what do global warming people want ??

[cnm]

I may not "know more" than they, but put shit on a throne, and I'll call it shit every time.

You are full of it so I guess you'd be able to call it.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OMG!!! No CO2 = No Climate Change!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Many of those very scientists stated in the 70s that we would be by now buried under tons of ice.

They did not. The majority of scientific papers in the 70s predicted warming.

You meant "cooling"

The majority of scientific papers in the 70s predicted cooling

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We want CO2 emissions to slow down so that climate change is limited in extent.

Will lowering CO2 by 10% cut back climate change by the same 10%?

Probably not. Models indicate how much warming would occur under various future emissions scenarios, but as you know the correct answer is very difficult to accurately model. And yet, the overall answer is clear ... if emissions continue at the current rate, global warming will accelerate.

Wait, first you said "Climate change" and now you said "Global Warming" are they interchangeable?

 

[Seawytch]

Many of those very scientists stated in the 70s that we would be by now buried under tons of ice.

They did not. The majority of scientific papers in the 70s predicted warming.

Correct!

Reality Check: Most Scientists Never Believed In "Global Cooling"

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I am not aware that the Pentagon and the DoD receive grants. Documentation?

Yet they accept the scientific consensus on global warming. So do all the world governments.

The Pentagon and DoD accept what they are told to accept.

I am not "a citizen of the world", so I care little for what other governments do or do not on this issue.

We have enough problems with our own current government.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Many of those very scientists stated in the 70s that we would be by now buried under tons of ice.

They did not. The majority of scientific papers in the 70s predicted warming.

I was there. First Earth Day and all that.

As I stated earlier, they later switched when the Ice Age bunk didn't sell.

1970 Earth Day Ice age - Yahoo Search Results

 

[SwimExpert]

If he has researched the matter.....which is what he is suggesting.....he should know what it is that scientists suggest be done. It's not a mystery.

Quite right. Just last week I read an article that suggested world governments divert funding from corporate welfare projects to help fight global warming by investing the funds into socialized A/C programs. Line the streets with high powered A/C units and have them running nonstop 24/7.

 

[Davros]

We want CO2 emissions to slow down so that climate change is limited in extent.

Will lowering CO2 by 10% cut back climate change by the same 10%?

Probably not. Models indicate how much warming would occur under various future emissions scenarios, but as you know the correct answer is very difficult to accurately model. And yet, the overall answer is clear ... if emissions continue at the current rate, global warming will accelerate.

Wait, first you said "Climate change" and now you said "Global Warming" are they interchangeable?

Yes, they are. The climate change is summarized by increasing global average temperatures, i.e. global warming.

 

[IsaacNewton]

this has become a most divisive political hot potato in America, and the world.

a couple of quick question please.

1. what do the global activists want to happen ? (specifically)

2. have people signed on to this without knowing anything about it ?


WASHINGTON — A majority of Republicans — including 54 percent of self-described conservative Republicans — believe the world’s climate is changing and that mankind plays some role in the change, according to anew survey conducted by three prominent Republican pollsters.



Democrats, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, have sought to paint Republicans who question climate change as deniers of science who are out of touch with the mainstream.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/u...-majority-believe-in-climate-change.html?_r=0

We need to stop forcing carbon, in the form of CO2 and CO4 (methane) into the atmosphere. The entire human population needs to build many nuclear reactors as the go between, then shut down all fossil fuel burning machines. We also need to mount a Manhattan Project type of project to perfect fusion as quickly as possible. All other forms of clean energy, solar, hydro, wind, should be built by the millions as well.

Carbon is the key and there is no alternative. The human race has to stop putting excess carbon into the atmosphere.

 

[Kosh]

I may not "know more" than they, but put shit on a throne, and I'll call it shit every time.

You are full of it so I guess you'd be able to call it.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

Oh look AGW cult charts being posted..

The AGW cult and their religious dogma is based solely on computer models and predictions..

Here is a chart that defeats the AGW cult and the religious dogma..

 

[Davros]

I may not "know more" than they, but put shit on a throne, and I'll call it shit every time.

You are full of it so I guess you'd be able to call it.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

Oh look AGW cult charts being posted..

The AGW cult and their religious dogma is based solely on computer models and predictions..

Here is a chart that defeats the AGW cult and the religious dogma..

That doesn't defeat anything. The observed data mark the models as reasonable, unless an upward trend does not develop in the next 5-10 years. 2015 is going to make the models look even more reasonable ... the global temperatures are increasing.

 

[SwimExpert]

We need to stop forcing carbon, in the form of CO2 and CO4 (methane) into the atmosphere....Carbon is the key and there is no alternative. The human race has to stop putting excess carbon into the atmosphere.

Statements like this are so insanely stupid it's actually tragic.

It's really bizarre that you fixate on carbon. Why carbon? What is it about carbon that bothers you so much? Let me give you an introductory chemistry lesson:

Carbon is not methane. Methane is not carbon. They are two entirely distinct substances. When you combine atoms of various elements into compounds, the result is a chemical change. What is produces is an entirely different substance. It is a 100% different substance, just like water is a different substance than hydrogen.

Fixating on one element in a compound is illogical. And in this case, it seems 100% arbitrary. Why fixate on carbon? Why not fixate on oxygen?

If we were to take a tally of the total amount of oxygen atoms in the atmosphere that are part of a greenhouse compound we would find that oxygen by far out numbers and out weights carbon among greenhouse contributing gases. There are twice as many oxygen atoms in carbon dioxide molecules. And there are four times as many oxygen atoms in methane molecules. There is no carbon in nitrous oxide, though approximately 35% of that is oxygen. Ozone is 100% oxygen. Not only that, but the single largest contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapor, which accounts for some 70% of greenhouse effect IIRC, and oxygen accounts for 97% of the composition of water!

