Green New Deal

[Flopper]

As has been said many times it is not an exact science. While the world's scientific community may argue over how many degrees and how fast, the vast majority do agree the planet is warming and humans are a major cause. The disagreement between scientists over how much and when creates just enough doubt for people to say maybe we should wait until we know for sure.

I heard someone say once, suppose all the scientists got it wrong and we eliminated most fossil fuel usage, would the world be a better place?

Please show us the percentage of CO2, going into our atmosphere is caused by man.

No, if we eliminated "most fossil fuel usage" the world would NOT be a better place. We could not compete with the rest of the world and we would be taken, one way or another by China. See the disaster happening in Germany.

Need I go further?

You are focusing on what is best for America and other oil rich nations. What is best for America is not necessary best for the whole world.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"They claim?”

You mean science shows.

where?

Goggle it. You won’t find it on Breitbart or Fox gnus.

dude, there is an entire forum for your stupid claim in here that has debunked every aspect of your nonsense. why don't you instead, go spend some time there. I have no need to go to the internet and do your job for you. you prove it. I know you can't and won't. there you go!

Well ..... you might have known global warming is real if you’d watch something other than FOX AND IDIOT FRIENDS AND FREAKS OF THE ROUND TABLE.

Instead of going out of your way to remain stupid, try to make room in your Rush/Hannity soted brain and read some of the peer reviewed papers written on the subject.

And don’t worry, science isn’t black magic and God won’t smote you for raising your I.Q.

Though Rush and Hannity might look at you cross eyed with a frown.

anytime someone on the left is getting their ass handed to them they run to FOX NEW LOL and cement the loss on their part.

It's their default mode.

Limbaugh
Fox
Hannity
Coulter

Racism
Homophobia

When they do find themselves in a corner, they just blurt out any of the above. It saves them time from learning anything, trying to disprove anything, or even helping them get out of a debate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Future generations? You know....I always think about that. In about 100 years or so from now, I see a classroom of children. The teacher explains to them that 100 years ago, man thought he could actually control the climate, and the children breakout in laughter like we did when our teachers told us that one time, man thought the earth was flat, and if we walk too far, we simply fall off.

These predictions you speak of didn't start last week. Man has been making predictions about our weather (climate) for decades, and they've mostly been wrong. The reason is we simply don't know enough about it yet. Every GW product you leftist point to came from this earth. We didn't bring them in from another planet. Does it make any sense that God would create a planet with elements that man could use to destroy it?

100 years from now, teachers will explain how a bunch of really stupid people blocked action to make their lives easier because they were too fucking stupid to believe the scientists.

Seas are rising, they are causing problems in many of our cities,

Temps are going up.

But hey, you sit on your stupid fat ass & do nothing.

Is that what you think? How about an experiment? Tonight, take a glass of water, put two or three ice cubes in that water, and mark the level. Tomorrow when the ice cubes melt, check where that water level is. It's still the same.

Sea levels may rise, and they will fall again. There is no consistency with this global warming (climate) thing. Some years we will be warmer; even up to a hundred years or so. Then it will get cooler, perhaps the same amount of time.

This planet is nearly 4.5 billion years old. To measure 1,000 years of temperatures in comparison is like measuring twenty minutes of a day to determine if it's getting warmer or not.

In natural science there is rarely any natural progression.

So in order to predict that the snow is going melt tomorrow we need a thousand years of temperature data? The projections of global climate change is not based on a single set of data. When the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has never been above 300 ppm in a half million years changes from 160ppm to 400pm, in the last 60 years that certainly is a red flag for increasing global temperatures since increases in C02 level have been correlated with average yearly atmospheric temperature rises. And then there is supporting evidence of climate change such as changes in sea level, changes in sea temperature, melting glaciers, and changes in ecosystem. I suppose we could call all this totally unrelated and just coincidental but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think one of next confirmations of global climate change is going to be extremes in weather phenomenon which seem be starting.

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

Wow. Mr Scientist Truck Driver telling climatologists how to study science.

That's who I was telling? How many climatologists are in this topic anyway?

 

[Markle]

Is that what you think? How about an experiment? Tonight, take a glass of water, put two or three ice cubes in that water, and mark the level. Tomorrow when the ice cubes melt, check where that water level is. It's still the same.

Sea levels may rise, and they will fall again. There is no consistency with this global warming (climate) thing. Some years we will be warmer; even up to a hundred years or so. Then it will get cooler, perhaps the same amount of time.

This planet is nearly 4.5 billion years old. To measure 1,000 years of temperatures in comparison is like measuring twenty minutes of a day to determine if it's getting warmer or not.

