Who still takes global warming seriously?

Full story: Farmington Daily Times

Despite the recent discovery of the e-mails that resulted in "Climate Gate" and the fact this has been one of the coldest and harshest winters in many years, Gov.

Comments (Page 1,509)

Showing posts 30,161 - 30,180 of30,825
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31444
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

2 manygoats wrote:
Ignorance is bliss..........
[URL deleted]
Is CO2 increasing because of global warming or is global warming because of CO2? Only experimental tests would tell how much. Why, not one single compelling experiment of climate change mitigation?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31445
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Wallop10 wrote:
Well that's a proven lie. The greenhouse effect in the atmosphere does not work like a real greenhouse. And in the atmosphere, warmer temperatures will evaporate the moisture in the ground and MORE water is needed. In a green house, the moisture is self contained, so won't go anywhere.
As atmospheric CO2 increases, plants have an easier time dealing with the atmosphere, therefor they lose less water. I've never claimed te greenhouse gas effect works like a real greenhouse; you can experimentally test greenhouse efficiency but you can't test the effects of man made greenhouse gas on climate in the atmosphere.

As water vapor rises it reaches cooler temperatures so water falls out of solution with the air. Life is beautiful, I support global warming.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31446
Feb 5, 2013
 
You can't mitigate scientific science fiction.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31447
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Realscience and Skepticalscience are well known for being loaded with propaganda and not science. And as far as awards, many works of fiction win awards. The real judge is what they produce and what they have produced is propaganda, pure and simple. The reason you find yourself defending them and the NASA web sites is that the limited amount of source material available to you means that you cannot find other sources to rely on. That you have to resort to claiming I am lying instead of finding additional proof to back up your claims.
OF course you have little choice. That so many of the places you once could rely on have now changed thier stance and are now disagree with man being the primary motivator on climate change or have been discredited.
We have propaganda....Teener has de troof!

Funny thing is, Teener equates scientific and communication awards to science fiction awards, making her an honorary PHuD.

Actually.

Funny thing is, Teener demands more proof than she provides.

I'd like to see some of these sites that have reversed their positions, too. After all.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31448
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>As atmospheric CO2 increases, plants have an easier time dealing with the atmosphere, therefor they lose less water. I've never claimed te greenhouse gas effect works like a real greenhouse; you can experimentally test greenhouse efficiency but you can't test the effects of man made greenhouse gas on climate in the atmosphere.
As water vapor rises it reaches cooler temperatures so water falls out of solution with the air. Life is beautiful, I support global warming.
We all support global warming.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31449
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>As atmospheric CO2 increases, plants have an easier time dealing with the atmosphere, therefor they lose less water. I've never claimed te greenhouse gas effect works like a real greenhouse; you can experimentally test greenhouse efficiency but you can't test the effects of man made greenhouse gas on climate in the atmosphere.
As water vapor rises it reaches cooler temperatures so water falls out of solution with the air. Life is beautiful, I support global warming.
Let me help you out on the first point.

#1 Warming associated with CO2 is logarithmic, that means each doubling of CO2 leads to smaller increases in temperature.

What you ignore is:

#2 It is the INDIRECT effects of CO2 warming (ie the FEEDBACKS) that worry scientists -- including 97% of climatologists and virtually ALL of the world respected science organizations.

--warming from CO2 means the atmosphere can hold more water vapor (another global warming gas); Because there are more clouds, this creates more powerful weather systems -- including in some areas more rain AND more snow (clouds shut out sunlight)

-- the ice caps are melting-- NASA and NOAA satellites confirm it. The ice acts reflects sunlight back into space, therefore more heat will be absorbed by the Earth, when the ice has fully melted.

--underneath the ice are LARGE deposits of methane. Methane is a more powerful global warming gas, than CO2.

-- the oceans are currently absorbing around 80% of the additional CO2 from human causes. This is creating problems with the corals and algae in higher latitudes now and studies indicate will creep into lower attitudes. In addition, there is concern that the oceans will saturate and start releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Then of course the additional CO2 is creating acidification of the ocean waters, and many coral species and other plankton life will die from this, affecting the food chain. And it is happening so rapidly, scientists worry if new species will have enough time to develop or not.

So yeah, if you can just go with her on IGNORING the FEEDBACKS, then what's the problem???

