Global warming?

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by tw

Meanwhile the consenus is almost unanamous. Global warning is created by man.

BULLSHIT! Where in the world can you find any data suggesting that scientists are in any way unanimous about if and how much human habitation has contributed to global warming?

Are you stupid that you'd post such a thing and expect to be taken seriously? Come ON tw! Get real!!!

There is no concensus. That's why the issue is so contentious.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

BULLSHIT! Where in the world can you find any data suggesting that scientists are in any way unanimous about if and how much human habitation has contributed to global warming?

Are you stupid that you'd post such a thing and expect to be taken seriously? Come ON tw! Get real!!!

There is no concensus. That's why the issue is so contentious.

Consensus doesnt mean unanimous......it means a majority opinion.

There is consensus among the thousands of scientists who contributed to the IPCC.

There is consensus among the member scientists of 30+ National Academies of Sciences around the world that have taken a position on global warming.

There is consensus among the member scientists of numerous scientific bodies like the World Meteorological Association , the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics and dozens of other international and/or national scientific bodies.

That is not to say that in all of those instances that there are not minority opinions within those associations or scientific bodies

In terms of official positions of such national and international scientific associations, bodies and organizations....where they have taken a formal position, it is near unanimous in support of the finding that anthropogenic GHG emissions contribute to climate change or global warming.

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

BULLSHIT! Where in the world can you find any data suggesting that scientists are in any way unanimous about if and how much human habitation has contributed to global warming?

How much more unanimous do you need. Even the scientists working for the Global Climate Coalition said the facts were irrefutable. A political organization setup to deny the science - and even its own scientists said the facts were irrefutable.

Where are your facts. The vast majority of scientists - including the most well respected leader in their fields - find that global warming is manmade. The smoking gun evidence caused even the last holdouts to concede this. But somehow your emotions are smarter than people who do science? Where are your facts with numbers? Where are your citations from responsible publications such as Science, Nature, etc? Oh. No such facts exist. Just half truths from political group who also (for some strange reason) also knew that Saddam had WMDs. How curious. Even their own scientists say the facts are irrefutable.

But junk science is alive and well. I feel global warming is a natural occurance. Therefore it must be true. No wonder the arguments are only found in political discussions where Limbaugh logic is so routine – not where science is discussed.

But even more interesting - those who deny it include the so many who also were adament that Saddam had WMDs when even the numbers said otherwise.

The only Bullshit is your reasoning - which is where? Only 99% of scientists agree. Therefore it could not be true?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

BULLSHIT! Where in the world can you find any data suggesting that scientists are in any way unanimous about if and how much human habitation has contributed to global warming?

Are you stupid...

Well of course.

[classicman]

Interesting - All I got were a few posts of your usual dribble. Conceited much?
try "tw" and "asshole" and "cellar" - see what that comes up with.

[tw]

Reality that extermists must ignore: Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.

So what did extremists do? As usual, they lied.

Today, with general agreement on the basics of warming, the debate has largely moved on to the question of how extensively to respond to rising temperatures. ...
“They didn’t have to win the argument to succeed,” Mr. Monbiot said, “only to cause as much confusion as possible.”

What does classicman admit?

Lying is my nature. Lying about the speed and amount of climate change comes from outright, intentional, and blatant lying. Extremism. Lying. Is there a connection?

classicman in a moment of contrition admits reality.

He is posting lies about global warming because that is what extremists do. Even Rush calls that, drug use, and money laundering ethical.

[classicman]

Jeez - see what happens when you teach an old dog a new trick... he uses it against you. HA!

[classicman]

"Professor Plimer believes the IPCC has neglected historical evidence of past climate changes, which are recorded in the rocks.

"When we look at the history of climate changes, not one has been driven by carbon dioxide," he says.

"Climate always changes, as do sea levels, as does life (on Earth) and we are living in times that are not extraordinary. The only way you can have the view that humans change climate is if tw ignores history."

[tw]

Quoted previously by classicman:

The latest findings, from a study of Antarctica by the British Antarctic Survey and Nasa, reveal that pollution is saving the planet from global warming.

These are old and well understood facts. And then we add the part he forgot to mention. Also concluded by those reports is that global warming created by man would be even worse if we had not diminished sunlight.

Well, another contributing fact to global warming was the recent reduction of sulfur in gasoline all over the world. Diminishing sunlight (and plant growth) only masked the destructive effective of greenhouse gases created and emitted by man. But some forget to include the numbers in those many reports. Knowlege without first learning facts and by ignoring others - some still find that acceptable.

[classicman]

Like you. There is much dissent in the community and more scientists are leaning away from the "Its all mans fault" theories. The data collection methods have been suspect for decades also. tw chooses to believe what he wants to believe. Also known as a closed mind. Others more enlightened are still open to other possibilities. Still one must know that global warming is the latest threat, just like global cooling was 40 years ago. Think of where we would be had we acted upon that consensus.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

There is much dissent in the community and more scientists are leaning away from the "Its all mans fault" theories.

