Global warming

[Cancel 2016.2]

Its not hard when I give you a title and paragraph to google. The links themselves disappeared but fortunately most articles are republished by other media sources and can be found on other sites.

LMAO.... so YET AGAIN you state it is 'not hard' to google them, yet YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE OF DOING SO AND POSTING THE LINKS TO THE SPECIFIC ARTICLES THAT YOU WANT OTHERS TO READ???????????????

Talk about using sentences out of context!!!

First of all, it says that the majority believe in global warming, then it singled out 1 person that disagreed and the other 2 you highlighted support global warming.

Yes, the typical bullshit attempt from the fear mongers. One person SAYS 'the majority agree' and you pretend that somehow makes it right.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

the above is a LINK... you know to the actual data I wish others to read... that LINK provides you with a list of 31,000 SCIENTISTS in the US alone that disagree with the fear mongers.

Yet all someone has to do is post a link about falsified emails and you eat it all up, or the fact that it snowed in Texas!

Again you display your ignorance. I called out the person who used the 'it snowed early in TX' comment for being irrelevant to the discussion. As for the emails... they are NOT falsified. What they are is evidence that the 'consensus' crowd needs to rethink how sure they are given that TWO of the major sources of data that supposedly support the AGW fear mongering now appear to be tainted.

By the way? Did you hear about the new update on the emails? The information was not falsified. What they did was they used a loose formula to calculate. Thou the majority of Scientists concur that global warming IS caused by greenhouse gases AND that the planet's average temperature is on the rise. I believe by a degree or so.

I know it is quite silly of me to ask... but do you have a link that shows the data was not manipulated? Because even the scientists have stated that they adjusted the raw data... you know that same raw data that they destroyed?

Is there any other articles you would like me to post in regards to my claims? Be specific please.

Yes... as I stated in my previous post in response to the second article.... it was written in 2006. Do you have anything to support all the dire predictions? You know a LINK to ACTUAL DATA????? Rather than more articles of opinion?

 

[Topspin]

Seeing that we are in a recession and production is slowing down(thus pollution) can be part of it, but wait this year because of the world wide stimulous packages.

I have a feeling that this year is going to be bad for hurricanes and/or natural disasters.

Grind your too stupid to inslult

 

[zappasguitar]

LMAO!!! You call the 2 largest countries in the world cherry picking??

Yeah, I got a bit of a chuckle out of that myself.

It's not like you picked Lichtenstein and Panama as the two countries you got info from...but some people won't believe until they're treading water.

Can you tell me where I can find a definitive percentage split of those in the scientific community that DO believe climate change is a man made problem versus those in the scientific community who don't?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yeah, I got a bit of a chuckle out of that myself.

It's not like you picked Lichtenstein and Panama as the two countries you got info from...but some people won't believe until they're treading water.

Can you tell me where I can find a definitive percentage split of those in the scientific community that DO believe climate change is a man made problem versus those in the scientific community who don't?

did ya? Did ya get a chuckle out of it?

Tell us genius... when 70% of the earth is ocean... and Russia/Canada combine for about 5% of the land mass in the world... then when talking about GLOBAL WARMING.... It most certainly IS cherry picking to point to those two countries as some sort of evidence.

ESPECIALLY when he did not provide any DATA to back up his claim.

 

[wiseones2cents]

LMAO.... so YET AGAIN you state it is 'not hard' to google them, yet YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE OF DOING SO AND POSTING THE LINKS TO THE SPECIFIC ARTICLES THAT YOU WANT OTHERS TO READ???????????????

Are you retarded or something? I did post articles and I asked which links you would like me to provide.

Yes, the typical bullshit attempt from the fear mongers. One person SAYS 'the majority agree' and you pretend that somehow makes it right.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

the above is a LINK... you know to the actual data I wish others to read... that LINK provides you with a list of 31,000 SCIENTISTS in the US alone that disagree with the fear mongers.

Scientists from the USA? The major polluter? Can you say BIASED? Tell me? Does it show how many scientists agree with global warming and what are the number of climate scientists in the world over all?

This data means absolutely nothing. Since I and also watermark have posted stuff that contradicts all this data.

If I had the time I would pick that entire article apart and show what a bunch of B.S. it is since I have already seen flaws in the data but at the moment I have other maters to deal with.

What we know is the planet is warming and this article acknowledges that. The difference is two things. One? The cause and two are we contributing to it?

You tell me how any man/woman with more than 1/2 a brain can tell me that these pollutants in the air and water and soil do not do harm and affect our enviornment??

So if not Pollution? What is the cause?They say the cause is the Sun? Well this articles says absolutely not.

Here. I will also post some of the article since I know your lazy about googling and reading. And this is NASA!!!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0412075538.htm

According to Shindell, the new study also confirms that changing levels of energy from the sun are not a major cause of global warming.

Many scientists have argued that the radiation change in a solar cycle - an increase of two to three tenths of a percent over the 20th century - are not strong enough to account for the observed surface temperature increases. The GISS model agrees that the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases, leading Shindell to conclude that GREENHOUSE gasses are indeed playing the dominant role.

