Poll: Is Anyone having second thoughts about global warming/climate change ?

[mamooth]

Science doesn't work on absolutes. It works on the best explanation. Currently, the best explanation for the observed data is global warming theory. If you want to replace that theory, you need to come up with a different theory that explains the observed data even better.

Needless to say, you haven't. You've just declared that since your magical natural cycles theory hasn't been disproved with 100% certainty, it has to be accepted.

The magical natural cycles theory, being that it invokes unnamed magic, does not get to be some kind of default. Cycles have identifiable causes. So identify them. Show how they're driving the current changes. Until you do, your theory is invoking magic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

just checking the pulse of the politics usmb'ers.

i keep hearing consensus, and the discussion/debate is over. that certainly raises my interest.

no reason to discuss, imagine that.

i am personally disqualified because i always considered it a hoax cause my Dad did, but i'm voting anyway.

are you voting for a global warming candidate ??

It is real, it is happening, it IS NOT LOOMING. And there are a great deal many more issues to use in choosing a candidate.

The Climate has been changing for 4.5 Billion years and will continue to change. No one disputes that. The dispute lies in the claim that Middle Class suburbanites driving SUVs are the problem. Speaking of lies, if it is real, why then do the proponents feel compelled to corrupt data supporting their narrative? See East Anglia.

Why do proponents of AGW have several 50,000 sq ft homes? Why do they have several private jets and several gas guzzling limousines? Why do they preach and not practice? Why do they think that their opinions are worth more than opinions of those who have a responsible carbon foot print? Why do human garbage like Leonardo DiCaprio have an audience at the United Nations? Why "buying" carbon credits save the Earth?

Why do the proponents of AGW have to resort to doctoring and falsifying their already dubious "data"?

Why don't Al Gore and that phony "science guy" fade away into well deserved and long overdue obscurity?

Only "little people CO2" is warming the planet.

 

[Avatar4321]

Never second guessed it. It's always been nonsense

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Its real, so is air, water and land pollution. That is why so much money is being invested in alternative energy, its not a racket. We are trying to build a star, and many countries are signing up to lower carbon emissions. The earth is sinking, look at Texas.

if we can separate weed from the hard drugs, then we can separate pollution form global warming.

maybe we can cool the oceans by making fresh water, but that will cool off the earth's core, and if that happens, we'll freeze to death. i am glad the ozone layer is ok.

how's this for a plan, move to higher ground. we have deserts, we don't live in them.

Goodbye, Oil: US Navy Cracks New Renewable Energy Technology To Turn Seawater Into Fuel, Allowing Ships To Stay At Sea Longer

Molten salt reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Goodbye, Oil: US Navy Cracks New Renewable Energy Technology To Turn Seawater Into Fuel, Allowing Ships To Stay At Sea Longer

After decades of experiments, U.S. Navy scientists believe they may have solved one of the world’s great challenges: how to turn seawater into fuel.

The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel could one day relieve the military’s dependence on oil-based fuels and is being heralded as a “game changer” because it could allow military ships to develop their own fuel and stay operational 100 percent of the time, rather than having to refuel at sea.

The new fuel is initially expected to cost around $3 to $6 per gallon, according to the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, which has already flown a model aircraft on it.

The breakthrough came after scientists developed a way to extract carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas from seawater.

It's called algae.

The new fuel is initially expected to cost around $3 to $6 per gallon

Which means it'll be closer to $30-$60 per gallon.

 

[westwall]

Science doesn't work on absolutes. It works on the best explanation. Currently, the best explanation for the observed data is global warming theory. If you want to replace that theory, you need to come up with a different theory that explains the observed data even better.

Needless to say, you haven't. You've just declared that since your magical natural cycles theory hasn't been disproved with 100% certainty, it has to be accepted.

The magical natural cycles theory, being that it invokes unnamed magic, does not get to be some kind of default. Cycles have identifiable causes. So identify them. Show how they're driving the current changes. Until you do, your theory is invoking magic.

Wow. For once you got something sort of correct. The best explanation is the one that has driven climate for billions of years. In other words NATURAL variation. The facts are that this period of time (the last 100 years) has been more stable than any other time we have records of. That is a fact. No storm you halfwits point to can be shown to have even the slightest bit of a human signature. There is no discernible human signature in any of the natural processes at work today.

The single human signature is the globalists desire for a reason to control every aspect of human life. Would you care for me to list out all of the statements they have made in support of lying to the public to generate fear so that they can ram these laws down our throats?

