Proven science? Where?

+ 100 Al Gore lovers

Stereotyping like this just shows your ignorance. I'm not a Republican at all and I think that AGW is way overstated and I think the risks of a warming planet are nil. I will go one further and say that, if history is any indication, the quality of life of people on the planet will likely be better if the planet gets warmer. Also, the whole AGW crusade is seriously fucking over much of the developing world.

I didnt say all the people who dont believe in global warming are republicans. I chose my words carefully to avoid that. Those that ARE, seem to be the loudest (my interpretation) voices against the idea of global warming though. I just think it's telling that similar minds think similarly on completely divergent topics. Is there a common denominator?

There's plenty if yoiu talk to most any oceanograhers. I did a quick google several days ago and came up with dozens upon dozens of sites that had quite a bit to say about what's going on in our oceans due to global climate change.

Me, I don't care one way or the other whether "it exists" or whether people believe in it or not. I've gone green in my lifestyle and continually watch for new ways of going greener. I find that doing that is more productive than just sitting around bitching on boards about whether or not there's proof or that the problem exists at all.

I don't understand this question. It says more about your political bias than about the science, or even about the phenomenon.

Global warming science is what it is, the measurements and models are what they are.

I don't care for gore's presentation and grandstanding personally, but you know, he never fucking asked my opinion.

Nobody knows what is going to happen - but nobody expected we'd lose a third of the arctic ice these last ten years either. Maybe increased water vapor will increase clouds which will help cool things down.

But I will make my own prediction. You global warming deniers have ten years to make political hay out of this topic, because by the end of this decade the economic impact is going to be so severe that the question of what we are going to do to cope will be one of the dominant political issues of 2020.

so put up your denial candidates now, make hay while the sun shines. Put up your candidates, put up your own scientists, lets see what the voters and the peer review process decides.

Serious question: Why is it better that it gets colder than if it gets warmer?

The answer is complicated, altho the increased clouds model I mentioned would in theory only cool things down a few degrees. There are a bunch of problems with this cloud reflection model tho - the greenhouse gasses trap the infrared in at a much higher altitude than cloud cover, so nobody has any idea what will happen with a increased cloud cover scenario. It will certainly lead to stronger storms. It will certainly lead to snowier winters. BUT, it might not actually cool things down.

but the short answer to why increased heat is worse for our civilization than increased cold is desertification of both the land and the sea.

Colder sea water holds more oxygen, and is less acid, therefore the oceans create more life, more life at the bottom of the food chain. Hotter water is more acidic and holds less oxygen, leading to a type pf desert in the ocean. This is why the prime fishing areas are to the north and south, typically.

Colder land also supports more life - once desertification starts it tends to be permanent. Permanent on human scales at least - it lasts thousands of years.

Colder temperatures wouldn't force human migrations the way a band of desert girdling the equator will. The migrations have already begun, and they will get much worse as about 4 billion people are forced to try to reach parts of the earth that are less hot.

I'm not talking about a return to an ice age, altho everyone should know that global warming could, perversely, cause a shift in the atlantic and pacific conveyor currents as fresh water from melting ice changes the salinity that drives the conveyors. And that such a change in the conveyors could cause a short ice age.

really trying to explain the whole picture would take pages - one of the problems of the science and the models is that it's very complex.

Did you really just say colder water spawns more life? :uhoh umm ok then..

I think you are right.

Most good Republicans are against redistribution of wealth/ welfare/ globalism/ progressivism/ socialism/ communism.

The Democrats are mostly for the above isms, in one form of another.

Global Warming is a back door attempt at "redistributive change." Global Warming is not a proven science. Far from it. There are many many unanswered questions. At best it is a cockamamie theory.

Look at the shaky left wing coalition behind Global Warming. Look at the outright fraud and the exclusion of critics. Those red flags alone tell you it is seriously flawed.

Al Gore, GE, and many others in the political class have huge investments in it.

Do you trust Van Jones? I don't.

there's this special thing - it's called looking it up.

find out for yourself - research isn't difficult.

I'm just a curious layperson, i'm always ready to be corrected.

