to deny global warming exists

Plan B is to admit it exists but deny that humans have anything to do with it

Plan C is to admit humans caused global warming but claim it is too late to do anything about it.

In any case, nothing gets done

Succinct and accurate:eusa_shhh:
 
so... no one wants to address the rest of the story here. I still see a lot of temp reading without anyone addressing what I posted a page ago?
 
I am getting nowhere in another thread so I will repost here:

I have some general problems with GW theory. Everyone here keeps throwing up numbers and temperatures and forgets to realize that they are skirting the larger issue. Over all the information that I have been able to look up covering GW, I have to say that I believe the earth IS warming. That seems quite verifiable through the evidence despite the personal attacks and some cooked data. The thing is that is where everyone rests the debate at and yet that is only HALF of the theory. There IS a general consensus that the earth is warming, there is ABSOLUTELY NO consensus on the actual cause and effect of that warming. That is what I am interested in and that is where the proponents on GW fail to convince me. When I first signed up on this board I did not believe that the earth was warming, hadn't seen any real evidence to prove it but I have to admit that there has been a very good case for a warming earth so I will give the people here the benefit of the doubt. Now, instead of screaming where are the numbers, show us how the increase in carbon has unequivocally caused the growth in warming the earth.

A big part of the problem is that the atmosphere is NOT warming. From all the evidence I have seen it looks as though it is the OCEAN that is actually warming and that ties into the second problem that GW runs into. What is the impact of warming? Truth be told, a warmer earth would be BETTER for life. Cold is not conducive to life in general and the many of the warmest places on earth are the most abundant in life. Granted, the Sahara is very warm and not exactly the garden of Eden but that is not due to the heat but the rainfall. A warmer earth would actually INCREASE rainfall and available water. The doom and gloom segment of GW has little evidence outside of conjecture and computer models that were built by scientist that need bad results to gain funds. I do not prescribe to a conspiracy and generally believe conspiracies are bullshit but there are very real instances where people WANT to believe that the world is in danger and we need to fix it. There are a TON of parallels with GW theory and the Ozone scare. The same case was presented, there WAS a hole in the Ozone - the earth is warming. CFC demonstrably depleted Ozone - Carbon IS a greenhouse gas. There was absolutely no theory on HOW CFC reached the ozone or if they were depleting it - I have yet to see any conclusive facts that tie carbon into the rise of temperatures OR predictable outcomes from GW. GW theory simply makes that jump all on its own just as the ozone alarmists did in yesteryear. There are MANY things that global temperatures are caused by with the LARGEST factor being the sun, by magnitudes.


The sad part about all this is that the grater debate is totally missed with those not being GW's written off because people are so stuck in their conclusions and GW's written off as alarmists for the same. If there is a real threat I damn well want to know it. From what I have seen in the data the only provable threat is the rise in PH levels in the ocean that could cause REAL damage. However, most estimates put that off for 75 years, hardly an emergency and there is still a lack of proof that carbon is the problem. We need REAL science and what we are getting is political infighting.

The Warmers long for the days when everything north of the Ohio River was under 600 feet of ice.
 
FA_Q2, we are riders on planet Earth. If you figure out how to stop wild fires, earthquakes, volcanoes, and weather let me know. Until then, the best we can do is figure the best use for everything there is here. In some cases that might be preserving land for endangered species. In other cases it might be drilling for oil in Alaska.
 
AMJ and JAMA don't have political agendas...IPCC does.

Anyone who can still deny that just isn't living in reality.

Medical journals do not have political agendas?
Dude, respectfully, you need to think real hard on that one and get back to us.
American health care is the fastest growing part of the economy for the last 50 years and you claim they are not politically motivated.
Much more than the IPCC.
They don't have a political agenda that stands to reach into each and every pocket on the face of the Earth, and control who gets to produce how much of what for whom, as does the IPCC, if not the UN itself.

There, you happy now?

I am always happy Dude.
Your claims above are withour fact or foundation. When claiming a vast world wide conspiracy opinion falls short of reality.
 
They are well founded.

The UN is a blatantly corrupt organization and the IPCC fruit hasn't fallen far from the tree.

Exclusivist elite echo chambers aren't conspiracies, per se...They're business as usual.
mmmmm food for oil truthiness and integrity.......

God love that Koji Annan.
 
Al Gore is
incontinenttoolcopywh0.jpg


He's playing simple-minded lefties for suckers. The goal is not to "save the planet!!"...it's about government control over individual lives. And the Goracle getting richer.

