Who still takes global warming seriously?

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. Full Story
ken

Albuquerque, NM

#21 Jan 29, 2010
Squal Tallon wrote:
You who call it the Global Warming theory should be shot.
Im assuming we all believe Darwins THEORY of evolution is still a theory?
Just because it gets cold does not mean Global Warming is not a problem.
People like you caused the name Climate Change to be used since your to ridiculous to understand the bigger picture.
Global temperatures do rise, and many things pollute the atmosphere, but the major contributor is CO2.
That's alot of hostility coming from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. Do you know what leaves your lungs upon exhalation? If CO2 is such a huge problem maybe we should start taking ourselves out right? You first.
You see, instituting a global carbon tax is really what this is all about. They are going to tax you on your "carbon footprint", Just another means of control.
Mr Giblets

Worcester, UK

#22 Jan 29, 2010
knowman wrote:
The only thing the Global warming debate proves is how absolutely stupid and undereducated Americans are when comes to what "science" really is. I bet most people that have an "opinion" on this topic haven't read an actual science article from a reputable source in years.
funny then , how the man who started the whole scam is NOT a scientist at all. here are his qualifications :


failed Divinity course
flunked out of law school
claimed to be the "inspiration" behind "Love Story"
"Invented the internet " ( in his dreams)
lost even his home state in a Presidential election
invented global warming.
cjjeepercreeper

Albuquerque, NM

#23 Jan 29, 2010
OMG! Global warming! Oops! Its not warming anymore! Let's call it climate change! Oops! Oh darn, the scientists are lying, making up data, and cherry picking the data. OMG! What do I do now? And darn it, I waited too long, can't get in on that carbon tax thing anymore like my pal algore, I was planning on becoming a millionaire bilking stupid people just like him. Well, I'm easily fooled and manipulated, what else you guys got that I can pick up as my "cause"?
James Lloyd

Atlanta, GA

#24 Jan 29, 2010
Who takes global warming seriously?

Well, scientists, actually. 97.4% of climate scientists who publish research in peer-reviewed journals agree that a major cause of climate change is human action (burning things, mostly).

So-called Climategate hasn't changed the fact that virtually all peer-reviewed research on the subject support that man is the cause. Out of 13,000 emails they found 2 that looked bad. One of those contained doubts that the author had previously PUBLISHED a year before. The other had some bad choices in it, but nothing showing any INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY AMONG THOUSANDS OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.

Are you saying that you don't believe all of the climate scientists in the world? If you say that ALL of the research scientists in a field wrong, just because you heard it from Fox News or Rush, you are saying that you don't believe in scientific method. This scientist or that scientist you can argue with (if you have data), but all of them. Do you believe in other planets? In nuclear physics? Do you still believe that smoking doesn't cause cancer?

There is a difference between weather and climate. The climate is global and changes are observable over many years. Weather is local and changes all the time. One cold winter - or several - do not have an impact on data covering hundreds of thousands of years.

John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, recently came out with a little presentation with charts and graphs saying that climate change is a fraud. Should you believe him? Not really.

But why, you say, he has graphs and he founded the Weather Channel! Is he a researcher who has had to defend his facts and conclusions against other scientists reviewing his work?

No. You can be a weatherman, or, meteorologist, with a bachelor's degree. I'm not dissing weathermen. They play very important role in society. But asking a weather man if climate change is real is like asking a nurse to do brain surgery. She may know a lot of things, but she isn't qualified to do that.

Unfortunately, climate change is real. Don't believe me, you say? Then check my facts. How do you do that?

You have to consult the scientific research. Sorry.
James Lloyd

Atlanta, GA

#25 Jan 29, 2010
Yes, you are right. CO2 leaves our lungs. It is not any CO2, it's just the large amount of CO2. CO2 is only 1/3rd of one percent of our atmosphere and the fact that it absorbs heat keeps our planet as warm as it is. Breathing doesn't add so much. The planet is used to that by now. By burning fossil fuels we have raised the CO2 level in the atmosphere 25% higher than it has been in over 800,000 yrs. That's a problem.