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31450
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

5

4

4

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Realscience and Skepticalscience are well known for being loaded with propaganda and not science. And as far as awards, many works of fiction win awards. The real judge is what they produce and what they have produced is propaganda, pure and simple.
They're looked upon as science.

You post purely from right wing ideology sites.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason you find yourself defending them and the NASA web sites is that the limited amount of source material available to you means that you cannot find other sources to rely on.
You admitted you don't think NASA's official climatology is a science site.

Is that also an admission you were lying when you said you could find me an official NASA website that was opposed to global warming?

NAH, you aren't that honest.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>

That you have to resort to claiming I am lying instead of finding additional proof to back up your claims.
Let's see: You insisted all the scientists were saying global warming was a hoax.

I showed all the world renown, top science agencies (not based on petroleum) had statements strongly in support of global warming; same as all the mainstream science media and world renown journals.

I gave you an official NASA citation. What else do you call it when you insisted there were "other" official NASA websites that were calling global warming a hoax. Except, OOPS you couldn;t produce them. Nor will you admit it, even now.

A higher truth -- you know "above" the real truth. HA HA HA
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
OF course you have little choice. That so many of the places you once could rely on have now changed thier stance and are now disagree with man being the primary motivator on climate change or have been discredited.
I've switched to voting you a peanut, down from clueless.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31451
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Wallop10 wrote:
Let me help you out on the first point.
#1 Warming associated with CO2 is logarithmic, that means each doubling of CO2 leads to smaller increases in temperature.
^^^That's no hope, its wrong. Each doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere produces the same increase in temperature. That means each molecule of CO2 you admit has less greenhouse effect than the previous molecule.

.
Wallop10 wrote:
What you ignore is:#2 It is the INDIRECT effects of CO2 warming (ie the FEEDBACKS) that worry scientists -- including 97% of climatologists and virtually ALL of the world respected science organizations.
--warming from CO2 means the atmosphere can hold more water vapor (another global warming gas); Because there are more clouds, this creates more powerful weather systems -- including in some areas more rain AND more snow (clouds shut out sunlight)
-- the ice caps are melting-- NASA and NOAA satellites confirm it. The ice acts reflects sunlight back into space, therefore more heat will be absorbed by the Earth, when the ice has fully melted.
--underneath the ice are LARGE deposits of methane. Methane is a more powerful global warming gas, than CO2.
-- the oceans are currently absorbing around 80% of the additional CO2 from human causes. This is creating problems with the corals and algae in higher latitudes now and studies indicate will creep into lower attitudes. In addition, there is concern that the oceans will saturate and start releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Then of course the additional CO2 is creating acidification of the ocean waters, and many coral species and other plankton life will die from this, affecting the food chain. And it is happening so rapidly, scientists worry if new species will have enough time to develop or not.
So yeah, if you can just go with her on IGNORING the FEEDBACKS, then what's the problem???
There are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation; no experimental data on climate feedback. That's why climate change mitigation is a hoax and global warming alarmism is pseudoscience.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31452
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me help you out on the first point.
#1 Warming associated with CO2 is logarithmic, that means each doubling of CO2 leads to smaller increases in temperature.
What you ignore is:
#2 It is the INDIRECT effects of CO2 warming (ie the FEEDBACKS) that worry scientists -- including 97% of climatologists and virtually ALL of the world respected science organizations.
--warming from CO2 means the atmosphere can hold more water vapor (another global warming gas); Because there are more clouds, this creates more powerful weather systems -- including in some areas more rain AND more snow (clouds shut out sunlight)
-- the ice caps are melting-- NASA and NOAA satellites confirm it. The ice acts reflects sunlight back into space, therefore more heat will be absorbed by the Earth, when the ice has fully melted.
--underneath the ice are LARGE deposits of methane. Methane is a more powerful global warming gas, than CO2.
-- the oceans are currently absorbing around 80% of the additional CO2 from human causes. This is creating problems with the corals and algae in higher latitudes now and studies indicate will creep into lower attitudes. In addition, there is concern that the oceans will saturate and start releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Then of course the additional CO2 is creating acidification of the ocean waters, and many coral species and other plankton life will die from this, affecting the food chain. And it is happening so rapidly, scientists worry if new species will have enough time to develop or not.
So yeah, if you can just go with her on IGNORING the FEEDBACKS, then what's the problem???
See you just can't go out there and quote scientific science fiction and IGNORING REAL SCIENCE. For that you get the clueless walloped award again and again.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31453
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^That's no hope, its wrong. Each doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere produces the same increase in temperature. That means each molecule of CO2 you admit has less greenhouse effect than the previous molecule.
.
<quoted text>There are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation; no experimental data on climate feedback. That's why climate change mitigation is a hoax and global warming alarmism is pseudoscience.
Actually, experiments began in the 1850s, done by John Tyndall. Nobel Prize winner Svante Arrhenius first proposed the theory in 1896, suggesting an increase in temps of ~5.5º C with doubled CO2 in the atmosphere. This isn't that far off from the ~4.5º C suggested by the most accurate current information.

