R7 HAHAHAHAHA. With sheep like you, they will always have an audience. I wish you luck.
They need to find a new term for Global Warming since the masses still don't understand it. The same goes for Scientific Theory.
Read the scientific evidence. Each year we break record warmths, globally. You can't go by a couple of cold months. Jeeze. Global warming is here but the question
now, is how do we deal with it.
[quote]They need to find a new term for Global Warming
Environmental scientists have been calling it "climate change" for quite a while now. Only idiots call it "global warming" these days.
I hope not. I'm sort of looking forward to the end of the world.
It's not our job to educate cretins.
the past fifteen years have had TWICE as many global record high temperatures as record low temperatures, OP. you figure it the fuck out.
R14, I'd disagree
R6? 98% of all climate scientists disagree with you, including one of the biggest climate change skeptics, who did his OWN study and came to the conclusion that it's real, and it IS caused by humans.
You're ignorant. You know NOTHING compared to all these experts. You're wrong. That you value your opinion over the opinion of people who actually study this for a living shows a level of ignorance and arrogance that is unfathomable to me.
Class: This year's term paper will be 30 pages comparing and contrasting the terms "weather" and "climate". If you don't do well, you will have to repeat 5th grade.
You're a fucking idiot OP.
A fucking idiot.
1. It is not a scam.
2. We can't do anything about it.
3. As long as all the people making money off it wish to continue doing so, there "will still be time, if we move quickly."
The warmest year was 1934 and the earth has been cooling since. The idea that we can control the climate by driving a Prius is such bullshit. It's like the Energy Secretary that says we should be like Europe with $7 gal gas. That's the only way we conserve. Of course he doesn't mention the rise in the costs of everything tat is transported using gas. I recycle everything, I use public transportation, I believe in solar energy. I believe in these things because its the right thing to do. I believe we have to be good stewards of our planet, but don't tell me man is raising the temp of the earth. For every "study" that proves mans cause of global warming, there is another that says the earth has been cooling and warming since the beginning of time. Of course, you could blame the trees and livestock also. LOL.
OP is just a silly little troll.
Why do you feed the trolls?
It just makes them bigger trolls.
STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS.
Of course it is real- even faster that believed earlier and not remotely in doubt as to the cause. The carbon isotope produced by fossil fuel oxidation IS the moiety in CO2 increase that tells the story. In addition, scientist think the 150 year verticle spike in CO2 production producing warming is in fact opposed to a natural cooling that was going on much more slowly until the spike caused by fossil fuel.
OP, educate yourself. This is very very serious stuff that is going to overwhelm things like North Koreans and Iranians with nuclear capabilities etc.
I was just in the Adirondack this weekend where they are having not the coldest of the mildest winter. But no one, I mean no one is in denial at to the radical change in climate in the Adirondacks that has led to changes in both flora and fauna in the state park.
We have also been in a quiet period re: vulcanism. That won't last. When we get massive eruptions there will be an initial cooling effect on the weather but with so much new greenhouse gas that we will be on the road to becoming an uninhabitable hellhole like Venus.
We need to reduce our carcinogenic emissions, and if a global warming hypothesis takes us to healthier air, what's the problem?
Going on like some oil-funded Republican't do anything except destroy the earth for profit is sickening.
Well of course I am no scientist so unlike some people I won't profess to know everything, but here are my thoughts. 1) I always follow the money. Who has the financial incentive to lie about this? 2) Why not err on the side of caution?
Countries who do the MOST damage to the environment refuse to agree on any reforms. As long as China, North Korea, Russia, ignore the obvious, all the Prius driving in the US ain't gonna do shit.
Climate and geological change.
Britain's mini-Ice Age and record flooding.
Stronger and more unusual U.S.-region hurricanes.
Devastating Pacific tsunamis.
Melting polar regions.
Simple observations and MSM, no "Google."
Follow the money! Always good advice in determining who is full of shit.
The Climate Denailists are full of shit by that standard. As well as by every other standard, including standards of evidence, science, and fact.
R30 thanks for your opinion, rump ranger. By the way, you are an idiot too.
Methane is far worse than carbon and the planet is belching up methane in great quantities right now. Methane is the biggest worry we should have, and much of it is caused by chemtrails.
What they have been pushing on us for years--that we need to conserve, not drive, etc is to distract us from the true issue--that the chemtrails in our skies are destroying the ozone layer in the Arctic and elsewhere.
I don't think it will kill us all but I do think we will have to make major adjustments in our lives, which could be a good thing, given we are too materialistic and selfish.
R33 maybe you are materialistic and selfish.
Ya'll can go fuck yourselves and drown in the next tsunami: I just bought 4 acres in the Rocky Mountains, high and dry.
R35, I hope you dry up to dust in the next dustbowl
If the people of the developed world made a concerted effort to reduce the amount of driving they do and the amount of meat they eat, our levels of consumption and pollution would drop dramatically. It's not a magic bullet but it's a start that would have significant flow-on effects. OR we can just bleat about how it's too hard and how there's no point because other countries emit co2 as well.
Biggest lie ever told.
Yes, because their is big money in conservation, r38!
R21, on 1934 as the warmest year, has the U.S. statistics confused with the world statistics -- a frequent "mistake" among climate skeptics.
Link is to a site that discusses all the evidence both pro and con, in very convincing fashion.
The Global Warming scam (explained for stupid people)
For the Earth to get warmer, the heat must be stored somewhere.
The air cools every night, not to mention every winter. It does NOT hold heat for any length of time.
