The scientific truth about climate change

Full story: CBS News

Sea ice levels in the Arctic Ocean have dropped below the previous all-time record set in 2007.
Comments
1 - 20 of 110 Comments Last updated Nov 17, 2012
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

“ROCK ON ROCKERS!!”

Since: Mar 11

Rockin' USA ;)

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Ya can spew all ya want about THE FREAKIN' CLIMATE CHANGE..NOT like we HUMANS can grab OUR 'REMOTE CONTROL' device and change it..LIVE WITH IT!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

[T]here aren't many climate-change deniers anymore." CBS Sunday Morning

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.panoramio.com/user/

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

No one is saying the climate is not or has not changed over time.... It's the Cause that is being disputed... None of the data tells Which comes first and it is at the Heart of the argument... The Claim is that Man is causing climate change due to production of Co2 ... That is what is in dispute...

That leads to two conclusions... Man produces Co2 of which he produces .002% of the Co2 in the atmosphere.. and this causes in the future the green house effect and a rise in global temps...

OR....

The temp of the planet rises and causes carbonaceous rock to out gas, organic compost to out gas and the oceans to increase it's Co2 release... Which produces 90% of the atmospheric Co2 to begin with...

At question is Ice Cores that are the basis of the first claim... But FACT is that those cores do not show which came first Co2 or Temp rise...

If Co2 comes first then the question becomes what was the mechanism to cause Co2 rise in the cores Before man had industry...

My personal view is that the Climate Changes... We see it in all the planets from time to time... And as it gets warmer the normal reaction of Co2 in assorted media is to out gas causing the atmospheric Co2 to rise ... Meaning Man has nothing to do with it and cannot do anything about it if he tries...

I don't just base that on the data which does point to that view... I base it on a long history of scientific claims of human doom and gloom being dead wrong.. In every case...

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.panoramio.com/user/

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
[T]here aren't many climate-change deniers anymore." CBS Sunday Morning
But there are 10's of 1000's of Scientists that deny Man has anything to do with it.....
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
But there are 10's of 1000's of Scientists that deny Man has anything to do with it.....
NOT TRUE. That's what you say but nothing about the man-made greenhouse gases since the industrialization began in England.

You are another liar who does not know science. What's the greenhouse effect? Can we tell what CO2 from where? Yes, we can.

Fact: man-made global warming is the reason for the global climate change. That means your life is already being impacted whether you deny it or not.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Quantummist wrote:
No one is saying the climate is not or has not changed over time.... It's the Cause that is being disputed... None of the data tells Which comes first and it is at the Heart of the argument... The Claim is that Man is causing climate change due to production of Co2 ... That is what is in dispute...
That leads to two conclusions... Man produces Co2 of which he produces .002% of the Co2 in the atmosphere.. and this causes in the future the green house effect and a rise in global temps...
OR....
The temp of the planet rises and causes carbonaceous rock to out gas, organic compost to out gas and the oceans to increase it's Co2 release... Which produces 90% of the atmospheric Co2 to begin with...
At question is Ice Cores that are the basis of the first claim... But FACT is that those cores do not show which came first Co2 or Temp rise...
If Co2 comes first then the question becomes what was the mechanism to cause Co2 rise in the cores Before man had industry...
My personal view is that the Climate Changes... We see it in all the planets from time to time... And as it gets warmer the normal reaction of Co2 in assorted media is to out gas causing the atmospheric Co2 to rise ... Meaning Man has nothing to do with it and cannot do anything about it if he tries...
I don't just base that on the data which does point to that view... I base it on a long history of scientific claims of human doom and gloom being dead wrong.. In every case...
WRONG.

Another republican propaganda. Hey, you lost the election for the WH.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.panoramio.com/user/

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>WRONG.
Another republican propaganda. Hey, you lost the election for the WH.
So exactly where are my positions Wrong and it has nothing to do with the election... So Please feel free to provide any evidence that Co2 goes Up before the temp rises and explain the mechanism of the .002 man contribution to atmospheric Co2 being more than the 90% produced by natural out gassing...

Also care to give an example of a environmental doom and gloom claim that has come to pass as claimed? Here I will even give you a few of the claims of past scientist....

"Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner

"[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer

"Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000."

"Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

"By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.

"If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt

"During Operation Desert Storm, Dr. S. Fred Singer and Carl Sagan discussed the possible environmental impacts of the Kuwaiti petroleum fires on the ABC News program Nightline. Sagan argued that some of the effects of the smoke could be similar to the effects of nuclear winter, with smoke lofting into the upper atmosphere, with global effects and that he believed the net effects would be very similar to the explosion of the Indonesian volcano Tambora in 1815, which resulted in the year 1816 being known as the Year Without a Summer."