The general circulation model used in the study included solar radiation data from NASA's Upper Atmospheric Research Satellite, launched in 1991. With data from UARS, which was used to calculate ozone changes, scientists have good measurements of how much radiation the sun puts out, increasing the accuracy of the new model.

Again you display your ignorance. I called out the person who used the 'it snowed early in TX' comment for being irrelevant to the discussion. As for the emails... they are NOT falsified. What they are is evidence that the 'consensus' crowd needs to rethink how sure they are given that TWO of the major sources of data that supposedly support the AGW fear mongering now appear to be tainted.

CRU is a source of data. Not a major source. You mean to tell me other sources do not collect their own data? Just because a few scientists got caught using loose formulas to calculate climate patterns does not discredit all the rest of the tens of thousands of scientists that have solid info saying there is global warming and it is caused by or contributed by pollution.

I know it is quite silly of me to ask... but do you have a link that shows the data was not manipulated? Because even the scientists have stated that they adjusted the raw data... you know that same raw data that they destroyed?

Sure.

Here is some key notes and comments.

First? We have big business AGAIN(and I have supplied numerous incidents) trying to manipulate information but this goes over the heads of sceptics, since this is something they dont want to hear.

That skeptical study turned out to be partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute.

And TWO? Who the heck is this Sarah Palin? She is a nobody. The only reason she made it this far is she is supported by big oil industries thanks to a resource rich Alaska. Just like Harper who came out of no-where in Canada from Alberta the oil rich province.Its funny how the media and alot of money can make a nobody so popular. This is what this agent of the elites had to say.

Republican congressmen and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin have called for either independent investigations, a delay in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases or outright boycotts of the Copenhagen international climate talks.

Over all the emails do not claim "fake' information. Science is about claculating. Its not all about facts. But the more accurate facts you have, the more accurate the results.They used a very loose formula that was not very accurate, due to estimations that were not based on hard facts.
Though still, this is a small group of scientists out of thousands and the bulk of scientists support global warming with accurate information. Most of the sceptics as I have pointed out are financed by big business, mainly the oil companies.

here is the article.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/...limate_e_mails




Yes... as I stated in my previous post in response to the second article.... it was written in 2006. Do you have anything to support all the dire predictions? You know a LINK to ACTUAL DATA????? Rather than more articles of opinion?[/QUOTE]

 

[wiseones2cents]

Yeah, I got a bit of a chuckle out of that myself.

It's not like you picked Lichtenstein and Panama as the two countries you got info from...but some people won't believe until they're treading water.

Can you tell me where I can find a definitive percentage split of those in the scientific community that DO believe climate change is a man made problem versus those in the scientific community who don't?

Here is some interesting info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy(click on link)

Scientific
Consensus
Main articles: Scientific opinion on climate change, Climate change consensus, and Climate change denial

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.[22] With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007[23], no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[24]

Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science is based on facts and not on opinion polls.[25][26][27]

 

[wiseones2cents]

did ya? Did ya get a chuckle out of it?

Tell us genius... when 70% of the earth is ocean... and Russia/Canada combine for about 5% of the land mass in the world... then when talking about GLOBAL WARMING.... It most certainly IS cherry picking to point to those two countries as some sort of evidence.

ESPECIALLY when he did not provide any DATA to back up his claim.

Russia and Canada make up 5% of the land mass?LOL It is clear you failed math AND geography.

Proof? I live here!!! And I have witnessed it with my own two eyes. We used to be buried in snow in the past. In the last decade we are lucky if we had two snow falls.

But here is a link. I know you like them.

http://www.clean-energy-ideas.com/global_warming/global_warming_and_canada.html

http://www.climatehotmap.org/euroruss.html

 

[apple0154]

Russia and Canada make up 5% of the land mass?LOL It is clear you failed math AND geography.

Proof? I live here!!! And I have witnessed it with my own two eyes. We used to be buried in snow in the past. In the last decade we are lucky if we had two snow falls.

But here is a link. I know you like them.

http://www.clean-energy-ideas.com/global_warming/global_warming_and_canada.html

http://www.climatehotmap.org/euroruss.html

But they have found dinosaur bones in Alberta, Canada so it must have been warm at one time. This week it was -45 C in Edmonton!

Maybe the earth is supposed to be warm. Obviously things lived when the earth was warm so why are we all going to die from global warming?

Just askin'.

 

[wiseones2cents]

But they have found dinosaur bones in Alberta, Canada so it must have been warm at one time. This week it was -45 C in Edmonton!

Maybe the earth is supposed to be warm. Obviously things lived when the earth was warm so why are we all going to die from global warming?

Just askin'.

Yes it was warm(understatement) at one point. Warm to the point where the gases in the earth's core were heating up and volcanoes were erupting.

My theory on that is a star many light years away went super nova. Gradually(not instantly) heating up our planet. So the lifeforms were able to adapt. When the star imploded by its own gravity? A black hole formed and started to suck light and thus heat within an enormous radius instantly turning our planet into an ice age. And causing mass extinction. This star had to have been far enough not to fry our planet but close enough to affect it.....