You idiots are playing right into it. Suckers!! :lol:
 
I am getting nowhere in another thread so I will repost here:

I have some general problems with GW theory. Everyone here keeps throwing up numbers and temperatures and forgets to realize that they are skirting the larger issue. Over all the information that I have been able to look up covering GW, I have to say that I believe the earth IS warming. That seems quite verifiable through the evidence despite the personal attacks and some cooked data. The thing is that is where everyone rests the debate at and yet that is only HALF of the theory. There IS a general consensus that the earth is warming, there is ABSOLUTELY NO consensus on the actual cause and effect of that warming. That is what I am interested in and that is where the proponents on GW fail to convince me. When I first signed up on this board I did not believe that the earth was warming, hadn't seen any real evidence to prove it but I have to admit that there has been a very good case for a warming earth so I will give the people here the benefit of the doubt. Now, instead of screaming where are the numbers, show us how the increase in carbon has unequivocally caused the growth in warming the earth.

A big part of the problem is that the atmosphere is NOT warming. From all the evidence I have seen it looks as though it is the OCEAN that is actually warming and that ties into the second problem that GW runs into. What is the impact of warming? Truth be told, a warmer earth would be BETTER for life. Cold is not conducive to life in general and the many of the warmest places on earth are the most abundant in life. Granted, the Sahara is very warm and not exactly the garden of Eden but that is not due to the heat but the rainfall. A warmer earth would actually INCREASE rainfall and available water. The doom and gloom segment of GW has little evidence outside of conjecture and computer models that were built by scientist that need bad results to gain funds. I do not prescribe to a conspiracy and generally believe conspiracies are bullshit but there are very real instances where people WANT to believe that the world is in danger and we need to fix it. There are a TON of parallels with GW theory and the Ozone scare. The same case was presented, there WAS a hole in the Ozone - the earth is warming. CFC demonstrably depleted Ozone - Carbon IS a greenhouse gas. There was absolutely no theory on HOW CFC reached the ozone or if they were depleting it - I have yet to see any conclusive facts that tie carbon into the rise of temperatures OR predictable outcomes from GW. GW theory simply makes that jump all on its own just as the ozone alarmists did in yesteryear. There are MANY things that global temperatures are caused by with the LARGEST factor being the sun, by magnitudes.


The sad part about all this is that the grater debate is totally missed with those not being GW's written off because people are so stuck in their conclusions and GW's written off as alarmists for the same. If there is a real threat I damn well want to know it. From what I have seen in the data the only provable threat is the rise in PH levels in the ocean that could cause REAL damage. However, most estimates put that off for 75 years, hardly an emergency and there is still a lack of proof that carbon is the problem. We need REAL science and what we are getting is political infighting.
Bumpdiggity for some answers.
 
I am getting nowhere in another thread so I will repost here:

I have some general problems with GW theory. Everyone here keeps throwing up numbers and temperatures and forgets to realize that they are skirting the larger issue. Over all the information that I have been able to look up covering GW, I have to say that I believe the earth IS warming. That seems quite verifiable through the evidence despite the personal attacks and some cooked data. The thing is that is where everyone rests the debate at and yet that is only HALF of the theory. There IS a general consensus that the earth is warming, there is ABSOLUTELY NO consensus on the actual cause and effect of that warming.

I would not say that. There is a general consensus that human activities play a role in it - thus far majority of the scientists in the effected disciplines agree. What they don't agree on is how much of an affect or whether it's reversable.

That is what I am interested in and that is where the proponents on GW fail to convince me. When I first signed up on this board I did not believe that the earth was warming, hadn't seen any real evidence to prove it but I have to admit that there has been a very good case for a warming earth so I will give the people here the benefit of the doubt. Now, instead of screaming where are the numbers, show us how the increase in carbon has unequivocally caused the growth in warming the earth.

A big part of the problem is that the atmosphere is NOT warming. From all the evidence I have seen it looks as though it is the OCEAN that is actually warming and that ties into the second problem that GW runs into. What is the impact of warming? Truth be told, a warmer earth would be BETTER for life. Cold is not conducive to life in general and the many of the warmest places on earth are the most abundant in life. Granted, the Sahara is very warm and not exactly the garden of Eden but that is not due to the heat but the rainfall. A warmer earth would actually INCREASE rainfall and available water. The doom and gloom segment of GW has little evidence outside of conjecture and computer models that were built by scientist that need bad results to gain funds. I do not prescribe to a conspiracy and generally believe conspiracies are bullshit but there are very real instances where people WANT to believe that the world is in danger and we need to fix it. There are a TON of parallels with GW theory and the Ozone scare. The same case was presented, there WAS a hole in the Ozone - the earth is warming. CFC demonstrably depleted Ozone - Carbon IS a greenhouse gas. There was absolutely no theory on HOW CFC reached the ozone or if they were depleting it - I have yet to see any conclusive facts that tie carbon into the rise of temperatures OR predictable outcomes from GW. GW theory simply makes that jump all on its own just as the ozone alarmists did in yesteryear. There are MANY things that global temperatures are caused by with the LARGEST factor being the sun, by magnitudes.