In natural science there is rarely any natural progression.

So in order to predict that the snow is going melt tomorrow we need a thousand years of temperature data? The projections of global climate change is not based on a single set of data. When the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has never been above 300 ppm in a half million years changes from 160ppm to 400pm, in the last 60 years that certainly is a red flag for increasing global temperatures since increases in C02 level have been correlated with average yearly atmospheric temperature rises. And then there is supporting evidence of climate change such as changes in sea level, changes in sea temperature, melting glaciers, and changes in ecosystem. I suppose we could call all this totally unrelated and just coincidental but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think one of next confirmations of global climate change is going to be extremes in weather phenomenon which seem be starting.

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

There are, however, likelihoods. Right now, we have no idea what the likely outcome or what the long term temperature growth will do. We have a really hard time accounting for something as simple as clout cover because the dual purpose that clouds have in GW - the both add to GW AND take away but the aggregate is not known when temps increase.

We do not know what the effects are going to be.

Assuming the current trend of rising temperatures of the planet continue, at what point do we act?

The United States, what can we do that will reverse Global Warming?

The world has a population of 7.6 BILLION PEOPLE.

The United States has a population of 330 MILLION PEOPLE. That means we (United States) make up 0.043% of the world population,

What percentage of the world population still burn either wood or animal dung to heat and cook?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How can you say somebody can predict what the weather will be like in 60 years from today when we can't even get an accurate seven day forecast in most cases?

One is weather on a particular day & the other is a trend

To believe that, you have to believe that in 1800, the average temperature in Miami Beech was 64 degrees. It was 64 degrees a hundred years earlier, a thousand years earlier, and 64 degrees ten thousand years earlier. It didn't start changing until the mid 1800's.

Now don't tell my you actually believe that.

Temps are rising much faster than normal. Donlt give that "climate always changes" bullshit.

Here is what I believe, that AHG is real. The effects are happening now, these studies done by scientist in my article give us an idea of what to expect if we do nothing. Some areas will be affected more than others.

And there are scientists that say it's all bunk, but you ignore those scientists because they do not fit your cause. Remember who pays scientists: governments.

So why would government make up these kids of things? Because government has been trying to gain more and more control over people as time moves on. To some degree, they've been fairly successful. But the two things stopping them from total control are energy and healthcare. Once government is able to totally control those two things, they will have total control over the people in this (and other) countries.

In our form of government, this can't be done unless they have the support of the people. So how do we get support of the people? Fear.

Get these people to not only hand over power, but beg you to take it from them. "Please, please government, take total control of our energy before we kill ourselves with it!" This is what they are looking for.

So what we have here is a worldwide government conspiracy to influence collected data and it's interpretation involving tens of thousands of climatologists, oceanographers, atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, and ecologists throughout the world. To that we would have to add the hundreds of pier groups who review and comment on findings and academy's of science. Since the private sector has become involve in both basic(4%) and applied research(24%), we would have to include them in this conspiracy. And governments who have lost their ability to hide their most embarrassing secrets have somehow discovered how to keep this conspiracy a secret.

Not being a great fan of conspiracy theories, I think your idea is fucking crazy.

I don't know why you think it's crazy. Look at how brainwashing has worked for the left thus far. They've been pretty successful. And as I already stated, you only want to look at those professions that agree with your position, and not those that disagree.

NASA - Top Story - NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE - March 20, 2003

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns - WND - WND

Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalist

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

I have many more and I'm sure the internet is full of others. The point is that it's not a consensus. It's debated by others in those fields and that are so often ignored.

 

[Markle]

Cash for clunkers, silly regulation on light bulbs and tax credits for a new water heater do NOTHING to help the environment yet every proposal seems to follow this line of thought. Those are power grabs, not sound environmental investment. The falling sky attitude is not helping either.

Cash for Clunkers was a great benefit to the wealthy and punished the middle lower income households. Shameful!

I have an old car for most errands and running around. It has about 147,000 miles. I was given the car when it had 47,000. Recently someone pulled out in front of me and we had a minor fender bender. No injuries, no serious damage just a broken headlight, bent bumper. No big deal. Or so I thought, it has proven impossible to find those parts at anywhere near a reasonable price. Why? That year and model were among those that fit the parameters to be destroyed, crushed and sent on their way.

 

[Flopper]

100 years from now, teachers will explain how a bunch of really stupid people blocked action to make their lives easier because they were too fucking stupid to believe the scientists.

Seas are rising, they are causing problems in many of our cities,

Temps are going up.