 

[Mustang]

just checking the pulse of the politics usmb'ers.

i keep hearing consensus, and the discussion/debate is over. that certainly raises my interest.

no reason to discuss, imagine that.

i am personally disqualified because i always considered it a hoax cause my Dad did, but i'm voting anyway.

are you voting for a global warming candidate ??

It is real, it is happening, it IS NOT LOOMING. And there are a great deal many more issues to use in choosing a candidate.

The science of climate change is real because the science is fundamental in very much the same way that modestly increased levels of carbon dioxide (in an enclosed room, for example) can and would first cause sleepiness, then disorientation, then unconsciousness, and ultimately death.

With that said, I'm not one of the people who think/believe that the human race will rise to the challenge of preventing climate change from continuing (at an accelerated rate as time goes by).

I think that the collective desire of individuals to have more and more material goods, coupled with individual greed, coupled with corporate greed, coupled with national and international competition for resources and the ever greater economic and political power that comes with exploiting any and all natural resources essentially seals our collective fate in the end. However, it's not on the immediate horizon. The chances are that by the time the writing is so convincingly on the wall about how we (the collectively we) wrote our own epitaph, everyone alive today will be long dead. There will be no one left to blame. But those future generations will curse us all. I have little doubt of that.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Dissenters will be killed.

 

[westwall]

just checking the pulse of the politics usmb'ers.

i keep hearing consensus, and the discussion/debate is over. that certainly raises my interest.

no reason to discuss, imagine that.

i am personally disqualified because i always considered it a hoax cause my Dad did, but i'm voting anyway.

are you voting for a global warming candidate ??

It is real, it is happening, it IS NOT LOOMING. And there are a great deal many more issues to use in choosing a candidate.

The science of climate change is real because the science is fundamental in very much the same way that modestly increased levels of carbon dioxide (in an enclosed room, for example) can and would first cause sleepiness, then disorientation, then unconsciousness, and ultimately death.

With that said, I'm not one of the people who think/believe that the human race will rise to the challenge of preventing climate change from continuing (at an accelerated rate as time goes by).

I think that the collective desire of individuals to have more and more material goods, coupled with individual greed, coupled with corporate greed, coupled with national and international competition for resources and the ever greater economic and political power that comes with exploiting any and all natural resources essentially seals our collective fate in the end. However, it's not on the immediate horizon. The chances are that by the time the writing is so convincingly on the wall about how we (the collectively we) wrote our own epitaph, everyone alive today will be long dead. There will be no one left to blame. But those future generations will curse us all. I have little doubt of that.

The science is real. Their methods and conclusions are not however.

 

[washamericom]

just checking the pulse of the politics usmb'ers.

i keep hearing consensus, and the discussion/debate is over. that certainly raises my interest.

no reason to discuss, imagine that.

i am personally disqualified because i always considered it a hoax cause my Dad did, but i'm voting anyway.

are you voting for a global warming candidate ??

It is real, it is happening, it IS NOT LOOMING. And there are a great deal many more issues to use in choosing a candidate.

The science of climate change is real because the science is fundamental in very much the same way that modestly increased levels of carbon dioxide (in an enclosed room, for example) can and would first cause sleepiness, then disorientation, then unconsciousness, and ultimately death.

With that said, I'm not one of the people who think/believe that the human race will rise to the challenge of preventing climate change from continuing (at an accelerated rate as time goes by).

I think that the collective desire of individuals to have more and more material goods, coupled with individual greed, coupled with corporate greed, coupled with national and international competition for resources and the ever greater economic and political power that comes with exploiting any and all natural resources essentially seals our collective fate in the end. However, it's not on the immediate horizon. The chances are that by the time the writing is so convincingly on the wall about how we (the collectively we) wrote our own epitaph, everyone alive today will be long dead. There will be no one left to blame. But those future generations will curse us all. I have little doubt of that.

The science is real. Their methods and conclusions are not however.

the computer models are hack.

 

[washamericom]

Science doesn't work on absolutes. It works on the best explanation. Currently, the best explanation for the observed data is global warming theory. If you want to replace that theory, you need to come up with a different theory that explains the observed data even better.

Needless to say, you haven't. You've just declared that since your magical natural cycles theory hasn't been disproved with 100% certainty, it has to be accepted.

The magical natural cycles theory, being that it invokes unnamed magic, does not get to be some kind of default. Cycles have identifiable causes. So identify them. Show how they're driving the current changes. Until you do, your theory is invoking magic.

well said ockham.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Science doesn't work on absolutes. It works on the best explanation. Currently, the best explanation for the observed data is global warming theory. If you want to replace that theory, you need to come up with a different theory that explains the observed data even better.