I'm still waiting for you to put examples of fraud on the table.

and there is no exclusion of critics. put up your examples and I will show you why each example does not constitute exclusion.

there is one specific problem, which is sharing of unpublished data. the scientific community is aware of this problem and is developing new protocols to cope with this unprecedented political interest. science has never had to deal with non-scientists insisting on getting unpublished data before.

put up examples of fraud and exclusion. lets look at these claims.

Damn you do some whacked out drugs man... No republican you'll ever put in power will stop what you consider a redistribution of wealth, welfare will never end, almost all republicans in political power support a globalist agenda.

Yes, dems are part progressivism movement, that's what it takes to stop the damage Republicans do this nation.

Calling a Dem or even a liberal, a socialist or communist is just stupid... about as stupid as calling Republicans - Christian Jew Killers.



If you put any Republican in power, they're going to vote in this Climate crap the Dems are, but call it something else. Which you will then support. Man made global warming is "business" men (on both sides) trying to gather more wealth. And being that you support Capitalism, your party will makes sure it goes through - just like the Dems.

P.S. "Man made or caused" global warming is fake, the science does not back that theory (that's Gore). However, the Earth is warming, which can easily be proven. Taxing us won't stop it from warming.

How much proof do you need?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...ound-media-mum

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...rming-CO2-link

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/

:helpme

During much of the time the dinosaurs lived on earth it was around 18 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than now. The oceans were not acidic and lacking oxygen. They were full of life. The world was not a barren desert. It was full of lush vegetation. Life flourished for millions of years under these conditions.

6,000 years ago it was around 4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it is now and, as a race, humans were reproducing rapidly.

If you look at history humans have always done well during warm periods and there is not a single example of the "end of the world" type scenarios pro-AGW people say will happen. The predictions of violent storms, droughts and famine are not based on science. They are science fiction.

Media ignore Climategate:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Xd_XssuWtyc

30,000 scientists want to sue Al Gore for fraud/ Global Warming as a religion/ Al Gore doesn't want any debate:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=PIe2JCUc_pA

C'mon man, all that is commentary, not specific cases.

the first one refers to the stolen east anglia emails - and close to ten independent investigations have all concluded no fraud.

the second doesn't even mention a specific case in the first 6 to 8 paragraphs, it was all editorial and innuendo, so I stopped reading.

websites called climate change fraud and global warming skeptics are useless by definition - they are not legitimate sources.

what I need is specific cases, reported in both legitimate national media AND the science literature, so we can examine real examples.

the east anglia emails have ALREADY been investigated and declared nonfraudulent (altho they did raise this issue of sharing unpublished results), so it's borderline fraud on your part to put up the stolen private east anglia emails as an example.

I understand your denial websites and commentators are telling you to keep repeating fraud, but unless you can show fraud, IT IS FRAUD TO KEEP CLAIMING FRAUD.

I'm not saying there may not be any fraud - scientists are very competitive and science fraud occurs, such as the recent case of the evo psych guy and his monkey tests.

But you are making a claim that I am saying you cannot support.

Put up specific cases, and lets look at the evidence.

The guy in that interview was the founder of The Weather Channel. He did a news segment called, "Global Warming: The Other Side." Here it is...

Part 1


Part 2: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-eyebK_mFkc

Part 3: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Iww0a_eIYL8

Part 4: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZjfQS_qXWzg

Part 5: https://youtube.com/watch?v=XJLpfI8cKFY

Part 6: https://youtube.com/watch?v=SsX-z1XfU24

Part 7: https://youtube.com/watch?v=cf1A5eI3_og

Is it possible for you to type a sentence without mentioning Al Gore? This talk has been going on long before Gore and you sound like a fucking Glen Beck robot.

All true of course. as I said, it's a complex subject. You attempt to simplify it with denial, and I empathize with that impulse.

It's not life that is at risk, short of a hydrogen sulfide event, which has happened in the past, it's civilization as we know it. but it's only civilization, we have already lost our best chance, so it doesn't really matter.