So AGW/CC theory is older than relatively or quantum mechanics. It has made ~17-20 correct predictions, depending on how you count them. As information has continued to pile up, the theory has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You deniers are deluding yourselves.

We can start with a nice explanation of John Tyndall's work, along with brief explanations of the work of others, including Arrhenius & Callendar in the 1930s. Wiki has a write-up on Arrhenius. I also included a link to documentation of the correct predictions.

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/ClimateChangi...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable....

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31454
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^That's no hope, its wrong. Each doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere produces the same increase in temperature. That means each molecule of CO2 you admit has less greenhouse effect than the previous molecule.
.
<quoted text>There are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation; no experimental data on climate feedback. That's why climate change mitigation is a hoax and global warming alarmism is pseudoscience.
, the correlation between CO2 and temperature is not the whole argument because we have:
1) the measured absorption spectrum of CO2
2) the prediction that GHG warming will lead to a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere - which is observed by both radiosonde balloon and satellite microwave observation.
3) the prediction that expanding greenhouse gas atmospheric concentrations will cause the troposphere to rise - and we have the observations that this is occurring
4) the prediction that GHG gas warming will cause the Earth to radiate less energy back into space than it absorbs from the Sun - and we have the observations that observe that happening too.

Then we add on the fact that we have amazingly detailed data of a very strong correlation between temperature and CO2 in all the proxy climate sets (barring the iceball Earth episodes - for which greenhouse gas warming is thought to have saved Earth from albedo). The correlation is clearly evidence in the instrument data sets as well. All of these things taken together present a cohesive theory. So the argument that correlation doesn't equal causation is a form of cherry picking that ignores the wider spectrum of evidence.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31455
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Associated Press

Two of the Great Lakes have hit their lowest water levels ever recorded, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said Tuesday, capping more than a decade of below-normal rain and snowfall and higher temperatures that boost evaporation.

Measurements taken last month show Lake Huron and Lake Michigan have reached their lowest ebb since record keeping began in 1918, and the lakes could set additional records over the next few months, the corps said. The lakes were 29 inches below their long-term average and had declined 17 inches since January 2012.

The other Great Lakes — Superior, Erie and Ontario — were also well below average.

"We're in an extreme situation," said Keith Kompoltowicz, watershed hydrology chief for the corps district office in Detroit.

The low water has caused heavy economic losses by forcing cargo ships to carry lighter loads, leaving boat docks high and dry, and damaging fish-spawning areas. And vegetation has sprung up in newly exposed shoreline bottomlands, a turnoff for hotel customers who prefer sandy beaches.

<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><>

Don't worry about the government taxing your coal and oil. Global warming is already taxing us!

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31456
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
They're looked upon as science.
You post purely from right wing ideology sites.
<quoted text>
You admitted you don't think NASA's official climatology is a science site.
Is that also an admission you were lying when you said you could find me an official NASA website that was opposed to global warming?
NAH, you aren't that honest.
<quoted text>
Let's see: You insisted all the scientists were saying global warming was a hoax.
I showed all the world renown, top science agencies (not based on petroleum) had statements strongly in support of global warming; same as all the mainstream science media and world renown journals.
I gave you an official NASA citation. What else do you call it when you insisted there were "other" official NASA websites that were calling global warming a hoax. Except, OOPS you couldn;t produce them. Nor will you admit it, even now.
A higher truth -- you know "above" the real truth. HA HA HA
<quoted text>
I've switched to voting you a peanut, down from clueless.
Looked on by who as science sites. The only ones who seem to are like yourself who are in need of something you can offer as proof. the fact that they have as much fiction as fact would indicate that they are anything but a science site. It could be said that they are nothing more than left wing ideology sites. The fact that you have to call what I provide right wing means that there has to be a left wing version. It also points out that the discussion is about politics and not science. Science has no right wing or left wing. The speed of light does not change because the person measuring it has political leaning to the right or left. The mass of the earth does not change based on if the person measuring it is liberal or libertarian.