This is a very big deal. If climate change is real, then it is an enormous threat to the lives of your children. If it is not real, then it is a VERY expensive hoax.

Unfortunately for us, 97.4% of the scientists who should know - say it is real.
Mr Giblets

Worcester, UK

#26 Jan 29, 2010
James Lloyd wrote:
Who takes global warming seriously?
Well, scientists, actually. 97.4% of climate scientists who publish research in peer-reviewed journals agree that a major cause of climate change is human action (burning things, mostly).
So-called Climategate hasn't changed the fact that virtually all peer-reviewed research on the subject support that man is the cause. Out of 13,000 emails they found 2 that looked bad. One of those contained doubts that the author had previously PUBLISHED a year before. The other had some bad choices in it, but nothing showing any INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY AMONG THOUSANDS OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.
Are you saying that you don't believe all of the climate scientists in the world? If you say that ALL of the research scientists in a field wrong, just because you heard it from Fox News or Rush, you are saying that you don't believe in scientific method. This scientist or that scientist you can argue with (if you have data), but all of them. Do you believe in other planets? In nuclear physics? Do you still believe that smoking doesn't cause cancer?
There is a difference between weather and climate. The climate is global and changes are observable over many years. Weather is local and changes all the time. One cold winter - or several - do not have an impact on data covering hundreds of thousands of years.
John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, recently came out with a little presentation with charts and graphs saying that climate change is a fraud. Should you believe him? Not really.
But why, you say, he has graphs and he founded the Weather Channel! Is he a researcher who has had to defend his facts and conclusions against other scientists reviewing his work?
No. You can be a weatherman, or, meteorologist, with a bachelor's degree. I'm not dissing weathermen. They play very important role in society. But asking a weather man if climate change is real is like asking a nurse to do brain surgery. She may know a lot of things, but she isn't qualified to do that.
Unfortunately, climate change is real. Don't believe me, you say? Then check my facts. How do you do that?
You have to consult the scientific research. Sorry.
terminology in Global warming Science Circles ;

to Peer review = to Co-conspire
Paladin

United States

#27 Jan 29, 2010
Star Wars= Science Fiction
Man Made Global Warming= Fiction Science

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#28 Jan 29, 2010
wurx-fur-me wrote:
Dirty air is harmful to republicans too. You can't bury your head in the sand and pretend that it just isn't there. That's just crazy. We all need to face the fact that this isn't a political problem, it's a global problem.
CO2 is not "dirty air" and is in fact necessary for life on this planet. It has become a typical strategy to equate CO2 with pollution. They are not the same thing. Our environment is cleaner than it has been in a very long time. It is never in the best interest of a special interest group to claim victory so since things are cleaner they need a new "pollutant". Might as well find something that is ubiquitous and call it a "pollutant". That way they can stay in business forever.

Kook

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#29 Jan 29, 2010
Otis wrote:
It's not surprising that the folks yapping about not believing there is a phenomenon of global warming never seem to have any data to back up their doubt. Other than the schoolyard science of "look, it's snowing today". There is a bit more to the science than a day of rain or a season of snow. Rising sea levels, shrinking polar caps, changing weather patterns, etc. I don't understand why these yappers can't separate their hatred of a particular political group with the cold, hard facts of science. Does it make sense to not try and limit greenhouse gases and take the gamble that our future generations will have to figure it out at much greater expense and harm? The yappers need to leave the science to scientists even with the few miscreants who screwed up so badly in England. Or come up with some solid science that refutes the current science.
And the science you use to back up your lack of doubt becomes more suspect every day. "email gate" was just the beginning.

Kook

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#30 Jan 29, 2010
Squal Tallon wrote:
Oh and can someone please explain to me how this is some huge hoax and a scam... hrm... last time i remember sunlight and wind were free you morons.
But turning them into power is not. You can choose to buy your electircity from "green" sources but you will pay more for it.