But hey, you sit on your stupid fat ass & do nothing.

Is that what you think? How about an experiment? Tonight, take a glass of water, put two or three ice cubes in that water, and mark the level. Tomorrow when the ice cubes melt, check where that water level is. It's still the same.

Sea levels may rise, and they will fall again. There is no consistency with this global warming (climate) thing. Some years we will be warmer; even up to a hundred years or so. Then it will get cooler, perhaps the same amount of time.

This planet is nearly 4.5 billion years old. To measure 1,000 years of temperatures in comparison is like measuring twenty minutes of a day to determine if it's getting warmer or not.

In natural science there is rarely any natural progression.

So in order to predict that the snow is going melt tomorrow we need a thousand years of temperature data? The projections of global climate change is not based on a single set of data. When the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has never been above 300 ppm in a half million years changes from 160ppm to 400pm, in the last 60 years that certainly is a red flag for increasing global temperatures since increases in C02 level have been correlated with average yearly atmospheric temperature rises. And then there is supporting evidence of climate change such as changes in sea level, changes in sea temperature, melting glaciers, and changes in ecosystem. I suppose we could call all this totally unrelated and just coincidental but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think one of next confirmations of global climate change is going to be extremes in weather phenomenon which seem be starting.

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

So the answer is to throw trillions of dollars into something that will likely not change anything. Sorry, but I think we could use those trillions for better things.

No, I think at this point the money should be going to research as FA_Q2 suggested. The problem is bigger than just limiting greenhouse gas production. Once excessive amounts are in the air, how do we get them out? Also, there are a lot of unanswered questions about climate change.

It seems pretty clear that there is not going to be any global plan to reduce greenhouse gas production. It's going take a lot more than scientists warnings of increases in CO2 or small increases in global atmospheric temperature. People are going to have to experience first hand the results of climate change. Maybe by then there will be technological developments that can help. If not we just adapt.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What percentage of the world population still burn either wood or animal dung to heat and cook?

Obama's administration already addressed that.

EPA to give grants to fight cooking stove pollution

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Is that what you think? How about an experiment? Tonight, take a glass of water, put two or three ice cubes in that water, and mark the level. Tomorrow when the ice cubes melt, check where that water level is. It's still the same.

Sea levels may rise, and they will fall again. There is no consistency with this global warming (climate) thing. Some years we will be warmer; even up to a hundred years or so. Then it will get cooler, perhaps the same amount of time.

This planet is nearly 4.5 billion years old. To measure 1,000 years of temperatures in comparison is like measuring twenty minutes of a day to determine if it's getting warmer or not.

In natural science there is rarely any natural progression.

So in order to predict that the snow is going melt tomorrow we need a thousand years of temperature data? The projections of global climate change is not based on a single set of data. When the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has never been above 300 ppm in a half million years changes from 160ppm to 400pm, in the last 60 years that certainly is a red flag for increasing global temperatures since increases in C02 level have been correlated with average yearly atmospheric temperature rises. And then there is supporting evidence of climate change such as changes in sea level, changes in sea temperature, melting glaciers, and changes in ecosystem. I suppose we could call all this totally unrelated and just coincidental but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think one of next confirmations of global climate change is going to be extremes in weather phenomenon which seem be starting.

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

So the answer is to throw trillions of dollars into something that will likely not change anything. Sorry, but I think we could use those trillions for better things.

No, I think at this point the money should be going to research as FA_Q2 suggested. The problem is bigger than just limiting greenhouse gas production. Once excessive amounts are in the air, how do we get them out? Also, there are lot of answered questions about climate change.

It seems pretty clear that there is not going to be any global plan to reduce greenhouse gas production. It's going take a lot more than scientists warnings of increases in CO2 or small increases in global atmospheric temperature. People are going to have to experience first hand the results of climate change. Maybe by then there will be technological developments that can help. If not we just adapt.

Eventually we will use cleaner products for energy. I really can't see people going to a gas station in about 100 years from now. But it has to come at it's own time--not be forced on us through taxation or subsidies. If we are going to change, it has to be a benefit that people can immediately see, not something we can't or prove.

Look......we're both older people. We remember way back when this all started. Back then, it was global cooling that was the headline in the news. But since then, look at how much we've done. We have much cleaner burning gasoline, cars that get two to four times the milage they used to get, we got rid of fluorocarbons in our spray cans, lead out of our gasoline and paint, new anti-freeze for our cars, eliminated DDT, use of biodegradable packaging (McDonald's), elimination of asbestos, low sulfur diesel fuel, and the list goes on and on.

