31,000 Scientist Say No To Global Warming

[wildsage]

Originally Posted by johnycarcinogen

The Earth has warmed and cooled for billions of years. We are in a generally cool period, it will get warmer, then cool again. 15 million years ago it was so warm here that the ocean stretched to Washington D.C. (polar ice melted away). Other times we would have hundreds of feet of beach (probably marsh/grass areas) beyond the current coastline. It just happens, it is a cycle.

I'm not disputing that global temps are cyclic. What I believe is that the rate of warming is accelerating. All you have to do is look at the receding glaciers worldwide to see that.
The IPCC concludes that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations" and the vast body of scientists knowledgeable in the pertinent fields are in consensus with those findings.
Consensus isn't "proof." It means they believe that the data is valid enough to convince them. There is still disagreement on some of the details but the overall theory is substantial enough to make knee-jerk naysaying a dangerous response.
I say "dangerous" because the natural global phenomena, to which man-made effects contribute, are positively reinforcing. One example: ocean water warms, hold less dissolved carbon dioxode (just like your beer), the gas is liberated to the atmosphere where it traps more heat, the oceans warm more, hold less dissolved carbon dioxide...

[wildsage]

Originally Posted by AK-74me

You are going to have fun here on this board if you are person that is sold on the hysteria of man made global warming.
Show me some proof of man made global warming. The GLOBE was actually cooler last year than it has been in sometime!??

For some, proof of global warming might be the shrinking of glaciers & disappearing ice caps, worldwide. If you are the type who gets his news from WorldNetDaily and his science from Rush Limbaugh, I don't know if I can show you any proof.
Not sure how you define "sometime" but I guess "last year" means 2007?
"The Earth's temperature for the first six months of the year was the second-warmest ever recorded, government scientists reported today."
2007 global temperature the 2nd-warmest ever recorded - USATODAY.com
"The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. in 2007 is officially the tenth warmest on record... The agency also determined the global surface temperature last year was the fifth warmest on record."
2007 Was Tenth Warmest For U.S., Fifth Warmest Worldwide

I am not hysterical about it, just convinced. The hysteria comes from the oil/coal/gas lobby that spends millions convincing people that the "greenies" want us all shivering in the dark. First it was, "we need more study" then 10 years later it was "the models are invalid" and 10 years later they're saying "see? we're not all dead yet." Business-as-usual is very, very good for them and any delay they can manage suits them fine. Now 20 years of extra data and refining the climate models have solidified the predictions and justified the early warnings.
Once the effects become so obvious that no one can deny them -- when corn & wheat won't grow south of Canada, when the ocean starts to reclaim Florida -- it will be impossible to stop or slow the cycle. If we start reducing emissions, what, we save energy for your kids & grandkids to use?

[blazinlow89]

For the record I have seen Gore's movie, which to me was nothing more than Gore trying to keep an image for himself. He made the film very dramatic as with the aspect of 30meters of sea level rise, uncontrollable temperature variations, more severe disasters(which by the way it seems when we had a mild hurricane season last year global warming was causing it be mild, so which is it more mild disasters, or more severe). It’s bad when the scientist trying to make a statement about how bad it will be can’t even come to some consensus on the models when they all should be using the same data.

Where you here 1000 years ago to know that the glaciers and ice caps may not have existed. I know there are ice core samples but there are bigger parts to the atmospheric temp than CO2. Another thing is that it is very easy to manipulate data, which it seems the global warming nazis manipulate the data quite often to put a model into their favor. Also look at the fact that Gore left out the all important medieval warming trend when temperatures where at least 2-5 degrees hotter than they are now, he used s graph that left this out, and called it a hockey stick. Interesting how he can manipulate a graph to make it seem that today’s warming trend is far greater than any in the past. You also might want to find a graph showing the correlation between CO2 and average temperature, how is it that the temperature raises before the CO2 level does. If CO2 is the main culprit then how does the temperature change without the level of CO2 in the atmosphere doing so first?

Nice job blaming it on the oil industry, because they are the root of all problems (or is it Bush I forget). I will agree we need cleaner, more efficient ways to make energy, not just for an environmental standpoint, but also consider that we have used the same ways to create energy for how long. However a catch 22 is if we stop using fossil fuels we put millions of people out of work, we will put our sole basis of energy on things that are far more expensive, not as efficient, and if we start using new forms that have not been tested long enough we could have a $50 billion fusion generator that doesn’t work properly.

I do believe in global warming, but from the standpoint that man has a massive effect on it I do not believe. The earth has shown in the past that we go through cycles, naturally. Look at time magazine covers from the last century, they switch from global warming to the next ice age in what appears to be every 15-30 years. I know technology is better now but it seems that the scientist today cannot even agree on any correlations between the data and their own models versus each others. How can 100 scientists come up with different numbers, and different models?

Also wiki is not a 100% reliable source neither is mainstream media so you might want to find some new links. On a side note I will be looking forward to the mild summers for the next 12 years or more.