Kook
USSA

New Castle, PA

#31 Jan 29, 2010
Here's what the data says:

The upward trend in glacier shortening (169 glaciers) between 1700 and the present began around 1825. Long before the widespread use of fossil fuels. The upward trend has been on the same slope ever since and despite increase use in fossil fuels, the trend line remains on the same slope. Hydrocarbon use could not have caused this shortening trend.

Arctic surface air temperature compared with total solar irradiance as measured by sun spot cycle amplitude, sunspot cycle length, solar equatorial rotation rate, fraction of penumbral spots, and decay rate of the 11-year sunspot cycle. Solar irradiance correlates well with Arctic temperature, while hydrocarbon use does not correlate.

Annual number of strong-to-violent category F3 to F5 tornados during the March-to-August tornado season in the U.S. between 1950 and 2006. U.S. National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Department of Commerce 2006 Climate Review. During this period, world hydrocarbon use increased 6-fold, while violent tornado frequency decreased by 43%.

Global sea level measured by surface gauges between 1807 and 2002 and by satellite between 1993 and 2006. The overall trend is an increase of 7 inches per century. Intermediate trends are 9, 0, 12, 0, and 12 inches per century, respectively. This trend lags the temperature increase, so it predates the increase in hydrocarbon use. It is unaffected by the very large increase in hydrocarbon use.

Annual number of violent hurricanes and maximum attained wind speed during those hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean between 1944 and 2006. There is no upward trend in either of these records. During this period, world hydrocarbon use increased 6-fold.

Seven independent records – solar activity; Northern Hemisphere, Arctic, global, and U.S. annual surface air temperatures; sea level; and glacier length – all qualitatively confirm each other by exhibiting three intermediate trends – warmer, cooler, and warmer. Solar activity, Northern Hemisphere temperature, and glacier lengths show a low in about 1800. Hydrocarbon use is uncorrelated with temperature. Temperature rose for a century before significant hydrocarbon use. Temperature rose between 1910 and 1940, while hydrocarbon use was almost unchanged. Temperature then fell between 1940 and 1972, while hydrocarbon use rose by 330%. Also, the 150 to 200-year slopes of the sea level and glacier trends were unchanged by the very large in crease in hydrocarbon use after 1940.

I could go on all day long.

This is the inconvenient truth because it destroys the foundation laid by the green kool aid drinking Al Bore man made doomsday proselytizers. The data shows man made GW is a hoax. It is nothing more than a money making, control mechanism employed by the libtard left to promote their progressive agenda and to exert tyranny and oppression over the people of the world.
James Lloyd wrote:
Yes, you are right. CO2 leaves our lungs. It is not any CO2, it's just the large amount of CO2. CO2 is only 1/3rd of one percent of our atmosphere and the fact that it absorbs heat keeps our planet as warm as it is. Breathing doesn't add so much. The planet is used to that by now. By burning fossil fuels we have raised the CO2 level in the atmosphere 25% higher than it has been in over 800,000 yrs. That's a problem.
This is a very big deal. If climate change is real, then it is an enormous threat to the lives of your children. If it is not real, then it is a VERY expensive hoax.
Unfortunately for us, 97.4% of the scientists who should know - say it is real.
USSA

New Castle, PA

#32 Jan 29, 2010
Correction:

Man made global warming = junk science
Paladin wrote:
Star Wars= Science Fiction
Man Made Global Warming= Fiction Science
Sons of Liberty

Evansville, IN

#33 Jan 29, 2010
Osama Bin Laden has embraced the global warming and condemned the USA for it's part. Bin Laden understands how cap and trade will further destroy America and is on board.