"Environmentalist say that the Valdez oil spill will destroy Prince William Sound for generations to come"

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.panoramio.com/user/

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>NOT TRUE. That's what you say but nothing about the man-made greenhouse gases since the industrialization began in England.
You are another liar who does not know science. What's the greenhouse effect? Can we tell what CO2 from where? Yes, we can.
Fact: man-made global warming is the reason for the global climate change. That means your life is already being impacted whether you deny it or not.
Horsey Puckey Doo Doo... We Cannot tell where Co2 comes from.. Co2 is Co2.. Period.. There is no scientific method to determine it's source...

What you are doing is the same as any Religious Believer... You Believe... The Priests that cover their walls with gold their flock provides tell you to believe and you Believe... Environmentalism of today has become a religion...

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.panoramio.com/user/

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>WRONG.
Another republican propaganda. Hey, you lost the election for the WH.
Oh.. and for those that dispute here's a bit of a list...

This was a 2007 list as of today the Number is 30,000 scientist that state Climate Change is not caused by Man....

http://digitaljournal.com/article/162241

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.panoramio.com/user/

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>NOT TRUE. That's what you say but nothing about the man-made greenhouse gases since the industrialization began in England.
You are another liar who does not know science. What's the greenhouse effect? Can we tell what CO2 from where? Yes, we can.
Fact: man-made global warming is the reason for the global climate change. That means your life is already being impacted whether you deny it or not.
Really? Then why is the data showing that Co2 Lags temp rise?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-tem...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temp...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-c...
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

quantumtiny wrote:
.... why is the data showing that Co2 Lags temp rise?
Nature naturally uses CO2 to warm climate. No news there.
Now man is using GHG CO2 to warm climate. Warm ain't the problem. Too much change is the problem.
Show us your upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc to accompany your hi skule deegreee. Show us your mathematics & science college degrees. Show us anything that disproves that you have 10-16 years less education in mathematics & science than the scientists you oppose.

You repeating the same things that were posted by toxic topix AGW deniers 6 years ago doesn't count.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.panoramio.com/user/

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Nature naturally uses CO2 to warm climate. No news there.
Now man is using GHG CO2 to warm climate. Warm ain't the problem. Too much change is the problem.
Show us your upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc to accompany your hi skule deegreee. Show us your mathematics & science college degrees. Show us anything that disproves that you have 10-16 years less education in mathematics & science than the scientists you oppose.
You repeating the same things that were posted by toxic topix AGW deniers 6 years ago doesn't count.
I would give you my resume but doubt you would understand it... What I will do is say that what you and so many do is Believe.. Just as many other religious fanatics do... You take the Word of the Priests that make their fortunes from your inability to question the claims with your own knowledge base.

The Evidence, Even the very Evidence used by your priests, clearly shows that the earth Does Not use Co2 to warm climates... It specifically shows that when the climate warms the earth out gasses more Co2 in Response to a warming climate.... But your priest cannot allow you to understand that data... Because if you do you would not support their next call for funding... You would not agree with using your food crops to run machines... You would not spend 40 bucks for a light bulb that they have invested in... You would not spend Your money to support their lifestyles...

So.. As I asked Before... Please provide a Single Global claim of the environmentalist religion from the past that has been true... I'll wait....

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.panoramio.com/user/

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Nature naturally uses CO2 to warm climate. No news there.
Now man is using GHG CO2 to warm climate. Warm ain't the problem. Too much change is the problem.
Show us your upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc to accompany your hi skule deegreee. Show us your mathematics & science college degrees. Show us anything that disproves that you have 10-16 years less education in mathematics & science than the scientists you oppose.
You repeating the same things that were posted by toxic topix AGW deniers 6 years ago doesn't count.
"Nature naturally uses CO2 to warm climate. No news there."

If that were true then Co2 would Lead climate change... If Climate changes and then Co2 changes then your view is debunked on it's face...

"All I can do is explain it to you, I cannot Understand it for you"

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.panoramio.com/user/

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

By the way Kids... All the little Judgeits do little to bolster your positions.. They only show a child like response to someone disagreeing with your religious beliefs...