So what have our rewards been for these efforts? Things are worse now than ever before according to environmentalists in spite of the huge reduction of our carbon footprint.

2% OF G.N.P. SPENT BY U.S. ON CLEANUP

Obama Energy Czar: Fracking Is Good For The Environment

 

[Markle]

You are focusing on what is best for America and other oil rich nations. What is best for America is not necessary best for the whole world

Left to you and the United Nations, the United States would become an also-ran and the world would descend into chaos. Talk about a flawed plan!

 

[iceberg]

where?

Goggle it. You won’t find it on Breitbart or Fox gnus.

dude, there is an entire forum for your stupid claim in here that has debunked every aspect of your nonsense. why don't you instead, go spend some time there. I have no need to go to the internet and do your job for you. you prove it. I know you can't and won't. there you go!

Well ..... you might have known global warming is real if you’d watch something other than FOX AND IDIOT FRIENDS AND FREAKS OF THE ROUND TABLE.

Instead of going out of your way to remain stupid, try to make room in your Rush/Hannity soted brain and read some of the peer reviewed papers written on the subject.

And don’t worry, science isn’t black magic and God won’t smote you for raising your I.Q.

Though Rush and Hannity might look at you cross eyed with a frown.

anytime someone on the left is getting their ass handed to them they run to FOX NEW LOL and cement the loss on their part.

It's their default mode.

Limbaugh
Fox
Hannity
Coulter

Racism
Homophobia

When they do find themselves in a corner, they just blurt out any of the above. It saves them time from learning anything, trying to disprove anything, or even helping them get out of a debate.

then whine words have lost their meaning.

i think they are more upset that means its lost impact.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Goggle it. You won’t find it on Breitbart or Fox gnus.

dude, there is an entire forum for your stupid claim in here that has debunked every aspect of your nonsense. why don't you instead, go spend some time there. I have no need to go to the internet and do your job for you. you prove it. I know you can't and won't. there you go!

Well ..... you might have known global warming is real if you’d watch something other than FOX AND IDIOT FRIENDS AND FREAKS OF THE ROUND TABLE.

Instead of going out of your way to remain stupid, try to make room in your Rush/Hannity soted brain and read some of the peer reviewed papers written on the subject.

And don’t worry, science isn’t black magic and God won’t smote you for raising your I.Q.

Though Rush and Hannity might look at you cross eyed with a frown.

anytime someone on the left is getting their ass handed to them they run to FOX NEW LOL and cement the loss on their part.

It's their default mode.

Limbaugh
Fox
Hannity
Coulter

Racism
Homophobia

When they do find themselves in a corner, they just blurt out any of the above. It saves them time from learning anything, trying to disprove anything, or even helping them get out of a debate.

then whine words have lost their meaning.

i think they are more upset that means its lost impact.

Not too sure about that. They still use them repeatedly. I think they really don't know. When they lose elections, just blame it on the Republicans for cheating and not their worn out strategies. It's like the Boy who Cried Wolf.

 

[Flopper]

One is weather on a particular day & the other is a trend

To believe that, you have to believe that in 1800, the average temperature in Miami Beech was 64 degrees. It was 64 degrees a hundred years earlier, a thousand years earlier, and 64 degrees ten thousand years earlier. It didn't start changing until the mid 1800's.

Now don't tell my you actually believe that.

Temps are rising much faster than normal. Donlt give that "climate always changes" bullshit.

Here is what I believe, that AHG is real. The effects are happening now, these studies done by scientist in my article give us an idea of what to expect if we do nothing. Some areas will be affected more than others.

And there are scientists that say it's all bunk, but you ignore those scientists because they do not fit your cause. Remember who pays scientists: governments.

So why would government make up these kids of things? Because government has been trying to gain more and more control over people as time moves on. To some degree, they've been fairly successful. But the two things stopping them from total control are energy and healthcare. Once government is able to totally control those two things, they will have total control over the people in this (and other) countries.

In our form of government, this can't be done unless they have the support of the people. So how do we get support of the people? Fear.

Get these people to not only hand over power, but beg you to take it from them. "Please, please government, take total control of our energy before we kill ourselves with it!" This is what they are looking for.

So what we have here is a worldwide government conspiracy to influence collected data and it's interpretation involving tens of thousands of climatologists, oceanographers, atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, and ecologists throughout the world. To that we would have to add the hundreds of pier groups who review and comment on findings and academy's of science. Since the private sector has become involve in both basic(4%) and applied research(24%), we would have to include them in this conspiracy. And governments who have lost their ability to hide their most embarrassing secrets have somehow discovered how to keep this conspiracy a secret.

