Hundreds of Scientists Reject Global Warming
- Thread starter ninetysixcavy
- Start date
I'm not going to debate this anymore. it's stupid.
Just weigh the two options: which is better?
keeping our current level of petrolium dependance (which, let's face it, has enough problem on it's own without even needing to take this argument as a consideration) or even just the POSSIBILITY of global catastrophy and irreversible damage caused by human impact?
Gee, I say that we should stay the course. :thefinger
Just weigh the two options: which is better?
keeping our current level of petrolium dependance (which, let's face it, has enough problem on it's own without even needing to take this argument as a consideration) or even just the POSSIBILITY of global catastrophy and irreversible damage caused by human impact?
Gee, I say that we should stay the course. :thefinger
Because by doing so we deny the people in the third world the means to achieve some sort of decent living standard.
How do you define decent living standard?
Do you think China should succeed in it's goal in becoming a First Wolrd Nation? Do you really think that it is doing good for the world NOW, not even then?
We'd need ten more earths in pristine condition to provide for the whole world's First World living standards. Sure, there's something to be said for indoor plumbing, but it's unrealistic and it can only come at the expense of the third world. So for all intents and purposes, they'd be better off never bothering in the first place.
Non-industrialized countries get along just fine on thier own. Industry is not a problem for Africa. Rural areas that practice animal husbandry or hunting are not having a problem, the problem is urban centers that are dependant on commercial agriculture for the Industrialized nations. Thier living standard outweighs thier means to provide it.
The mid-east would be fine without oil, they don't need it and they don't use it. Venezula doesn't need oil, they sell it to us and China. Brazil doesn't need oil, they are energy independant.
I think the best and only thing for the economic future of America is to kick fossel fuel dependancy.
The third world population would at least hope for resources to keep warm and have enough to eat.They might reasonably want the means to store food safely , to obtain clean water and so on.
America is locked into fossil fuel dependency. There just isn't any alternative on the horizon without a complete lifestyle change , the dependency can be lessened a bit but oil in particular is so efficient and so much cheaper than the alternatives that any change to anything else will take decades.
It was formulated as a scientific theory like any other. It's called global warming because... well, the globe as a whole is warming. What's not to get? Anthropogenic global warming would be a more accurate term, but it's a bit of a mouthful for the common man.
And it therefore is so damn cold as a result of "Global Warming", don't you know.
Global warming produces different effects in different regions because of pre-existing conditions in those climate zones. For example, colder winters are expected in much of northern Europe because as the Arctic ice sheets melt, it changes the current rhythm of the oceans, and will result in colder winds.
I'm not sure what to make of your comment. Are you sceptical of the idea that the earth is getting warmer? Even those scientists who deny that the rise in global temperature is partially caused by man would disagree with that.
A few links that represent the overwhelming consensus of scientists who have researched the topic.The notion it is all some conspiracy hoax is as whacky as most conspiracy theory's and I think I will trust the findings of the scientists as opposed to some random statements by layman which are just denials of "inconvient truths".
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071214-tipping-points.html
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071214-tipping-points.html
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Any discernable change in ambient temperature on earth is directly related to the increase or decrease in solar activity from the sun. This is the only constant undebateable fact. "global warming" or "climate change" is happening on other planets in our solar system verifying that fact. No one seems to aknowledge the fact that one single volcanic eruption spews forth more carbon, carbon dioxide, sulphur... Ect than all oil burning vehicles on the planet.
I guess someone should go tell those volcanoes to stop it and buy some carbon credits.
I guess someone should go tell those volcanoes to stop it and buy some carbon credits.
(didnt read the thread cause i haven't the time)
hundreds more accept that the earth has gotten much hotter, much faster than it should
(that's all, i'm out my deep opinions are in the other thread. ta-ta, Adios, cheerio, Auf Wiedersehen, Adieu, Egogahan, Salaam, Do-da-da-go-hv-i, Nestaevavoomatse, Zbohem, Farvel, Tot ziens, Senebti, Ciao, Aloha, Shalom, Pirmelenge, Sayonara, Annyong-hi kyeshipshio, Valete, Hágoónee',Do svidanja, Bless)
hundreds more accept that the earth has gotten much hotter, much faster than it should
(that's all, i'm out my deep opinions are in the other thread. ta-ta, Adios, cheerio, Auf Wiedersehen, Adieu, Egogahan, Salaam, Do-da-da-go-hv-i, Nestaevavoomatse, Zbohem, Farvel, Tot ziens, Senebti, Ciao, Aloha, Shalom, Pirmelenge, Sayonara, Annyong-hi kyeshipshio, Valete, Hágoónee',Do svidanja, Bless)
I myself am a skeptic on the issue, but just to make it clear, there are many scientific skeptics in the field that don't regard this as fact. That's not to say that they no longer believe that Co2 isn't the cause of the theory, they are just saying that this is not true, at least in the time since volcanic eruptions have been documented. There hasn't been a truly huge eruption or a significant number that would offset the human to volcano ratio in carbon dioxide output. So, in closing, one volcanic eruption is nowhere near the amount of Co2 that humans generate and should not be used as an arguing point in a debate on the subject.