So, while it might make you feel good, or feel accomplished for coming up with an easy answer that doesn't involve having to think too hard, your fixation with carbon is entirely without merit.

 

[Davros]

We need to stop forcing carbon, in the form of CO2 and CO4 (methane) into the atmosphere....Carbon is the key and there is no alternative. The human race has to stop putting excess carbon into the atmosphere.

Statements like this are so insanely stupid it's actually tragic.

It's really bizarre that you fixate on carbon. Why carbon? What is it about carbon that bothers you so much? Let me give you an introductory chemistry lesson:

Carbon is not methane. Methane is not carbon. They are two entirely distinct substances. When you combine atoms of various elements into compounds, the result is a chemical change. What is produces is an entirely different substance. It is a 100% different substance, just like water is a different substance than hydrogen.

Fixating on one element in a compound is illogical. And in this case, it seems 100% arbitrary. Why fixate on carbon? Why not fixate on oxygen?

If we were to take a tally of the total amount of oxygen atoms in the atmosphere that are part of a greenhouse compound we would find that oxygen by far out numbers and out weights carbon among greenhouse contributing gases. There are twice as many oxygen atoms in carbon dioxide molecules. And there are four times as many oxygen atoms in methane molecules. There is no carbon in nitrous oxide, though approximately 35% of that is oxygen. Ozone is 100% oxygen. Not only that, but the single largest contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapor, which accounts for some 70% of greenhouse effect IIRC, and oxygen accounts for 97% of the composition of water!

So, while it might make you feel good, or feel accomplished for coming up with an easy answer that doesn't involve having to think too hard, your fixation with carbon is entirely without merit.

Carbon is common to the two major greenhouse gases produced by fossil fuel burning: methane and co2. The carbon atoms that are currently bound up in fossil fuels as hydrocarbons are unleashed as CO2 and methane, and in particular CO2 then has a long period of residency in the atmosphere where it acts as a greenhouse gas.

Referring to anthropogenic emissions as "carbon" is a kind of shorthand that reflects that global warming is linked to a global "carbon cycle" where the atmospheric phase of this cycle is mostly on the form of co2.

 

[BluesLegend]

what do global warming people want ??

Global warming is a scam with these four goals...

1. More cash for the global warming government grant slush fund for scientists you can't land a real job.
2. Massive tax increases on the people, using a fabricated global warming crisis. Its not the first time they have fabricated a crisis for this purpose this is just the latest scam.
3. More government regulations and control over the people.
4. Larger government.

 

[westwall]

Why does the OP ask a stupid question as though he has a real interest in the answer?

If he has researched the matter.....which is what he is suggesting.....he should know what it is that scientists suggest be done. It's not a mystery.

This is a troll thread.

sorry you don't like it bozo, but you can't control the conversation here. consider the language tags assingned by your people. what's the fist thing you think about when you hear the word denier.
what about use of the word cult ?

A denier of global warming is a denier of facts and sound science. If you guys were right that data was being faked, then we would not have the melt age of glaciers and polar ice. We would not have the northward migration if insect pests and tropical disease. You guys are denying reality.

If there were sound science i would agree with you. The facts are there is no empirical data to support it. The facts are that it is computer derived fiction that is the evidence being used to push these laws. Furthermore if it were truly as dire as you all claim don't you think there would be some truly draconian laws to you know actually regulate CO2? There are no laws proposed that actually reduce CO2.

Not one.

You are allowed to continue to "pollute", you just have to pay the one percenters for the privilege of living.

I would have though that so called thinking people would have figured this out by now....

 

[Wyatt earp]

this has become a most divisive political hot potato in America, and the world.

a couple of quick question please.

1. what do the global activists want to happen ? (specifically)

2. have people signed on to this without knowing anything about it ?


WASHINGTON — A majority of Republicans — including 54 percent of self-described conservative Republicans — believe the world’s climate is changing and that mankind plays some role in the change, according to anew survey conducted by three prominent Republican pollsters.



Democrats, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, have sought to paint Republicans who question climate change as deniers of science who are out of touch with the mainstream.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/u...-majority-believe-in-climate-change.html?_r=0

Economic social justice...plain and simple

 

[washamericom]

this is sort of my overall query, do the people that support it really know what they are talking about ?

I'm sure the climate scientists who comprise the consensus know what they're talking about. Why, do you know more than them?

they.
it started early for me, my dad signed the kyoto protest petition (oregon). granted that was a while ago, but in the scope of earth time, not so much. i'm not a scientist, obviously, but gathering empircal evidence isn't a task of bias. with climate change, it's all based on flawed data collection, theory, and computer models in their infancy, lifetime career hopefuls.

it's become so political, and money grubby. it's a new science, a soft or pseudo science, based in speculation, presented to us as dogma. it's not pure physics at all. if it were, there would be no controversy, which is what they tell us, that there is no controversy, but doesn't seem to be true. even on this message board.

 

[washamericom]

Fixing globull warming will solve the ISIS problem...I know this because Dear Leader said that is why they are killing, raping and pretty much being assholes

that's what i mean, the priorities are whacked.

 

[washamericom]

what about the cooked science behind it ?

That you think a consensus can exist with cooked science shows you don't understand the system.

Scientists like nothing better than to show how clever they are by falsifying a theory or hypothesis.

that's pretty scary, good point.