Not being a great fan of conspiracy theories, I think your idea is fucking crazy.

I don't know why you think it's crazy. Look at how brainwashing has worked for the left thus far. They've been pretty successful. And as I already stated, you only want to look at those professions that agree with your position, and not those that disagree.

NASA - Top Story - NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE - March 20, 2003

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns - WND - WND

Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalist

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

I have many more and I'm sure the internet is full of others. The point is that it's not a consensus. It's debated by others in those fields and that are so often ignored.

I don't know if there is consensus among writers of articles you read on the internet but there is no doubt there is scientific consensus among the top scientist in the world that climate is changing and man is responsible.

In science it is natural and expected that scientific theories will be questioned and alternatives theories offered and so it is with the Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change. There have been other alternative theories and hypothesis but none have stood up to peer scrutiny as the Greenhouse Theory has. And no it is not just consensus of government agencies.

The following are all non-goverment organization funded by members, universities, private businesses, and foundations, not the government. All are in agreement with the Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change and that humanity is a primary cause.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America

In addition there are approximate 58 international Academies of Science including the National Academy of Science which are funded by members, foundations, and governments. They represent over 25,000 of the top scientist in the world, selected based on merit and achievements. Every single one of these organizations accepts as fact that the earth is in a state major climate change. 56 of these organizations state that humanity is the major cause.

This is scientific consensus

BTW Do you realize you have links to articles that are 10 to 15 years old?

 

[Thinker101]

To believe that, you have to believe that in 1800, the average temperature in Miami Beech was 64 degrees. It was 64 degrees a hundred years earlier, a thousand years earlier, and 64 degrees ten thousand years earlier. It didn't start changing until the mid 1800's.

Now don't tell my you actually believe that.

Temps are rising much faster than normal. Donlt give that "climate always changes" bullshit.

Here is what I believe, that AHG is real. The effects are happening now, these studies done by scientist in my article give us an idea of what to expect if we do nothing. Some areas will be affected more than others.

And there are scientists that say it's all bunk, but you ignore those scientists because they do not fit your cause. Remember who pays scientists: governments.

So why would government make up these kids of things? Because government has been trying to gain more and more control over people as time moves on. To some degree, they've been fairly successful. But the two things stopping them from total control are energy and healthcare. Once government is able to totally control those two things, they will have total control over the people in this (and other) countries.

In our form of government, this can't be done unless they have the support of the people. So how do we get support of the people? Fear.

Get these people to not only hand over power, but beg you to take it from them. "Please, please government, take total control of our energy before we kill ourselves with it!" This is what they are looking for.

So what we have here is a worldwide government conspiracy to influence collected data and it's interpretation involving tens of thousands of climatologists, oceanographers, atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, and ecologists throughout the world. To that we would have to add the hundreds of pier groups who review and comment on findings and academy's of science. Since the private sector has become involve in both basic(4%) and applied research(24%), we would have to include them in this conspiracy. And governments who have lost their ability to hide their most embarrassing secrets have somehow discovered how to keep this conspiracy a secret.

Not being a great fan of conspiracy theories, I think your idea is fucking crazy.

I don't know why you think it's crazy. Look at how brainwashing has worked for the left thus far. They've been pretty successful. And as I already stated, you only want to look at those professions that agree with your position, and not those that disagree.

NASA - Top Story - NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE - March 20, 2003

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns - WND - WND

Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalist

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

I have many more and I'm sure the internet is full of others. The point is that it's not a consensus. It's debated by others in those fields and that are so often ignored.

I don't know if there is consensus among writers of articles you read on the internet but there is no doubt there is scientific consensus among the top scientist in the world that climate is changing and man is responsible.

In science it is natural and expected that scientific theories will be questioned and alternatives theories offered and so it is with the Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change. There have been other alternative theories and hypothesis but none have stood up to peer scrutiny as the Greenhouse Theory has. And no it is not just consensus of government agencies.

The following are all non-goverment organization funded by members, universities, private businesses, and foundations, not the government. All are in agreement with the Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change and that humanity is a primary cause.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America

In addition there are approximate 58 international Academies of Science including the National Academy of Science which are funded by members, foundations, and governments. They represent over 25,000 of the top scientist in the world, selected based on merit and achievements. Every single one of these organizations accepts as fact that the earth is in a state major climate change. 56 of these organizations state that humanity is the major cause.

