Look like Global warming was a HOAX after all

[Loren49]

Why We Should Choose Science over Beliefs: Scientific American

..............Then I went to the primary scientific literature on climate and discovered that there is convergent evidence from multiple lines of inquiry that global warming is real and human-caused: temperatures increasing, glaciers melting, Arctic ice vanishing, Antarctic ice cap shrinking, sea-level rise corresponding with the amount of melting ice and thermal expansion, carbon dioxide touching the level of 400 parts per million (the highest in at least 800,000 years and the fastest increase ever), and the confirmed prediction that if anthropogenic global warming is real the stratosphere and upper troposphere should cool while the lower troposphere should warm, which is the case.

The clash between scientific facts and ideologies was on display at the 2013 FreedomFest conference in Las Vegas葉he largest gathering of libertarians in the world謡here I participated in two debates, one on gun control and the other on climate change. I love FreedomFest because it supercharges my belief engine. But this year I was so discouraged by the rampant denial of science that I wanted to turn in my libertarian membership card. At the gun-control debate (as in my debates with Lott around the country), proposing even modest measures that would have almost no effect on freedom耀uch as background checkså‚*rought on opprobrium as if I had burned a copy of the U.S. Constitution on stage. In the climate debate, when I showed that between 90 and 98 percent of climate scientists accept anthropogenic global warming, someone shouted, é�‘IAR! and stormed out of the room.

.............

or you could try to blame Gore, Pelosi, etc. and pile on like a bunch of school children. This is a science vs beliefs discussion, has nothing to do with political labels.

Loren

 

[Steppenwolfe]

What global warming ??? It's a frigid low 70's in SW Virginia today... brrrrr. Bloody morons...

 

[Farmer Dell]

The issue is; is climate change man made, or a natural occurrence, and then it often becomes politically motivated. The name calling should STOP!

 

[ray66v]

Why are you proposing a double standard? Claims need proof, doesn't matter who makes them. Deniers seem to believe they are immune from providing anything on their own. Deniers don't make any claims about actual climate science, let alone attempt to support those claims.

If deniers understand the work of climate scientists as well as they would like to think they do, then surely they understand climate science itself. Show some results of that understanding--is that asking much? I don't think so.

That's an easy one. The reason the burden of proof is on the "believers', is because they want to declare our own breath a pollutant, increase the cost of everything we do, by adding all kinds taxes to it, and change the way we live, IN A FREE COUNTRY.

Expecting that to be done for a valid reason, rather than push to a political agenda is NOT asking too much.

We aren't asking the "believers" to do anything, EXCEPT to leave us alone.

 

[Axe Man]

How about data from the IPCC itself showing global warming in the mid 1800s was .163 degrees C per decade and warming between 1979 and 2009 was .161 degrees C per decade.
When I went to school .163 was greater than .161 ( very close but still greater ) there has been no run away global warming.

 

[/pine]

...This is a science vs beliefs discussion...

You could not be more wrong...(as well as misguided)...

It is an incomplete science vs another incomplete science...

The former being a small scoped, contrived science **** bent on trying to prove something all the while the latest data is polar to their agenda...This is the purest sense of "scientific" tunnel vision...

the latter is the science of understanding "the big picture" and the pursuit of realizing its wonders...

AGW oriented climate science (cough) does nothing but crunch numbers based on not nearly enough data...and every day there is more hard facts that disprove what AGW proponents/scientists have stated/published...

We told you so...! so get over it...!

 

[nickc]

If al gore never invented the inter web we wouldn't have anything to do....

 

[dave1949]

WE, don't have to PROVE anything. There were less hurricanes, that is a FACT.... YOU ALL said there would be more. We didn't say squat. Geez.. nice try Dave.. but no soup for you.

No soup?

In fact you deniers said a lot. Scientists said adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will warm the planet. Deniers are basically saying, no it won't. You are making a claim that you should be willing to attempt to prove.

That is all that really matters when the debate is boiled down to it's essence. Take away all the gotcha's, wild predictions and political spinning, and you are left with two facts that science can prove or disprove:
1) Increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will result in a warmer planet.
2) Free atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will be also be absorbed by the oceans, and through normal chemical processes, will increase the acidity of ocean water.

There is science, and observations, showing those facts to be true. The earth has warmed rapidly since the Industrial Revolution, and the oceans are more acidic. For deniers to have credibility, they would need to disprove those two facts.

Saying that a temperature plateau is proof that greenhouse gases do not cause warming--knowing that plateaus have repeatedly happened since 1850--is not science. It's an unsubstantiated opinion that the past will not repeat itself--for some mysterious reason.

What is undeniably true is that the CO2 is going somewhere, and causing some effect. Molecules and elements do not disappear by some sort of magic.

 

[/pine]

What is undeniably true is that the CO2 is going somewhere, and causing some effect. Molecules and elements do not disappear by some sort of magic.

How do you know it is "causing some effect"? leastwise a detrimental one?...

..."And the flowers bloom like magic in the spring..." (Jethro Tull, Aqualung)


Global-warming �roof is evaporating | New York Post

The single most damning aspect of the é—–æ*›use is that, because it has occurred when ?ï½µreenhouse gases have been pouring into the atmosphere at record levels, it shows at the very least that something natural is at play here. The warmists suggest that natural factors have 驛ｽuppressed the warming temporarily, but that逞ｴ just a guess: The fact is, they have nothing like the understanding of the climate that they claimed (and their many models that all showed future warming mean nothing, since they all used essentially the same false information).

 

[ray66v]

What is undeniably true is that the CO2 is going somewhere, and causing some effect.

This is the flawed premise all "believers" start all their "scientific " research with: All that Co2 has to be doing something, and it has to be bad.

No it doesn't. It's entirely possible, and the fact that the "scientists " keep making predictions that are wrong, illustrates the fact, that there is a lot more in play here than we understand.

It's entirely possible, just like in the case of the Gulf oil spill, nature may have the ability to deal with a lot more than the environmentalists want you to know.

BTW: Spend some time reading. There is a lot of scientific research supporting the "deniers" side of this. Of course, it is ignored and ridiculed by the "believers", as phony, so you won't have to accept any of it. But, you should stop "denying" that it's out there.