Global warming.

[churchmouse]

Wow! They're still pushing the ozone depletion hysteria?? Wow.

Yes they are. That whole thing was a load of Bravo Sierra.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Any argument where the wining side gets to set policy is a political argument. It just is. And this argument is not one-sided. Please don't pretend that you're on the non-political side.

I didn't say that it was or was not a political argument. I just find it interesting that so many people seem to be arguing passionately about global warming based almost completely on information supplied by those with an almost purely political interest. I've heard a lot of arguing about the politics of it, but very, very little real science-based thought on the matter.

And yes, I'm very much on the non-political side because like I said, I really don't think it matters whether or not there is anything we could do because I truly believe that humanity does not have the ability to do it.

 

[jamil]

I didn't say that it was or was not a political argument. I just find it interesting that so many people seem to be arguing passionately about global warming based almost completely on information supplied by those with an almost purely political interest. I've heard a lot of arguing about the politics of it, but very, very little real science-based thought on the matter.

And yes, I'm very much on the non-political side because like I said, I really don't think it matters whether or not there is anything we could do because I truly believe that humanity does not have the ability to do it.

Do you think the "global warming" alarmists aren't politically motivated?

 

[churchmouse]

Do you think the "global warming" alarmists aren't politically motivated?

Yes, totally political at its roots. Any and all ways to control a revenue stream. Another way to push a taxable agenda.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Do you think the "global warming" alarmists aren't politically motivated?

So what you're saying is that, in this argument that you insist is a political argument, that one or both sides might not be politically motivated?

What I think is the fact that people see this as a political argument is evidence of our inability to see things beyond our own personal reality.

I used to be amazed by the human ability to learn, to know, and to adapt. Lately I've realized that we have an equal ability (maybe more compulsion) to not learn, to not know, and to refuse to leave a comfort zone.

And I see that as evidence of our eventual and inevitable demise.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Do you also believe that the political opponents of Christopher Columbus's voyage didn't want him to do it because they were afraid he'd sail off the edge of the world?

 

[printcraft]

.....but very, very little real science-based thought on the matter.....

The "scientific" predictions were and have been wrong.
There has not been any warming for over 15 years.
Now they are saying that "we got lucky" there was no warming and now we can make real changes before it is too late...... again.

The data was and is being manipulated.
Is manipulating data to get the result you want the truth of science?

What possible reason could there be to manipulate that data I wonder?

 

[churchmouse]

The "scientific" predictions were and have been wrong.
There has not been any warming for over 15 years.
Now they are saying that "we got lucky" there was no warming and now we can make real changes before it is too late...... again.

The data was and is being manipulated.
Is manipulating data to get the result you want the truth of science?

What possible reason could there be to manipulate that data I wonder?

The politics of dancing. Research grants and political correct thinking. Just to name a few.
You can not sell Carbon credits or effect change with out the scare value.

 

[Jerchap2]

This hoax was debunked some time ago. It is all about power and control, supported by junk science and selecting which temperature sensors to put in the stats and which ones to ignore, to manipulate the data. Google "climategate" for the real skinny.

 

[Degtyaryov]

It's certainly telling that essentially every single scientist who is knowledgeable about the subject agrees that anthropogenic climate change is the result of CO2 and similar greenhouse gasses, while none of the deniers have any education in the relevant fields.

Sorry, but I cannot and will not ignore evidence and science just because I don't like it.

 

[printcraft]

It's certainly telling that essentially every single scientist who is knowledgeable about the subject agrees that anthropogenic climate change is the result of CO2 and similar greenhouse gasses, while none of the deniers have any education in the relevant fields.

Sorry, but I cannot and will not ignore evidence and science just because I don't like it.

 

[jamil]

It's certainly telling that essentially every single scientist who is knowledgeable about the subject agrees that anthropogenic climate change is the result of CO2 and similar greenhouse gasses, while none of the deniers have any education in the relevant fields.

Sorry, but I cannot and will not ignore evidence and science just because I don't like it.