Facetious
Moderated
Maybe our molten core is just getting hotter & more abundant thus, spewing out more Cº2 ? :dunno:
I just don't want government running off with all of my freedoms just because of some far fetched theory that may just as well later prove to be folly. Liberties once taken are difficult to recover.
I just don't want government running off with all of my freedoms just because of some far fetched theory that may just as well later prove to be folly. Liberties once taken are difficult to recover.
Al Gore has been challenged to several debates on "global warming" but refuses to. If he was such an honorable man he would have no problem debating the issues. Obviously if he did go to debate they would rip his argument to shreds and his lies would be exposed
Al Gore has invested heavily in people "buying" his global warming propaganda
People, don't believe his lies
Al Gore has invested heavily in people "buying" his global warming propaganda
People, don't believe his lies
MILF Man
milf n' cookies
And growing more and more every day!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
So basically almost everybody that isn't working for the oil industry or is more of a television personality than an actual scientist believes in global warming is real and is caused by humans, and scientist who's specialty is studying climates, the people who should be more knowledgeable than anybody else, believe that humans are the main cause of global warming are in the high 90s%.
So basically almost everybody that isn't working for the oil industry or is more of a television personality than an actual scientist believes in global warming is real and is caused by humans, and scientist who's specialty is studying climates, the people who should be more knowledgeable than anybody else, believe that humans are the main cause of global warming are in the high 90s%.
Just to add to this, here's a poll conducted by Gallop in 2008:
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2009/survey97.png
What you can see here is that those being asked the question have been split into groups from the general public to those who are most active in this field of research. What you should be able to observe is that those who are the most active in the field of climatology which means those actually conducting experiments on this topic and publishing their data on a regular basis and who's opinion on the matter would seem to have more weight behind it than others are generally in agreement (95%+ in fact) that man is having an effect on climate change.
There is a minority (3% was the figure I read that disagree with this) but the fact still remains that the overall majority of those who specialise in this field of study are in agreement that we are a factor.
The title of this thread is misleading. Yes there may be hundreds if not thousands of scientists out there who reject the notion of global warming. But what has to be asked of them is have they ever done any research in the field? And are they specialised in this area?
If they have not then their opinion is about as useful to you as dentist opposing vaccination.
All well and good, but perhaps you are too busy with your dick (Phillip K - to give it it's full name) to have noticed that a mere 97% of the world's climatoligists are in the employ of Al Gore. (I seriously doubt that even you didn't notice, as they were all in the audience when he gave that speech in fluent Russian to the politburo. Sadly no video, only scratchy audio survives.) I know this, because unlike Al Gore I am not content to merely invent the internet. I use it to find out lots of things. Such as what's happening on the cutting edge of creation science and to stay abreast of things I need to remain rapture ready at all times.
Here's the same article published the day before the CNN article:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php
Notice how CNN doesn't mention that the two conducting the survey contacted more than 10,200 experts from around the world? Hmmm....let's see 3,146 goes into 10,200 about three times, so roughly somewhere around 30% or 1/3 of the people contacted actually took the survey, and I bet that everytime somebody comes-a-knockin with a survey those climate boys get their panties all in a bunch, while every other branch of science could give a crap about taking part in a survey that has no relation to them.....so it's already skewed.
And what percentage of this 97% of climatologists do you suppose rely upon government backed funding to support the notion of human-induced global warming? I would guess that if your profession is as a climatologist, more than likely you recieve government funds to endlessly research climate change. When your job's sole purpose depends on studying climate to get money so you can have a job, I don't care what anybody says, you're gonna follow the money.
For anybody who's seen the movie American Gangster, you remember the part where Russell Crowe and his partner who play undercovers in the movie and they find $1 million in the trunk of a car and they decide instead of taking it that they're gonna do the moral thing and turn it in? Well, that's what they did and everybody in the department thought they were crazy and couldn't trust them and wouldn't work with them anymore. The point is, it doesn't matter if it's not moral. You take the money and shut your mouth.
Great analogy, I haven't seen the film, can you just recount the bit where Russel Crowe and his partner publish their reasons for doing so in a peer reviewed journal, it must be fucking cinema gold. Youtube?
Similar threads