You wanted a site with an offical NASA logo and I found one. One that did not back your misguided beliefs. And as for your world renown agencies, have you ever taken a look at what some of them are renown for? A few are world renown for the serious mistakes they have made. NASA has lost satellites, the IPCC had so many mistakes that they were considering asking for the head of the IPCC to step down. AAAS is a lobbing group and it wasn't the only one on the list. In fact the only thing required to make this list was to say the man was the cause of climate change. As for your mainstream media and science journals, the main stream media has dropped the subject since it isn't selling like it once was and many of your journals are actually magazines trying to sell subscriptions.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31457
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

gcaveman1 wrote:
Associated Press
Two of the Great Lakes have hit their lowest water levels ever recorded, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said Tuesday, capping more than a decade of below-normal rain and snowfall and higher temperatures that boost evaporation.
Measurements taken last month show Lake Huron and Lake Michigan have reached their lowest ebb since record keeping began in 1918, and the lakes could set additional records over the next few months, the corps said. The lakes were 29 inches below their long-term average and had declined 17 inches since January 2012.
The other Great Lakes — Superior, Erie and Ontario — were also well below average.
"We're in an extreme situation," said Keith Kompoltowicz, watershed hydrology chief for the corps district office in Detroit.
The low water has caused heavy economic losses by forcing cargo ships to carry lighter loads, leaving boat docks high and dry, and damaging fish-spawning areas. And vegetation has sprung up in newly exposed shoreline bottomlands, a turnoff for hotel customers who prefer sandy beaches.
<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><>
Don't worry about the government taxing your coal and oil. Global warming is already taxing us!
Great, maybe my old home town will not have to suffer the spring floods this year. Then again they have had that problem for the last ten years.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31458
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Nothing better in life than reading the wallop10 getting walloped again and again.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31459
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Looked on by who as science sites...
Science has no right wing or left wing. The speed of light does not change because the person measuring it has political leaning to the right or left...
You wanted a site with an offical NASA logo and I found one... the IPCC had so many mistakes that they were considering asking for the head of the IPCC to step down. AAAS is a lobbing group and it wasn't the only one on the list...
You're absolutely right that scientific facts don't come in left & right political versions. But by denying AGW/CC you're taking on ALL mainstream science organizations & media. You think Scientific American, Discover, New Scientist, Science, Nature & all of them were ALL taken over by leftists? What, did they storm the barricades all at once?

Remember, 8 of the 12 largest companies in the world by revenue are oil companies. They all have profound economic interests in AGW/CC denial. The other 4 also have interests in denial, but careful laws could make them more neutral.

The bottom line is that there is way, way, way, way, WAY more money in AGW/CC denial than there is in supporting it.

So - WHAT NASA site? If you posted te link, I didn't see it. Can you repost?

And the IPCC has been remarkably accurate overall since they made their correction for aerosols in 1995. They're human, so they make occasional mistakes, but they've been minor, despite the aggressive right wing spin.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31460
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>As atmospheric CO2 increases, plants have an easier time dealing with the atmosphere, therefor they lose less water. I've never claimed te greenhouse gas effect works like a real greenhouse; you can experimentally test greenhouse efficiency but you can't test the effects of man made greenhouse gas on climate in the atmosphere.
As water vapor rises it reaches cooler temperatures so water falls out of solution with the air. Life is beautiful, I support global warming.
Plants don't like the heat caused by CO2. They stop respirating and therefore, stop growing.

Too much CO2 is bad and you are a bad, bad boy for promoting it.

Ask my tomatoes.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31461
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Nothing better in life than reading the wallop10 getting walloped again and again.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31462
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

gcaveman1 wrote:
Plants don't like the heat caused by CO2. They stop respirating and therefore, stop growing.
Plants don't like heat? Any proof, like evidence of more plant life at the poles than on the equator?

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
Too much CO2 is bad and you are a bad, bad boy for promoting it. Ask my tomatoes.
Did you forget to water your tomatoes?
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31463
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The cactus likes heat.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 30,161 - 30,180 of30,825
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
Farmington Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Farmington Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Farmington People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Farmington News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Farmington
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••