This is scientific consensus

Oops..
Do 97% of Scientists Really Believe in Global Warming?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

To believe that, you have to believe that in 1800, the average temperature in Miami Beech was 64 degrees. It was 64 degrees a hundred years earlier, a thousand years earlier, and 64 degrees ten thousand years earlier. It didn't start changing until the mid 1800's.

Now don't tell my you actually believe that.

Temps are rising much faster than normal. Donlt give that "climate always changes" bullshit.

Here is what I believe, that AHG is real. The effects are happening now, these studies done by scientist in my article give us an idea of what to expect if we do nothing. Some areas will be affected more than others.

And there are scientists that say it's all bunk, but you ignore those scientists because they do not fit your cause. Remember who pays scientists: governments.

So why would government make up these kids of things? Because government has been trying to gain more and more control over people as time moves on. To some degree, they've been fairly successful. But the two things stopping them from total control are energy and healthcare. Once government is able to totally control those two things, they will have total control over the people in this (and other) countries.

In our form of government, this can't be done unless they have the support of the people. So how do we get support of the people? Fear.

Get these people to not only hand over power, but beg you to take it from them. "Please, please government, take total control of our energy before we kill ourselves with it!" This is what they are looking for.

So what we have here is a worldwide government conspiracy to influence collected data and it's interpretation involving tens of thousands of climatologists, oceanographers, atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, and ecologists throughout the world. To that we would have to add the hundreds of pier groups who review and comment on findings and academy's of science. Since the private sector has become involve in both basic(4%) and applied research(24%), we would have to include them in this conspiracy. And governments who have lost their ability to hide their most embarrassing secrets have somehow discovered how to keep this conspiracy a secret.

Not being a great fan of conspiracy theories, I think your idea is fucking crazy.

I don't know why you think it's crazy. Look at how brainwashing has worked for the left thus far. They've been pretty successful. And as I already stated, you only want to look at those professions that agree with your position, and not those that disagree.

NASA - Top Story - NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE - March 20, 2003

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns - WND - WND

Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalist

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

I have many more and I'm sure the internet is full of others. The point is that it's not a consensus. It's debated by others in those fields and that are so often ignored.

I don't know if there is consensus among writers of articles you read on the internet but there is no doubt there is scientific consensus among the top scientist in the world that climate is changing and man is responsible.

In science it is natural and expected that scientific theories will be questioned and alternatives theories offered and so it is with the Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change. There have been other alternative theories and hypothesis but none have stood up to peer scrutiny as the Greenhouse Theory has. And no it is not just consensus of government agencies.

The following are all non-goverment organization funded by members, universities, private businesses, and foundations, not the government. All are in agreement with the Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change and that humanity is a primary cause.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America

In addition there are approximate 58 international Academies of Science including the National Academy of Science which are funded by members, foundations, and governments. They represent over 25,000 of the top scientist in the world, selected based on merit and achievements. Every single one of these organizations accepts as fact that the earth is in a state major climate change. 56 of these organizations state that humanity is the major cause.

This is scientific consensus

BTW Do you realize you have links to articles that are 10 to 15 years old?

Yes I do, but since the time these articles were written, things have gotten better, haven't they? And if not, why not since we keep spending more and more money on this cause?

Do you think God created this planet for animals and plants? Of course not. He created it for the human species. Everything else was put here for our advantage.

 

[Flopper]

In natural science there is rarely any natural progression.

So in order to predict that the snow is going melt tomorrow we need a thousand years of temperature data? The projections of global climate change is not based on a single set of data. When the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has never been above 300 ppm in a half million years changes from 160ppm to 400pm, in the last 60 years that certainly is a red flag for increasing global temperatures since increases in C02 level have been correlated with average yearly atmospheric temperature rises. And then there is supporting evidence of climate change such as changes in sea level, changes in sea temperature, melting glaciers, and changes in ecosystem. I suppose we could call all this totally unrelated and just coincidental but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think one of next confirmations of global climate change is going to be extremes in weather phenomenon which seem be starting.

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

There are, however, likelihoods. Right now, we have no idea what the likely outcome or what the long term temperature growth will do. We have a really hard time accounting for something as simple as clout cover because the dual purpose that clouds have in GW - the both add to GW AND take away but the aggregate is not known when temps increase.

We do not know what the effects are going to be.

Assuming the current trend of rising temperatures of the planet continue, at what point do we act?

The United States, what can we do that will reverse Global Warming?

The world has a population of 7.6 BILLION PEOPLE.

The United States has a population of 330 MILLION PEOPLE. That means we (United States) make up 0.043% of the world population,

What percentage of the world population still burn either wood or animal dung to heat and cook?