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
I would give you my resume but doubt you would understand it... What I will do is say that what you and so many do is Believe.. Just as many other religious fanatics do... You take the Word of the Priests that make their fortunes from your inability to question the claims with your own knowledge base.
The Evidence, Even the very Evidence used by your priests, clearly shows that the earth Does Not use Co2 to warm climates... It specifically shows that when the climate warms the earth out gasses more Co2 in Response to a warming climate.... But your priest cannot allow you to understand that data... Because if you do you would not support their next call for funding... You would not agree with using your food crops to run machines... You would not spend 40 bucks for a light bulb that they have invested in... You would not spend Your money to support their lifestyles...
So.. As I asked Before... Please provide a Single Global claim of the environmentalist religion from the past that has been true... I'll wait....
It is known that a warming ocean will release more CO2 to the atmosphere. If the CO2 always preceded the historic warming, that does not prove that CO2 does not contribute to the warming. Many of the warming trends in history are due to changing orbital cycles, the tilt of the earth to the orbital plane and even variations in the Sun's output. Any of these warming events would cause the ocean to release CO2 into the atmosphere. That in no way gives evidence that disputes the role of CO2 in causing global warming. However, a study published in NATURE shows evidence that CO2 did precede warming in some cases.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n73...

BTW, typing the formula for carbondioxide as Co2 instead of CO2 shows that you have little scientific background and must depend upon outside sources. The fact that you quote a largely debunked study by 30000 supposed scientists, and use terms such as "religion", gives evidence as to where you gather your opinions. You are entitled to those opinions, but anyone with even a smattering of science background understands that you have little to contribute.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.panoramio.com/user/

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is known that a warming ocean will release more CO2 to the atmosphere. If the CO2 always preceded the historic warming, that does not prove that CO2 does not contribute to the warming. Many of the warming trends in history are due to changing orbital cycles, the tilt of the earth to the orbital plane and even variations in the Sun's output. Any of these warming events would cause the ocean to release CO2 into the atmosphere. That in no way gives evidence that disputes the role of CO2 in causing global warming. However, a study published in NATURE shows evidence that CO2 did precede warming in some cases.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n73...
BTW, typing the formula for carbondioxide as Co2 instead of CO2 shows that you have little scientific background and must depend upon outside sources. The fact that you quote a largely debunked study by 30000 supposed scientists, and use terms such as "religion", gives evidence as to where you gather your opinions. You are entitled to those opinions, but anyone with even a smattering of science background understands that you have little to contribute.
Actually the 30,00 scientist is Not a report it's a List of signatures of people in assorted fields that disagree with the Basic premise that Humans have any impact of variations in climate... There's No Study to debunk... And your personal attack mode show you have not the intellectual ability to make rational argument so I see no contribution to the issue from your side.. But I have come to expect it from religious fanatics... My Use of Co2 as a format is specific to forum usage as a way to be specific as to the primary constituent at issue Carbon.. They don't make a small 2 or I would use it also... So basically you approach to debate is to provide no intellectual argument of your own, nit pick minutia in format and insult... Understood...

"All I can do is explain it to you, I cannot Understand it for you"
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Quantummist wrote:
<quoted text>
30,000 scientist is a List of signatures of people in assorted fields that disagree with the Basic premise that Humans have any impact of variations in climate... your personal attack mode show you have not the intellectual ability.....
If you had honest intellectual ability, you would know the Oregon list is unconfirmed signatures from people qualifying only with Bachelor degrees. Most aren't scientists & many don't even have the degrees. The signature operation was run by one paid person.
The list wasn't a proper 'poll' because the list to sign was accompanied by propaganda.

Indeed, the floated list was unscientific, many on the list asking to be removed, were never removed & some signatures were of dead people.

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.panoramio.com/user/

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Nov 11, 2012
 
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
If you had honest intellectual ability, you would know the Oregon list is unconfirmed signatures from people qualifying only with Bachelor degrees. Most aren't scientists & many don't even have the degrees. The signature operation was run by one paid person.
The list wasn't a proper 'poll' because the list to sign was accompanied by propaganda.
Indeed, the floated list was unscientific, many on the list asking to be removed, were never removed & some signatures were of dead people.
Horse Puckys ... First you have no idea what Constitutes a Scientist from your post as there is No Degree that denotes such.. As for the Signiture of that list the Lowest level of academic completion is Bachlelor Degree, The Actual Count of The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees.... Also you do Not require a Degree of Any Kind to be a Scientist...

Then there are the UN petitioners...

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-RE...

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.panoramio.com/user/

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Nov 11, 2012
 
I really like this Quote:

Prominent physicist Hal Lewis resigned from American Physical Society, calling "Global warming the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life."

“Speaker of Mountain Wisdom....”

Since: Jan 10

http://www.panoramio.com/user/

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Nov 11, 2012
 
And....

“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith...My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 6
Next Last
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••