Ironically Osama Bin Laden and the liberals of this country see things the same.
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#34 Jan 29, 2010
James Lloyd wrote:
Who takes global warming seriously?
I don't.
James Lloyd wrote:
Well, scientists, actually. 97.4% of climate scientists who publish research in peer-reviewed journals agree that a major cause of climate change is human action (burning things, mostly).
They're paid to take climate seriously.
James Lloyd wrote:
So-called Climategate hasn't changed the fact that virtually all peer-reviewed research on the subject support that man is the cause.
Peer review leaves a lot to be desired.
James Lloyd wrote:
Out of 13,000 emails they found 2 that looked bad. One of those contained doubts that the author had previously PUBLISHED a year before. The other had some bad choices in it, but nothing showing any INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY AMONG THOUSANDS OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.
There may or may not be a conspiracy, but what the documents prove, is that the top scientists have fiddled the books.
James Lloyd wrote:
Are you saying that you don't believe all of the climate scientists in the world?
Not at all, just those who blindly follow the party line.
James Lloyd wrote:
If you say that ALL of the research scientists in a field wrong, just because you heard it from Fox News or Rush, you are saying that you don't believe in scientific method.
Rush who?
Fox what?
James Lloyd wrote:
This scientist or that scientist you can argue with (if you have data), but all of them.
Was that a question?
James Lloyd wrote:
Do you believe in other planets? In nuclear physics? Do you still believe that smoking doesn't cause cancer?
Yes, yes and probably.
James Lloyd wrote:
There is a difference between weather and climate.
Wow, thanks for that brilliant observation.
James Lloyd wrote:
The climate is global and changes are observable over many years.
How many?
James Lloyd wrote:
Weather is local and changes all the time.
You don't say?
James Lloyd wrote:
One cold winter - or several - do not have an impact on data covering hundreds of thousands of years.
Data doesn't exist covering individual season over that period.
James Lloyd wrote:
John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, recently came out with a little presentation with charts and graphs saying that climate change is a fraud. Should you believe him? Not really.
Who's he?
James Lloyd wrote:
But why, you say, he has graphs and he founded the Weather Channel!
I'll have to take yur word for that.
James Lloyd wrote:
Is he a researcher who has had to defend his facts and conclusions against other scientists reviewing his work?
No. You can be a weatherman, or, meteorologist, with a bachelor's degree.
No way, I'm much too old for that.
James Lloyd wrote:
I'm not dissing weathermen. They play very important role in society. But asking a weather man if climate change is real is like asking a nurse to do brain surgery. She may know a lot of things, but she isn't qualified to do that.
You really are a mine of useful information, aren't you?
James Lloyd wrote:
Unfortunately, climate change is real.
It always has been.
James Lloyd wrote:
Don't believe me, you say?
No one said that.
James Lloyd wrote:
Then check my facts.
You don't have any facts.
James Lloyd wrote:
How do you do that?
You have to consult the scientific research.
I've done that and have discovered that there are two sides to this argument, which means the science isn't settled.
James Lloyd wrote:
Sorry.
So you should be.
Pit Bull owner

West New York, NJ

#35 Jan 29, 2010
hilllbilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed, but I have a more cynical take on it. The 2 main groups are extreme Left supporters that worship at the cult of environmentalism. Global warming is one of the pillars of that cult. The other group are the power hungry elitist scum that want to con people out of their freedoms and ability to self govern.
I have always just seen global warming as an effective rhetorical tool to be used by globalists and the fascist Left. I am glad that the politics behind it our coming out in the open. The debunkers should be seen as heroes.
I feel sorry for some of the people that are losing their religion, reality can be a shock for some.
enjoy,
Simply Brilliant
“It's OK, I got an AK”
Bravo
Ego te absolvo

Clarkson, KY

#36 Jan 29, 2010
It was fascinating to watch the hard Left in America discuss at length in published materials (Ramparts, Seven Days) in the 1970s how they were going to maintain control and relevance in the post Vietnam era. They decided on Global Climate threats. This resulted in the "Global 2000" report ordered by President Carter. That report used very scary scenarios, some claiming that coastal cities would be under water by 2000 and global food crises, that would cause severe societal breakdowns and threats to stable governments. The rhetoric was exemplary.