Needless to say, you haven't. You've just declared that since your magical natural cycles theory hasn't been disproved with 100% certainty, it has to be accepted.

The magical natural cycles theory, being that it invokes unnamed magic, does not get to be some kind of default. Cycles have identifiable causes. So identify them. Show how they're driving the current changes. Until you do, your theory is invoking magic.

Geological cycles have been documented. There is nothing magical about them. Its pure science.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

just checking the pulse of the politics usmb'ers.

i keep hearing consensus, and the discussion/debate is over. that certainly raises my interest.

no reason to discuss, imagine that.

i am personally disqualified because i always considered it a hoax cause my Dad did, but i'm voting anyway.

are you voting for a global warming candidate ??

It is real, it is happening, it IS NOT LOOMING. And there are a great deal many more issues to use in choosing a candidate.

The science of climate change is real because the science is fundamental in very much the same way that modestly increased levels of carbon dioxide (in an enclosed room, for example) can and would first cause sleepiness, then disorientation, then unconsciousness, and ultimately death.

With that said, I'm not one of the people who think/believe that the human race will rise to the challenge of preventing climate change from continuing (at an accelerated rate as time goes by).

I think that the collective desire of individuals to have more and more material goods, coupled with individual greed, coupled with corporate greed, coupled with national and international competition for resources and the ever greater economic and political power that comes with exploiting any and all natural resources essentially seals our collective fate in the end. However, it's not on the immediate horizon. The chances are that by the time the writing is so convincingly on the wall about how we (the collectively we) wrote our own epitaph, everyone alive today will be long dead. There will be no one left to blame. But those future generations will curse us all. I have little doubt of that.

Future generations will do nothing of the sort. If anything they'll be cussing us for screwing up a once great republic with worthless politics.

 

[washamericom]

No one is denying that the climate is changing. The hoax here is that man is causing it

Yet nobody can show any evidence for this conspiracy. No, raving about how much you hate liberals is not evidence, nor is posting rants from your fellow cultists. Literally millions of people worldwide would have to be in on such a conspiracy. It would have to be the biggest conspiracy theory ever in all of human history. Yet not a single person is talking. Fascinating.

There is no VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot. You've just been played.

The climate has been changing for hundreds of millions of years and will be changing hundreds of millions of years from now. Man has never had anything to do with it.

According to your "If it happened naturally before, man can't cause it now" line reasoning, it's impossible for humans to cause forest fires, because they used to be always be naturally caused before.

Your line of reasoning fails. The fact that climate changed naturally before in no way prevents humans from changing climate.

Look up in the sky, see that big ball of fire? Its called the sun, it controls the climate of planet earth,

The sun has been cooling as the earth warmed. Did you masters not tell you that? No matter. You can always recycle your "Those darn egghead liberal scientists don't know 'nuffin!" line for something else that you have no knowledge of.

not the prophet algore,

Gore rule invoked. Whoever brings up Gore firsts admits to being a brainwashed political cultist, and forfeits the discussion for their own side. Well done.

You don't see any of the rational people bringing up Gore, of course, as he's not a scientist. Only denier political cultists invoke him, because all cults require enemies to whip up the faithful against.

the Kenyan messiah, or soccer moms driving SUVs

When I point out that deniers are just political cultists raging at their political opponents, you probably shouldn't work so hard to confirm that point.

The sun, moron. The source of all live on earth

Someone who was too damn ignorant and stupid to know the sun has cooled has no business bothering the adults.

Now, if you libs must have a cause, take on pollution. Everyone would be with you on that.

We've been doing that. Where have you been? Oh, that's right, supporting the polluters.

the sun is cooling.... heh..



6 out of ten in the poll, so there's a consensus, no further debate is needed.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The idea that human beings can control the weather is a steaming pile of horse shit.

 

[washamericom]

The idea that human beings can control the weather is a steaming pile of horse shit.

that would be a methane judgement.

 

[Norman]

Science doesn't work on absolutes. It works on the best explanation. Currently, the best explanation for the observed data is global warming theory. If you want to replace that theory, you need to come up with a different theory that explains the observed data even better.

Needless to say, you haven't. You've just declared that since your magical natural cycles theory hasn't been disproved with 100% certainty, it has to be accepted.