The ONLY place that holds heat is the Ocean.
For global warming to be happening, the oceans MUST be getting warmer.
They're not. Warmists (it IS a religion) are desperately trying to find the "missing heat" in the oceans.
Meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice continues to GROW to record levels.
You can watch the polar sea ice grow and shrink daily here:
I can't imagine why anyone in the employ of the mining industry would want to disagree with 99% of the world's climate scientists.
The Earth appears to heat up and cool down in direct correlation to sunpots, with most scientists scratching their heads as to why.
Latest theory gaining traction:
Cosmic rays from deep space contribute to the formation of clouds.
Sunspots (an active sun) prohibit cosmic rays from reaching the earth, fewer clouds = more warming.
The 80's and 90's had the most sunspots ever recorded. (warming)
However, If the sunspot theory is correct, we may be heading into another little ice age...FAST.
Currently experiencing the weakest solar maximum in modern history.
"Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in science journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science."
Thermal expansion has already raised seal levels by 4-8 inches says National Geographic, undercutting the "no ocean temperature change" argument.
I don't understand why the denialists think it's a conspiracy. What motive could anyone have to do that? Scientists did not want to sell "doomsday" scenarios. It's not like any of them have become millionaires or billionaires because of it. There is no motive for the claimed conspiracy.
WTF year is this that the OP still hasn't gotten the memo about why it's called "global warming"?
Don't be so dense, OP.
The thing that really annoys me about the whole climate change debate is how everyone sidesteps the real point of conflict, the money. Both sides bicker endlessly as to whose climate data is right and wrong, and it is worth noting that out of all of the links provided in this thread not one is from an actual academic university with an .edu internet suffix. Universities are where real scientific research is performed, and where real scientists compare and validate their findings, not from links to corp funded think tanks funded by oil companies. Most of these links are opinion sites.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not everyone is entitled to their own facts. Ever since the Republican Revolution of 1994, the findings of the scientific community have been called into question by deniers searching for their own truth. The outcome of such a subjective reality is that people doubt and stop seeing what is in front of them and simply believe what they want to or in the worst case are forced to believe what a gov entity wants them to believe. It's a 1984 world where fact and fiction become blurred to suit the needs of the state apparatus. A land where research gets sent down the incinerator tube into nothingness altered by the Winston Smith's who toil daily destroying old news and creating new truth. After a while people stop resisting and just believe the lies because it is easier.
But back to the money. The money is what is really driving the debate. Who gets it and where does it go. Let's be honest, none of the apologists on either side, global warming or no warming really give a damm about the environment. Politicians only care about the poor, public goods, the environment when they are shamed into caring, to save face like in the Beijing Olympics.
Cont from R57
Lets now look at the players and money involved. Al Gore who was pro-environment and a global warming appologist had a big stake in the largest cap & trade pollution credit clearinghouse going into the 2000 election. This got zero press at the time. His company and firms like Goldman Sacks etc were to be the big winners in the quest to control and curb global warming. Had Gore become President and had he implimented a pro-environment policy, Cap and Trade would have taken off big time (assuming Congressional approval which would have been doubtful given corp lobbying by big oil) but if it had been adopted his company stood to gain huge commisions on the trading of each of the gov sanctioned pollution credits. However Bush 2 was installed as President, the polulution market evaporated and Gore was left a big bag of nothing. He ended up founding Current TV instead.
Lets take a look at the credits in the cap & trade program. As someone who studied graduate level environmental economics at university the whole cap & trade scheme was always iffy and very much a game of theatrics. The gov would issue an initial glut of permits which polluters such as utilites would use to continue allowing them to emit CO2 as usual. The gov would then slowly reduce the overall pollution levels allowed causing the price of the permits to increase in value over time assuming the credits ever became scarce and that is a big if. Nearly every country to date when faced with pollution cuts has opted to punt and postpone. Kyoto treaty after treaty expire with no action taken. And for economic and political reasons, politicians have no real incentive to limit those credits, as it is always easier to kick the can then inflict economic pain on their constuencies.
The actual pollution credit transaction itself was just a shell game. A utility would sell its permits to another in a market which Gore's firm would collect a commision on and the proceeds of the sale would go right back to the utility company that sold the permit. In theory that money was supposed to go back to the states to fund cleaner engery projects but as far as I know the legislation concerning the disbursment of funds was left very cloudy. It could of very well just ended up in some gov rainy day slush fund, then Uncle Sam makes money off cliamte change. Cap and trade just amounts to utility companies passing meaningless pieces of paper back and forth with traders making commisions off each trade with no one having any real incentive to reduce emissions unless forced to by a gov authority. Under that scheme the utility would just pocket the sale price of the permit as profit and in a world of corp controlled polticians just get the legislating agency to create more permits when faced with pollution reduction limits.
To enact real change to the environment,corp and citizens have to wake up to the potential that green technology can be profitable. Our gov has done the shittiest job possible with that info campaign. All people hear about are solar companies going bankrupt on tax payer dollars. When companies see that they can make money on green energy and the costs of fossil fuels continue to rise (mainly do to speculation and not scarcity) the choice becomes obvious. Germany has made that transition, ditching fossil fuels and nuclear, and embracing wind and solar. We can do the same.
"The Climate Circus Leaves Town"
As traditional energy sources go from doom and gloom to boom.
Global warming isn't a scam, but there are so many scams associated with the "solutions". solyndra and all the others that took money from the government (while donating to obama) and then going bankrupt.