A warmer earth is not necessarily better becuase the effects are not that simple.

For example - changes in ocean temperatures or an influx of fresh water from melting sea ice, can cause changes in currents that moderate climate in many parts of the world. Britain is at the same latitude as the southern portion of Alaska, but it's climate is far milder due to the effects of the Gulf Stream.

Other changes could include more violent weather patterns, flooding, hurricanes. In addition while a warmer climate could produce more lush growth, it could also produce changes in the spread of diseases (and vectors) and pests. The tropical areas have some of the worst diseases and parasites. On the positive side - the warming of cold areas (parts of Russia) could increase agricultural potential, but at the cost of ways of life in other parts of the world.

The problem is - it's not definitive, and it really can't be due to the scope of the problem, the global issues, politics and difficulties in predicting.

The sad part about all this is that the grater debate is totally missed with those not being GW's written off because people are so stuck in their conclusions and GW's written off as alarmists for the same. If there is a real threat I damn well want to know it. From what I have seen in the data the only provable threat is the rise in PH levels in the ocean that could cause REAL damage. However, most estimates put that off for 75 years, hardly an emergency and there is still a lack of proof that carbon is the problem. We need REAL science and what we are getting is political infighting.
Bumpdiggity for some answers.

I think there is a lot of real science out there, but the politics are shrouding it.

Good post by the way - I missed it where it originally was :)
 
I am getting nowhere in another thread so I will repost here:

I have some general problems with GW theory. Everyone here keeps throwing up numbers and temperatures and forgets to realize that they are skirting the larger issue. Over all the information that I have been able to look up covering GW, I have to say that I believe the earth IS warming. That seems quite verifiable through the evidence despite the personal attacks and some cooked data. The thing is that is where everyone rests the debate at and yet that is only HALF of the theory. There IS a general consensus that the earth is warming, there is ABSOLUTELY NO consensus on the actual cause and effect of that warming. That is what I am interested in and that is where the proponents on GW fail to convince me. When I first signed up on this board I did not believe that the earth was warming, hadn't seen any real evidence to prove it but I have to admit that there has been a very good case for a warming earth so I will give the people here the benefit of the doubt. Now, instead of screaming where are the numbers, show us how the increase in carbon has unequivocally caused the growth in warming the earth.

A big part of the problem is that the atmosphere is NOT warming. From all the evidence I have seen it looks as though it is the OCEAN that is actually warming and that ties into the second problem that GW runs into. What is the impact of warming? Truth be told, a warmer earth would be BETTER for life. Cold is not conducive to life in general and the many of the warmest places on earth are the most abundant in life. Granted, the Sahara is very warm and not exactly the garden of Eden but that is not due to the heat but the rainfall. A warmer earth would actually INCREASE rainfall and available water. The doom and gloom segment of GW has little evidence outside of conjecture and computer models that were built by scientist that need bad results to gain funds. I do not prescribe to a conspiracy and generally believe conspiracies are bullshit but there are very real instances where people WANT to believe that the world is in danger and we need to fix it. There are a TON of parallels with GW theory and the Ozone scare. The same case was presented, there WAS a hole in the Ozone - the earth is warming. CFC demonstrably depleted Ozone - Carbon IS a greenhouse gas. There was absolutely no theory on HOW CFC reached the ozone or if they were depleting it - I have yet to see any conclusive facts that tie carbon into the rise of temperatures OR predictable outcomes from GW. GW theory simply makes that jump all on its own just as the ozone alarmists did in yesteryear. There are MANY things that global temperatures are caused by with the LARGEST factor being the sun, by magnitudes.


The sad part about all this is that the grater debate is totally missed with those not being GW's written off because people are so stuck in their conclusions and GW's written off as alarmists for the same. If there is a real threat I damn well want to know it. From what I have seen in the data the only provable threat is the rise in PH levels in the ocean that could cause REAL damage. However, most estimates put that off for 75 years, hardly an emergency and there is still a lack of proof that carbon is the problem. We need REAL science and what we are getting is political infighting.
Bumpdiggity for some answers.
Why am I not surprised Dupe is too stupid to see how wrong the post he bumps is???

The data shows the Troposphere is WARMING in spite of all attempts by deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH to cook the data by using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift.

Everything else in the bumpped post is as accurate as the atmosphere claim.

UAH and RSS are atmospheric measurements of the Troposphere in the chart below.

800px-Satellite_Temperatures.png
 

Forum List

Back
Top