Dissent? classicman recently blamed temperature changes (that he once denied) on sunspots. Those who know without first learning will even lie to justify their conclusions.

Number of science articles explaining global warming are increasing (even though Fox News says otherwise). Even scientists for "we don't believe global warming exists" coalition said the facts are irrefutable. And still classicman knows otherwise. How? Simply put his head in the sand and deny what even his own scientists say.

Latest research suggests nitrogen oxides may be even more destructive than carbon oxides. classicman tells us man is not generating these nitrogen oxides. Even lie to justify the political agenda. Man is not creating nitrogen oxides. Maybe it is aliens? Martians are taking revenge for our crashing spacecraft. Even classicman would not believe that lie - maybe.

Wacko extremism is alive and well. None of this is about global warming. It's simply another example of how extremists will blatantly lie to promote a political agenda. No wonder Saddam had WMDs.

Did you hear? Latest biblical research also proved that global warming does not exist. When sunspot lies don’t pan out, is that the next promoted myth?

Ali and Bruce....I agree that there is no consensus that human activity is the sole or primary cause of global warming.

The consensus among the scientific bodies of the world is that there is compelling data that human activities contribute to the adverse atmospheric buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases and that policies should be adopted and measures taken to reduce GHG emissions and minimize that impact.

If we wait until there is unanimity among the scientific community or the facts are completely irrefutable (rather than a minority position as is currently the case) to adopt sensible policies to lower GHG emissions, wont it be that much harder and more costly to reverse the trend?

Does anyone really believe, or is there any hard science to suggest, that spewing millions of metric tons of GHG from fossil fuels (primarily automobiles and power plants) into the atmosphere every year is healthy for the environment...or even neutral in its impact?

The extremist rhetoric of the Al Gore types doesnt help...but, IMO, the complete and utter denial of any responsibility for the increase in GHG emissions by the other side is worse.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Does anyone really believe, or is there any hard science, that spewing millions of metric tons of GHG from fossil fuels (primarily automobiles and power plants) into the atmosphere every year is healthy for the environment...or even neutral in its impact?

Get China and India on board then give us a call.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Get China and India on board then give us a call.

I am of the opinion that the US should demonstrate that it is a world leader in much the same manner as it did with the environmental movement of the 1970s.

Or we can be petulant and cast blame and point fingers with a "you first" attitude and pretend our hands are clean despite the fact that we are responsible for more than 20% of worldwide GHG emissions.

In any case, why would I want to call you?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I am of the opinion that the US should demonstrate that it is a world leader in much the same manner as it did with the environmental movement of the 1970s.

Or we can be petulant and cast blame and point fingers with a "you first" attitude and pretend our hands are clean despite the fact that we are responsible for more than 20% of worldwide GHG emissions.

In which case we would play right into the hands of those who wish us to spend billions of our GDP while they do nothing. China is second only to the US and will surpass it in the next few years. They emit 16% of GHG. They would love nothing more than to have us spend ourselves into the third world while they have no such restrictions. Add India to the mix and the two of them emit more than the US. They are among the most rapidly growing economies in the world.

http://www.unep.org/cpi/briefs/2008M...tersFactBOXWhy

The pollution leader was China, followed by the United States, which past data show is the leader in emissions per person in carbon dioxide output. And although several developed countries slightly reduced output in 2007, the U.S. churned out more.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep...n/na-warming26

China’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Highlight The Need for New Technologies And An International Commitment to Reduce Emissions
China is building new coal-based electric generation at an astounding pace. The rapid growth in the use of coal in that country highlights the importance of developing and deploying “climate-friendly” technologies, including advanced coal technologies, which can be exported to developing countries. In addition, China’s aggressive use of coal demonstrates why it is so critical that all major emitters of greenhouse gases (GHGs) commit to reducing emissions in order to reduce overall global GHG emissions.
•
In 2007, China built one new coal-based electric generating unit about every two and half days on average, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
•
In 2007, China built just over 100 gigawatts (GW) of new power generating capacity. While it took 110 years (from 1882-1993) for the total power generating capacity in the United States to reach a little over 800 GW, China will have reached the same number in 7 to 8 years, if the country’s current growth pace continues.
•
The current demand for coal in China exceeds 2 billion tons per year, which is twice the current demand for coal in the United States.
•
IEA predicts that global energy-related CO2 emissions will increase 57 percent between 2005 and 2030, with developing countries accounting for more than 75 percent of this projected increase.
•
Between 2005 and 2030, China and India alone are expected to account for 56 percent of the worldwide increase in CO2 emissions.
•
China’s GHG emissions have risen 80 percent since 1990, and emissions are projected to rise another 65 percent by 2020.

http://www.eei.org/ourissues/TheEnvi...mateChange.pdf