Are you a scientist who is knowledgeable about the subject? If not, the evidence you will not ignore is essentially that you've not heard any scientists disagree.

 

[Degtyaryov]

Are you a scientist who is knowledgeable about the subject? If not, the evidence you will not ignore is essentially that you've not heard any scientists disagree.

I studied chemistry in college and yes, I do know a thing or two about the subject. Like how the vibrational stretches of CO2 correspond to the same frequency as the black body radiation given off by the earth, trapping and re-radiating energy that would otherwise have escaped into space. We had to demonstrate that in lab and show why CO2 retains heat but N2 or H20 dont. I also know that CO2 levels have risen considerably since the industrial revolution, when we as a species started the large scale burning of coal and fossil fuels.

If global warming was really just one big hoax and you had the evidence to back it up, why not submit a paper proving it to Nature? You'd uncover the largest scientific conspiracy since the suppression of the tobacco/cancer link, and almost certainly win yourself a Nobel prize in the process. How come nobody's ever done that yet?

 

[Classic]

Science is when you are able to DEMONSTRATE that a theory works. Until you do it is still only a theory. So the Global Warming/Global Cooling/Global Climate Change cadre have a theory, not scientifically proven. In addition, "climate change" has been occurring routinely of the thousands/tens of thousands/millions (depending on which of those theories you accept as fact) of years of our planetary existence.

Is the current climate change (not really a measurable change in the last decade anyway and that's measurable) man-made or a naturally occurring phenomena? So far all I am hearing is theories.

If there is any significant climate change, I will look to the same people who got us in to this mess to get us out. Namely, the ENGINEERS and SCIENTISTS who invented all the crap we are using to create the alleged climate change in the first place.

 

[Bunnykid68]

It is warm outside today. Wait it's summer time, it's supposed to be.

 

[5.56'aholic]

I studied chemistry in college and yes, I do know a thing or two about the subject. Like how the vibrational stretches of CO2 correspond to the same frequency as the black body radiation given off by the earth, trapping and re-radiating energy that would otherwise have escaped into space. We had to demonstrate that in lab and show why CO2 retains heat but N2 or H20 dont. I also know that CO2 levels have risen considerably since the industrial revolution, when we as a species started the large scale burning of coal and fossil fuels.

If global warming was really just one big hoax and you had the evidence to back it up, why not submit a paper proving it to Nature? You'd uncover the largest scientific conspiracy since the suppression of the tobacco/cancer link, and almost certainly win yourself a Nobel prize in the process. How come nobody's ever done that yet?

You may need to retake your college courses, Einstein. H20 (humidity) in the air, is the main culprit of the green house effect, selectively absorbing infrared heat reflected off the earths surface. It is this very effect that causes tropical areas to retain heat overnight and dry desert regions cool so much. But you probably already knew that since you demonstrated that in your scientific "labs"....

 

[MisterChester]

Yeah, the Earth does go through crazy climate changes by itself. But I also refuse to believe that the pollution humanity releases does not affect the environment. My best guess is that humanity has accelerated the warmer trend.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It is warm outside today. Wait it's summer time, it's supposed to be.

Well, at least you're not one of those ignorant denyers...

 

[actaeon277]

It's certainly telling that essentially every single scientist who is knowledgeable about the subject agrees that anthropogenic climate change is the result of CO2 and similar greenhouse gasses, while none of the deniers have any education in the relevant fields.

Sorry, but I cannot and will not ignore evidence and science just because I don't like it.

31,000 scientists reject ‘global warming’ agenda

Over 31,000 U.S. Scientists Deny Man-Made Global Warming, BY: DENNIS T. AVERY | Center for Global Food Issues

Why I Deny Global Warming by David Deming

Might want to recheck your data. There is a large group of scientist that deny it.
Some just question it.
When you say, "there can be no debate", well then there is no science. Science is debate,
When you throw out data that does not conform to your model, it is not science.

If I remember, the Original Post was that temperature was rising on another planet, with no man made causes.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

What about this guys theories ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woVitezc-zU