Violent storms, droughts, and famines are already happening. The predictive models say they will get worse. we will see.

6000 years ago citystates lived and died constantly, and the civilizations of those days responded to resource depletion and local desertification, such as happened in saharan africa, with migration. But there were only millions of us on the planet at that time, and we had always lived a kind of nomadic lifestyle, even after the invention of agriculture and cities - cities were built, lived in until the surrounding land was desert, then the people moved on to a better area.

There isn't anywhere to migrate now.

anyway, the results aren't really my concern. I dont believe humans can do anything about global warming, if the models are correct and it is happening it won't be me that has to deal with the migrating hordes and the consequences.

so like I said, put up your denial candidates, deny away. Nobody important is really paying attention to your denial, the insurers all know the costs of warming are going up, the corporations all know it, the military knows it, the rest of the world knows it, and the economies of our civilization are all reacting to it.

You have a few years to try to make political power out of denial, so go for it.

all your denials wont matter anyway - oil is a limited resource, and when the oil is gone we will burn every single piece of coal we can extract, then after that the lignite and the peat. nothing can stop what is going to happen.

The media did not ignore the east anglia emails. They were and have been front page news.

You are now INTENTIONALLY commiting fraud. I am accusing you of intentionally commiting fraud, by continuing to claim that a fraud occured when close to ten investigations have said that none occured.

I would like to see your side conduct it's own investigation - and then lets examine the reuslts of that investigation.

I invite you to appeal to your side's politicians to conduct theor own independent investigation. But, you wont, because you are commiting fraud, and dont want to face the fact that you are commiting fraud.

And if a group of scientists want to sue gore for fraud, why haven't they?

Go ahead and sue. I totally support such a lawsuit.

Or is the claim that 30k scientists want to sue also a fraudulent claim? I suspect it is, altho I haven't investigated, and you refuse to post real sources.

The Cliff Notes Version: I am right, but I am also wrong because this time it will be different. We are all doomed so it does not matter and I am living in denial.

You talk about scientific facts, but you do not defend your position with any. You say it is all too complex and complicated to explain when the problem is you do not understand it. You just believe it. You throw out doom and gloom predictions like some bible nut preaching to heathens about the coming Apocalypse and God's wrath.

Stop pretending to be a scientist. You are a weather zealot.

In 20 years there will be still be oil, coal and natural gas. In 50 years there will still be oil, coal and natural gas. The planet may get warmer. The planet may get cooler. Regardless, your End of Days predictions will not happen like you predict. I hope you won't be disappointed.

I haven't predicted end of days. You are lying by claiming I have.

I dont recall talking about scientific facts either. I probably have a different definition of fact than you, but the closest thing to a fact that I have written here is the NSIDC measurements that say that a third of the arctic sea ice has melted since 2000. I try to explain how the science works, and sometimes talk about climate in general, such as when I answered your first question, which you claimed was serious, altho you are not now acting seriously.

I have never pretended to be a scientist, over and over I have said I am a curious layperson.

You pick a specific point and I will happily discuss it to the best of my ability.

The science is very complex, because the climate is very complex. You screaming wont make it less complex.

i already said on page 1 that discussing with some people on here is useless. you only get belittled but never presented a real argument

You are right in stating that in the time of the dinosaurs it was much hotter yet life thrived.

You may be right in stating that 6000 years ago it was 4 degrees warmer, while I know a fair amount about civilization at that time I do not know what the temperature was then. I do know that cities appeared and dissappeared regularly as humans migrated from place to place.

This time it will be different, because we have only had a fossil carbon industrial civilization for 400 years and an oil civilization for 100 years, and we have never had a population as dense as this. Nothing like our current civilization has ever happened before.

With a few diffeence sin technology the agricultural civilization of 6000 years ago was not substantially different from the roman empire or medeival feudalism,

So, yes, this will be different. Different better, maybe. If you belive that those equatorial billions will invent new tech to adapt to heat, and not migrate, then maybe it wont be a problem.

Guys... turn of the fucking TV and stop parroting what you see/hear. Mass brainwashing is real, this thread is proof.