[AK-74me]

Originally Posted by wildsage

For some, proof of global warming might be the shrinking of glaciers & disappearing ice caps, worldwide. If you are the type who gets his news from WorldNetDaily and his science from Rush Limbaugh, I don't know if I can show you any proof.
Not sure how you define "sometime" but I guess "last year" means 2007?
"The Earth's temperature for the first six months of the year was the second-warmest ever recorded, government scientists reported today."
2007 global temperature the 2nd-warmest ever recorded - USATODAY.com
"The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. in 2007 is officially the tenth warmest on record... The agency also determined the global surface temperature last year was the fifth warmest on record."
2007 Was Tenth Warmest For U.S., Fifth Warmest Worldwide

I am not hysterical about it, just convinced. The hysteria comes from the oil/coal/gas lobby that spends millions convincing people that the "greenies" want us all shivering in the dark. First it was, "we need more study" then 10 years later it was "the models are invalid" and 10 years later they're saying "see? we're not all dead yet." Business-as-usual is very, very good for them and any delay they can manage suits them fine. Now 20 years of extra data and refining the climate models have solidified the predictions and justified the early warnings.
Once the effects become so obvious that no one can deny them -- when corn & wheat won't grow south of Canada, when the ocean starts to reclaim Florida -- it will be impossible to stop or slow the cycle. If we start reducing emissions, what, we save energy for your kids & grandkids to use?

Fact is those claiming global warming take a pinch of evidence and claim it to be science and fact.

Temps have increased 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1950's a very normal variance in temperature change.

I am not against being more effecient with our energy, I just don't want to hear BS from some A-hole like Al Gore, the F'ing hypocrite, about carbon credits and all the supporting science when in my eyes it is a mixed bag at best.

I have looked at alot of articles and "data" from both sides and I am not convinced........sorry.

[ImnoMensa]

I dont know much and am not a scientist. I see the industrial revolution started about 150 years ago and brought this country to great riches, now it seems the only way we can fight the harm done by the industrial revolution is to kill two/thirds of the world's population and go back to the stone age.

Somehow I will go to that extreme kicking and screaming.

[edinsomd]

Originally Posted by wildsage

See 3rd post in this thread for OISM debunk links.
For consensus statements on the anthropogenic greenhouse effect (not all of them in agreement) see Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For an explanation of the dispute see Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A report on "who pays the skeptics" (and why) ABC News: ABC News Reporting Cited As Evidence In Congressional Hearing On Global Warming
Also, Wiki has a comprehensive list of global warming skeptics -- List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia One of the best known is Dr. Patrick Michaels; read Sourcewatch's entry on him at Patrick J. Michaels - SourceWatch
If you don't know the science behind the findings and don't have a PhD, a good primer on the subject is Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions
Another good one is An Inconvenient Truth which, I suspect, most of the Al Gore beaters on this forum have never seen even though they hold strong opinions about its content.
You are welcome.

You list Wikipedia and Algore's movie among your sources?
Ed

[CountVlad]

Originally Posted by wildsage

I'm not disputing that global temps are cyclic. What I believe is that the rate of warming is accelerating. All you have to do is look at the receding glaciers worldwide to see that.
The IPCC concludes that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations" and the vast body of scientists knowledgeable in the pertinent fields are in consensus with those findings.
Consensus isn't "proof." It means they believe that the data is valid enough to convince them. There is still disagreement on some of the details but the overall theory is substantial enough to make knee-jerk naysaying a dangerous response.
I say "dangerous" because the natural global phenomena, to which man-made effects contribute, are positively reinforcing. One example: ocean water warms, hold less dissolved carbon dioxode (just like your beer), the gas is liberated to the atmosphere where it traps more heat, the oceans warm more, hold less dissolved carbon dioxide...

there are always going to be sceptics.... i totally agree with you that we are contributing to the green house effect and global warming

but even if we didnt why not try to improve our way of living, trying to be more efficient...

i mean theres plenty of room for the trash tthat we throw away every day but it damages the environment... thats why we recycle, thats why even if theres plenty of oil left and it doesnt causes global warming why not try to do a better job and be more conservative...

[Baja28]

Originally Posted by edinsomd

You list Wikipedia and Algore's movie among your sources?
Ed

Yea, all the water sensors around the globe show a drop in temp. but the looneys think we're melting....

[FromTexas]

Here is a chart of the climate throughout the planets history. First question - which of those temperatures is the right one we shouldn't deviate from?

[itsbob (Premo)]

Originally Posted by wildsage

See 3rd post in this thread for OISM debunk links.
For consensus statements on the anthropogenic greenhouse effect (not all of them in agreement) see Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For an explanation of the dispute see Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A report on "who pays the skeptics" (and why) ABC News: ABC News Reporting Cited As Evidence In Congressional Hearing On Global Warming
Also, Wiki has a comprehensive list of global warming skeptics -- List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia One of the best known is Dr. Patrick Michaels; read Sourcewatch's entry on him at Patrick J. Michaels - SourceWatch
If you don't know the science behind the findings and don't have a PhD, a good primer on the subject is Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions
Another good one is An Inconvenient Truth which, I suspect, most of the Al Gore beaters on this forum have never seen even though they hold strong opinions about its content.
You are welcome.

Watch, in disbelief, as I pen a new, soon to be, widely used word.

WIKI-Moron!!

Try doing some REAL research and get out of wikipedia, and Al Gore.