The magical natural cycles theory, being that it invokes unnamed magic, does not get to be some kind of default. Cycles have identifiable causes. So identify them. Show how they're driving the current changes. Until you do, your theory is invoking magic.

Then there is always the explanation of people paid by the government selecting the theory that best suits their agenda of having access to your wallet. Just read the paper by weitzman, it's utter gibberish. I have no reason to believe that GW research in general is not of the same caliber of garbage, especially given that no regressive liberal ever presents the results and models anywhere, being a mindless drone is much easier after all. Even if GW was true I don't see why people with access to endless stream of government money could, or have any incentive to figure it out. That's probably why their track record remains so piss poor.

Anyway, possibly it's true that burning oil makes the globe warmer as it once was... when there was a lot more biodiversity... I don't think that based on this you should have access to anyone's wallet though, unless the damages can be proven without a doubt, then of course the polluters should pay.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The earth has grown warmer and grown cooler since the beginning....the difference is now you assholes are trying redistribute wealth over it

And we will all vote for the elected officials of our own choosing.

See ya later

Lame....you're a nothing LOL (watches you scamper off)

Educate yourself

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

That's 50 years worth of data vs. the Earth being 4.5 Billion years old. So What??

 

[FA_Q2]

The fact that the earth is warming is well known. What is not so set in stone is what the effects of that warming is going to be. honestly, arguing over man creating this or not is dumb IMHO. There are no real 'solutions' out there that are going to change anything on a global scale. Renewables will replace oil when they are ready and it is not going to happen before.

The key to the doomsayers is carbon forcing AFAIK and I do not see accurate predictions being made that shows this is going to destroy the world as we know it. It is common for people to believe that a particular problem is going to be FAR worse than it actually is. The hole in the Ozone layer that was going to kill us all never did. Y2K did not see planes falling from the skies and the obliteration of any computer system.

The irony here is that the only way that we will be able to address AGW if it is true and if the consequences are so dire, is thorough technology and infrastructure. The only type of tech and infrastructure that exists with a strong and viable economy.

 

[Redfish]

The fact that the earth is warming is well known. What is not so set in stone is what the effects of that warming is going to be. honestly, arguing over man creating this or not is dumb IMHO. There are no real 'solutions' out there that are going to change anything on a global scale. Renewables will replace oil when they are ready and it is not going to happen before.

The key to the doomsayers is carbon forcing AFAIK and I do not see accurate predictions being made that shows this is going to destroy the world as we know it. It is common for people to believe that a particular problem is going to be FAR worse than it actually is. The hole in the Ozone layer that was going to kill us all never did. Y2K did not see planes falling from the skies and the obliteration of any computer system.

The irony here is that the only way that we will be able to address AGW if it is true and if the consequences are so dire, is thorough technology and infrastructure. The only type of tech and infrastructure that exists with a strong and viable economy.

warming, cooling, changing. Always has been always will be, humans are not causing it and cannot change or reverse it.

Its life on planet earth, deal with it.

and BTW, stop polluting our planet. Pollution is bad but pollution is not causing climate change.

 

[washamericom]

Its real, so is air, water and land pollution. That is why so much money is being invested in alternative energy, its not a racket. We are trying to build a star, and many countries are signing up to lower carbon emissions. The earth is sinking, look at Texas.

if we can separate weed from the hard drugs, then we can separate pollution form global warming.

maybe we can cool the oceans by making fresh water, but that will cool off the earth's core, and if that happens, we'll freeze to death. i am glad the ozone layer is ok.

how's this for a plan, move to higher ground. we have deserts, we don't live in them.

Goodbye, Oil: US Navy Cracks New Renewable Energy Technology To Turn Seawater Into Fuel, Allowing Ships To Stay At Sea Longer

Molten salt reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Goodbye, Oil: US Navy Cracks New Renewable Energy Technology To Turn Seawater Into Fuel, Allowing Ships To Stay At Sea Longer

After decades of experiments, U.S. Navy scientists believe they may have solved one of the world’s great challenges: how to turn seawater into fuel.

The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel could one day relieve the military’s dependence on oil-based fuels and is being heralded as a “game changer” because it could allow military ships to develop their own fuel and stay operational 100 percent of the time, rather than having to refuel at sea.

The new fuel is initially expected to cost around $3 to $6 per gallon, according to the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, which has already flown a model aircraft on it.

The breakthrough came after scientists developed a way to extract carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas from seawater.

It's called algae.

The new fuel is initially expected to cost around $3 to $6 per gallon

Which means it'll be closer to $30-$60 per gallon.

what about cold fusion ?