Good stuff!

Although carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it is a poor one. Methane is 23 times more potent as a potential warming agent.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html

hence all the concern about methane.

then we need to stick corks in cow bums and not worry about the SUVs

Sorry, you've completely misunderstood the problem. Let me explain it.

Cow methane does not come from fossil or stored carbon. Cows eat biomass and convert some of it to methane - but that biomass was already part of the current carbon cycle, so it doesn't add anything to the total of greenhouse gasses.

If the cows were eating oil or coal, then farting methane, that would be a problem, but they are just eating plants, and therefore have a small effect on the gas balance of the atmosphere.

It's only when fossil or stored methane is released that there can be a net increase in the greenhouse gases.

The big methane problem is the stored methane in the northern permafrost bogs - hundreds of thousands of years of methane can be released all at once as the north warms up.

There are trillions of tons of carbon stored in rain forests and mud and biological formations of all kinds - but those typically represent a few thousand years of stored carbon, enough to be trouble, but not on the scale of the hundreds of thousands and hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon in the permafrost, clathrates, and of course the fossil carbon.

The even bigger methane problem is the clathrates. But lets hope that doesn't get released, because the consequences of that would mean an end of days scenario. So lets not even mention it. Lets hope the ocean floors remain cold enough to keep the clathrates stable.

Tell that to the European countries that are taxing farmers for the methane produced by their cows.

It's hardly a secret. This is carbon 101.

And I have no power to tell european countries anything, they would tell me to mind my own fucking business and that I should be talking to my politicians about our own carbon.

which I dont bother to do, because as I have said, I understand the human mind, and we will not do anything realistic to conserve fossil carbon.

We humans are not conservative. So called political conservatism is the exact opposite of real conservation, and the neoliberals are even worse.

http://tinyurl.com/lf8nuk
http://tinyurl.com/3579x2c

http://www.artsz.org/wp-content/uplo.../Freud-art.jpg

MaDalton,

What do you say about these very informative videos?

What do you say about the phony formulas used to produce the "hockey stick" graph?

What do you say about the data being manipulated?

What do you say, Sir?

Youtube videos are not typically a legitimate source of science OR science news.

You have grasped the difference between editorial opinion and the actual science, yes?

So, what is the phony formula used to produce the hockey stick graph? You present your side's view and we can discuss it and look at the current scientific critiques.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ven-wrong.html

I'm not a hockey stick graph expert, because it's just one small part of the measurements and because it's a dendrochronological picture of historic trends it by definition is less important than current measurements.

But, let's take a look at it.

http://www.newscientist.com/data/ima....400-2_752.jpg

Those videos were from a news segment done by the founder of The Weather Channel. Do you only consume information that supports your viewpoint? It sure seems that way. Watch the videos. I look forward to your comments.

Alaska is melting. What once was ice covered is now gone, turned into lakes, and with running waterfalls. Polar bears are now mating with regular bears because the polar bears have moved inland because of the weather change. They have Iditarod races where the dogs are getting injured because they're racing now on actual land instead of the sheets of ice they use to before.

Glaciers are breaking apart the size of states and MOVING towards land. And just weeks ago I read somewhere something about glaciers on the ocean FLOOR are breaking apart.

As I said, my interest is in the science. Weather channel is news.

And as I also just said, I dont take youtube seriously as a source of either science or news. Just like I don't take history channel or discovery channel seriously as sources on science. News is for entertainent and profit - science has an entirely more rigorous set of standards, protocols, and ethics.

Are you personally incapable of articulating your own arguments?

Pick a topic, articulate it, and lets discuss it.

I understand it's difficult to speak about these complex issues on your own, but I'd be curious to see you try.

I'll tell you what - you transcribe an argument you find convincing from those opinion videos, and put it on the table, and we can discuss that.

That way, all you have to do is repeat the argument. Not so hard. No actual reading of science sources required.

I'm always happy to discuss specific issues. It should be fun.

no global worming is happening. they created it to collect new tax. Why you even discuss this so long. it is all a part of mind manipulation. Relax and live YOUR lives