Arguably we are the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world and despite the efforts of the current administration we are still considered a world leader. Other nations still look to US for leadership.

Donald Trump's withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement was a huge disappoint for environmentalists around the world. However, the blow has been soften with the support of the United States Climate Alliance representing 21 US states. Also, Trump's ridiculous quotes on climate change has certainly helped.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

There are, however, likelihoods. Right now, we have no idea what the likely outcome or what the long term temperature growth will do. We have a really hard time accounting for something as simple as clout cover because the dual purpose that clouds have in GW - the both add to GW AND take away but the aggregate is not known when temps increase.

We do not know what the effects are going to be.

Assuming the current trend of rising temperatures of the planet continue, at what point do we act?

The United States, what can we do that will reverse Global Warming?

The world has a population of 7.6 BILLION PEOPLE.

The United States has a population of 330 MILLION PEOPLE. That means we (United States) make up 0.043% of the world population,

What percentage of the world population still burn either wood or animal dung to heat and cook?

Arguably we are the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world and despite the efforts of the current administration we are still considered a world leader. Other nations still look to US for leadership.

Donald Trump's withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement was a huge disappoint for environmentalists around the world. However, the blow has been soften with the support of the United States Climate Alliance representing 21 US states and Trump's ridiculous quotes on climate change has certainly helped.

The Paris Accord only gave other countries the ability to limit our economic success. Of course they are pissed off.

 

[Flopper]

Temps are rising much faster than normal. Donlt give that "climate always changes" bullshit.

Here is what I believe, that AHG is real. The effects are happening now, these studies done by scientist in my article give us an idea of what to expect if we do nothing. Some areas will be affected more than others.

And there are scientists that say it's all bunk, but you ignore those scientists because they do not fit your cause. Remember who pays scientists: governments.

So why would government make up these kids of things? Because government has been trying to gain more and more control over people as time moves on. To some degree, they've been fairly successful. But the two things stopping them from total control are energy and healthcare. Once government is able to totally control those two things, they will have total control over the people in this (and other) countries.

In our form of government, this can't be done unless they have the support of the people. So how do we get support of the people? Fear.

Get these people to not only hand over power, but beg you to take it from them. "Please, please government, take total control of our energy before we kill ourselves with it!" This is what they are looking for.

So what we have here is a worldwide government conspiracy to influence collected data and it's interpretation involving tens of thousands of climatologists, oceanographers, atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, and ecologists throughout the world. To that we would have to add the hundreds of pier groups who review and comment on findings and academy's of science. Since the private sector has become involve in both basic(4%) and applied research(24%), we would have to include them in this conspiracy. And governments who have lost their ability to hide their most embarrassing secrets have somehow discovered how to keep this conspiracy a secret.

Not being a great fan of conspiracy theories, I think your idea is fucking crazy.

I don't know why you think it's crazy. Look at how brainwashing has worked for the left thus far. They've been pretty successful. And as I already stated, you only want to look at those professions that agree with your position, and not those that disagree.

NASA - Top Story - NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE - March 20, 2003

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns - WND - WND

Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalist

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

I have many more and I'm sure the internet is full of others. The point is that it's not a consensus. It's debated by others in those fields and that are so often ignored.

I don't know if there is consensus among writers of articles you read on the internet but there is no doubt there is scientific consensus among the top scientist in the world that climate is changing and man is responsible.

In science it is natural and expected that scientific theories will be questioned and alternatives theories offered and so it is with the Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change. There have been other alternative theories and hypothesis but none have stood up to peer scrutiny as the Greenhouse Theory has. And no it is not just consensus of government agencies.

The following are all non-goverment organization funded by members, universities, private businesses, and foundations, not the government. All are in agreement with the Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change and that humanity is a primary cause.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America

In addition there are approximate 58 international Academies of Science including the National Academy of Science which are funded by members, foundations, and governments. They represent over 25,000 of the top scientist in the world, selected based on merit and achievements. Every single one of these organizations accepts as fact that the earth is in a state major climate change. 56 of these organizations state that humanity is the major cause.

This is scientific consensus

BTW Do you realize you have links to articles that are 10 to 15 years old?

Yes I do, but since the time these articles were written, things have gotten better, haven't they? And if not, why not since we keep spending more and more money on this cause?

Do you think God created this planet for animals and plants? Of course not. He created it for the human species. Everything else was put here for our advantage.

Both your statements are your opinion. There is no verse in Bible that says the earth was created for man. This is a favorite argument Christians use to defend their right to rape the land, pollute the air and turn our waters into cesspools.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And there are scientists that say it's all bunk, but you ignore those scientists because they do not fit your cause. Remember who pays scientists: governments.