The same political elements have renewed that scare politic. It is remarkable, those same hard Left elements are responsible for the barrage of lies concerning almost every defense effort of the US since 9/11. Their extreme and repetitive anti-Americanism not only cost US troop lives, but gave enemies of the US psychological support and enlivenment. The political links and activism of the hard Left in America between their constant anti-Americanism and the current religion of Global Warming is relevant. Follow the money; follow the groups; follow the press releases; follow their comrades.

Following their comrades now unveils a particularly instructive link. Osama bin Laden now is one of the Global Warming enthusiasts linking his own anti-Americanism with Global Warming. What a web of deceit and actual harm the American Radical Leftist Democrats have brought to the world.
Firefly

Cerrillos, NM

#37 Jan 29, 2010
hilllbilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Us yappers have found out that Gore's claim about the polar ice caps was a lie. The UN admitted that they lied about the glaciers in Tibet. Don't forget about 'Climategate'. Also, the latest one is how the politicallly motivated scientists are hand picking what data the use from Artic Canada weather stations.
What else - last year, only 52 out of 802 or 702 UN climatoligists singed the UN's report on global warming.
Sorry to see you lose your religion. Try joining PETA or burning SUV dealerships with your new found free time.
enjoy,
You're still poetry in motion!
Marty Deming

Tulsa, OK

#38 Jan 29, 2010
I believe you are a bunch of clueless people athat just wants to say no just like a bunch of republicans..The cap and trade might not be the best thing we can do now but it is all we got.
Yes, we could leave things as status quo, but you are taking a chance on your childern have no air to breath and just polluted water to dring, if they have that, yes, clean air, un-polluted water.
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#39 Jan 29, 2010
James Lloyd wrote:
Yes, you are right. CO2 leaves our lungs.
Correct.
James Lloyd wrote:
It is not any CO2, it's just the large amount of CO2.
Pardon?
James Lloyd wrote:
CO2 is only 1/3rd of one percent of our atmosphere and the fact that it absorbs heat keeps our planet as warm as it is.
Check your facts, CO2 plays a minor role in that regard.
James Lloyd wrote:
Breathing doesn't add so much. The planet is used to that by now.
ROFLMAO.
James Lloyd wrote:
By burning fossil fuels we have raised the CO2 level in the atmosphere 25% higher than it has been in over 800,000 yrs. That's a problem.
Prove it.
James Lloyd wrote:
This is a very big deal.
Why?
James Lloyd wrote:
If climate change is real, then it is an enormous threat to the lives of your children.
"If climate change is real?"
Of course it's real, but why is it a threat to anyone?
James Lloyd wrote:
If it is not real, then it is a VERY expensive hoax.
The, "expensive hoax" comes in with Fat Al Gore and the way he's presented the whole scam.
James Lloyd wrote:
Unfortunately for us, 97.4% of the scientists who should know - say it is real.
Yes it is unfortunate, but can you precisely cite that figure as accurate?
Ego te absolvo

Clarkson, KY

#40 Jan 29, 2010
ken wrote:
<quoted text>
That's alot of hostility coming from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. Do you know what leaves your lungs upon exhalation? If CO2 is such a huge problem maybe we should start taking ourselves out right? You first.
You see, instituting a global carbon tax is really what this is all about. They are going to tax you on your "carbon footprint", Just another means of control.
And, Global Wealth Redistribution.

The American Left is suicidal.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

US Senate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Body cameras for cops could be the biggest chan... 3 min Le Jimbo 1,621
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 39 min Learn to Read 182,030
US and Cuba move to normalize ties, open embassy 2 hr John 254
Senate, CIA agree torture program was mismanaged 4 hr Emperor 2
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 hr johnplustwomore 1,155,536
Pope Francis acknowledges State of Palestine (May '14) 9 hr WelbyMD 141
Congress can block use of fees for immigration ... 9 hr xxxrayted 304
More from around the web