31,000 Scientist Say No To Global Warming
- Thread starter AK-74me
- Start date
Otter
Nothing to see here
I second the motion.
wildsage
earthling
I have to look at who is getting paid off and who is in it for the science. It seems pretty clear to me.
Temperatures have increased 0.74 degrees Celsius / 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit in 100 years and the overwhelming consensus among the smart MFs who study those things is that the rate is unprecedented in global history. The data is convincing enough to suggest a precautionary policy.
A) We conserve energy & seek alternatives without ending human life as we know it and without spinning the world into economic chaos, then we find out they were wrong. Result - we have longer to go before coming to a screeching halt with available fossil-fuel reserves.
B) We keep ignoring the data and then we find out that they were right but it's too late to do anything about it. Result - flooding, famine, primitive living conditions and global civil warfare where most people (even in the US) die horrible deaths and the rest live under martial law and barely maintain on strict rationing of the basic subsistence goods.
AK-74me
"Typical White Person"
So just because it is big oil with the money any scientist that dosen't get on board for global warming is paid off? You are telling me that no one else has an agenda? It is only the scientist that disagree, that have one?
I think it is great we should try to curb back energy compsumption, lets do it. Lets not create a freaking religion and go crazy about polar bears and carbon credits to get it done.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Seems there is just a cyclic temperature on the planet. Imagine that.
Attachments
AK-74me
"Typical White Person"
This_person
Well-Known Member
This_person
Well-Known Member
wildsage
earthling
Not every one, just the ones who have been shown to be. That has been well established.
Other scientists dispute some of the details of the findings -- and I got no problem with honest peer-review -- but the number who vocally and categorically deny any credence (to either global warming or anthropogenic causes to it) is small and their backgrounds are easily checked.
You prompted my response with the "news" story about a list of 31,000 names of people (purported to be scientists) who dispute the findings of the IPCC. I pointed out the lies & flaws in that petition and offered the analogy that some 200 "scientists" believe that the planet is only 6,000 years old.
I'm glad that we can agree that "it is great we should try to curb back energy compsumption." That's more consensus than is usually seen in the Religion section of this forum.
wildsage
earthling
You came in late. Read the posts: No one disputed the cyclic nature of global temperatures.
wildsage
earthling
I'm surprised that you didn't cover the whole 6,000 years, T_p.
This_person
Well-Known Member
That's good. It looked like people might actually believe in the hoax of global warming.
Larry had it right in another thread a while ago. Use up all the oil now! Government subsidies, whatever we have to do. The quicker we use it up, the quicker we'll be forced into building an infrastructure for something that makes more sense. Until we use up all of the oil, we'll keep using oil.
But, do realize, if all of the cars in the US stopped right now, and never drove again, the total effect on greenhouse gas emission into the atmosphere would be less than 1%.
I'll keep my Suburban, TYVM
This_person
Well-Known Member
I'm not a young eather. (the chart goes back 400,000 years)
AK-74me
"Typical White Person"
Right, the answer is to quit our dependence on red meat, once we do that the demand for cows will go down thus creating less bovine flatulence to be released into the atmosphere. :shrug:
The Oyster Guy
New Member
Your reference for that claim? Because our Government says that 7% of global CO2 emissions due to fossil fuels are attributed to U.S. transportation. The link below shows that transportation produces 34% of US CO2, while US CO2 is 21% of the world CO2; therefore 34% of 21% is 7% of world CO2 results from US transportation.
EIA’s Energy in Brief: What are greenhouse gases and how much are emitted by the United States?
wildsage
earthling
Funny source you chose. This guy uses outdated data (1920s, 1950s) and quotes such "owned" sources as Patrick Michaels. His qualifications are not made clear on his webpage (he is a former engineer for the WV Office of Miner's Safety, oh and an amateur fossil-hunter) but he believes that the Milankovich cycles have the greatest input on global temps. He is entitled to his opinion but he is in a distinct minority and hardly has the professional standing to go against the experts.
Oh, and his ice-core charts? Don't know how he got his results...
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Deep ice tells long climate story
"Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years, the latest study of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirms.
The in-depth analysis of air bubbles trapped in a 3.2km-long core of frozen snow shows current greenhouse gas concentrations are unprecedented."
And here's another non-Wiki source for you
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation
"The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle."
wildsage
earthling
Check the source, you might be surprised.By the oil companies, no less.
This_person
Well-Known Member
CO2 emissions are not the only greenhouse gases. Read more here
This_person
Well-Known Member
In what way do those sources conflict? Can you show me a source with data that shows a rise in CO2 levels causing a change in temperature (ie, the levels change, and then the temperature changes)?