So why would government make up these kids of things? Because government has been trying to gain more and more control over people as time moves on. To some degree, they've been fairly successful. But the two things stopping them from total control are energy and healthcare. Once government is able to totally control those two things, they will have total control over the people in this (and other) countries.

In our form of government, this can't be done unless they have the support of the people. So how do we get support of the people? Fear.

Get these people to not only hand over power, but beg you to take it from them. "Please, please government, take total control of our energy before we kill ourselves with it!" This is what they are looking for.

So what we have here is a worldwide government conspiracy to influence collected data and it's interpretation involving tens of thousands of climatologists, oceanographers, atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, and ecologists throughout the world. To that we would have to add the hundreds of pier groups who review and comment on findings and academy's of science. Since the private sector has become involve in both basic(4%) and applied research(24%), we would have to include them in this conspiracy. And governments who have lost their ability to hide their most embarrassing secrets have somehow discovered how to keep this conspiracy a secret.

Not being a great fan of conspiracy theories, I think your idea is fucking crazy.

I don't know why you think it's crazy. Look at how brainwashing has worked for the left thus far. They've been pretty successful. And as I already stated, you only want to look at those professions that agree with your position, and not those that disagree.

NASA - Top Story - NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE - March 20, 2003

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns - WND - WND

Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalist

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

I have many more and I'm sure the internet is full of others. The point is that it's not a consensus. It's debated by others in those fields and that are so often ignored.

I don't know if there is consensus among writers of articles you read on the internet but there is no doubt there is scientific consensus among the top scientist in the world that climate is changing and man is responsible.

In science it is natural and expected that scientific theories will be questioned and alternatives theories offered and so it is with the Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change. There have been other alternative theories and hypothesis but none have stood up to peer scrutiny as the Greenhouse Theory has. And no it is not just consensus of government agencies.

The following are all non-goverment organization funded by members, universities, private businesses, and foundations, not the government. All are in agreement with the Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change and that humanity is a primary cause.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America

In addition there are approximate 58 international Academies of Science including the National Academy of Science which are funded by members, foundations, and governments. They represent over 25,000 of the top scientist in the world, selected based on merit and achievements. Every single one of these organizations accepts as fact that the earth is in a state major climate change. 56 of these organizations state that humanity is the major cause.

This is scientific consensus

BTW Do you realize you have links to articles that are 10 to 15 years old?

Yes I do, but since the time these articles were written, things have gotten better, haven't they? And if not, why not since we keep spending more and more money on this cause?

Do you think God created this planet for animals and plants? Of course not. He created it for the human species. Everything else was put here for our advantage.

Both your statements are your opinion. There is no verse in Bible that says the earth was created for man. This is a favorite argument Christians use to defend their right to rape the land, pollute the air and turn our waters into cesspools.

Of course this planet was created for man. Why would God make a planet where we are the dominant animal capable of doing the things we can do if it was not for us? From a religious point of view, we are the only occupants with souls. Animals don't have souls. From a religious point of view, we are here to be tested and then judged for the next life.

Genesis 1:26

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

 

[Flopper]

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

There are, however, likelihoods. Right now, we have no idea what the likely outcome or what the long term temperature growth will do. We have a really hard time accounting for something as simple as clout cover because the dual purpose that clouds have in GW - the both add to GW AND take away but the aggregate is not known when temps increase.

We do not know what the effects are going to be.

Assuming the current trend of rising temperatures of the planet continue, at what point do we act?

The United States, what can we do that will reverse Global Warming?

The world has a population of 7.6 BILLION PEOPLE.

The United States has a population of 330 MILLION PEOPLE. That means we (United States) make up 0.043% of the world population,

What percentage of the world population still burn either wood or animal dung to heat and cook?

Arguably we are the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world and despite the efforts of the current administration we are still considered a world leader. Other nations still look to US for leadership.

Donald Trump's withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement was a huge disappoint for environmentalists around the world. However, the blow has been soften with the support of the United States Climate Alliance representing 21 US states and Trump's ridiculous quotes on climate change has certainly helped.

The Paris Accord only gave other countries the ability to limit our economic success. Of course they are pissed off.

That is complete nonsense. The agreement establishes a goal of a 26% reduction in carbon emission over a 20 year period. At the end each 5 years the US can readjust the figure. There is no penalty for not meeting the goal. Thankfully, 21 states agreed to support the Accord, assuring the world we aren't all idiots.