Its just a theory but nothing else makes sense that we know of but I could be wrong.


Yes it is getting colder in Canada but not due to cold but arctic winds. I dont know how old you are but 20-30 years ago? We used to be buried in snow in October/Novemeber. Today we are lucky if we get even a light snow fall.

It snowed in Texas but not Canada because the melting of the arctic is moving cold fronts further south.

Yes we will adapt if it is a gradual warming but if there are unprecidented increases in temperature, the consequences may be severe.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Russia and Canada make up 5% of the land mass?LOL It is clear you failed math AND geography.

http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/world_statistics_by_area.htm

Ok... I was off... it is 5.3%... do the math yourself... you see... I provide actual links to the data I use to support what I state.

Proof? I live here!!! And I have witnessed it with my own two eyes. We used to be buried in snow in the past. In the last decade we are lucky if we had two snow falls.

LMAO... did you actually just try to use what you personally have seen as proof? After you just mocked the person who claimed 'it snowed early in TX' as some sort of 'proof'?

But here is a link. I know you like them.

http://www.clean-energy-ideas.com/global_warming/global_warming_and_canada.html

http://www.climatehotmap.org/euroruss.html

Yes, most of us prefer our opponents to provide links to the data they use. Just as the scientists who requested the original data from the CRU and from Goddard do.... that is how science works... the CRU and Goddard release their 'findings' and others get to check their work. By providing your links, now we can actually discuss the actual infomation you are using rather than continuing to play your stupid game of 'u go look it up'.

Now we can see that your data is weak at best.

The second site takes a bunch of one year (sometimes less) pieces of weather data and says its a 'finger print of global warming'.

Next... we see your site's data is through 2001... which ignores the bulk of the data that suggests global temperatures on average have NOT increased since 1998.... you see... it does not encompass anything from 2002-2009.

Your first link is simply an opinion article that does nothing to suggest global warming is caused by man.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Are you retarded or something? I did post articles and I asked which links you would like me to provide.

No moron... that comment was directed to you once again stating how easy it is to google. You provided a few articles.... yet continued to reference how easy it is to google to find your data.

Scientists from the USA? The major polluter? Can you say BIASED? Tell me? Does it show how many scientists agree with global warming and what are the number of climate scientists in the world over all?

So what you are saying is that you want us all to believe that a Scientists country of origin has any bearing on their research? So you have of course dismissed then the work of Mann and Hansen... you obviously dismiss their work because they too are American Scientists. Thanks for stating the hockey stick bullshit is dismissed. We appreciate you admitting you were wrong.

If I had the time I would pick that entire article apart and show what a bunch of B.S. it is since I have already seen flaws in the data but at the moment I have other maters to deal with.

A very convenient excuse.... typically written by those who cannot indeed do what they claim to be able to do.

What we know is the planet is warming and this article acknowledges that. The difference is two things. One? The cause and two are we contributing to it?

You tell me how any man/woman with more than 1/2 a brain can tell me that these pollutants in the air and water and soil do not do harm and affect our enviornment??

Yes, had you actually paid attention... I have stated time and again that the earth warmed on average up until 1998. Since then it has not. Which leads to the question I have been asking.... if man is indeed the cause and CO2 is indeed the pollutant that is causing the greatest effect... then WHY has the earth on average NOT continued warming over the past 12 years given that CO2 levels have continued rising????????????????

I have stated time and again the reasons for fighting pollution and cleaning up our environment. If you paid attention you would know that. The point I have made is that we are wasting time, money and intellectual capacity on the fear mongering rather than on fighting the pollution. Instead, morons such as yourself would rather run around like chicken little proclaiming CO2 is the culprit when their is NO evidence to support such a claim.

So if not Pollution? What is the cause?They say the cause is the Sun? Well this articles says absolutely not.

Here. I will also post some of the article since I know your lazy about googling and reading. And this is NASA!!!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0412075538.htm

Wow... what a shock... your link doesnt work.... and again moron... if you want to use an article to support YOUR positions... YOU provide a working link. When any of us GOOGLES a 'title' we end up with thousands of hits... which means we don't know which one you are referring to. IF you are too fucking ignorant to figure that out after having it explained to you 1000 fucking times, then perhaps you should simply go back to your coloring book and leave the discussions to the rest of us.

According to Shindell, the new study also confirms that changing levels of energy from the sun are not a major cause of global warming.

Many scientists have argued that the radiation change in a solar cycle - an increase of two to three tenths of a percent over the 20th century - are not strong enough to account for the observed surface temperature increases. The GISS model agrees that the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases, leading Shindell to conclude that GREENHOUSE gasses are indeed playing the dominant role.

The general circulation model used in the study included solar radiation data from NASA's Upper Atmospheric Research Satellite, launched in 1991. With data from UARS, which was used to calculate ozone changes, scientists have good measurements of how much radiation the sun puts out, increasing the accuracy of the new model.

So sorry, but not only did you fail to link properly to your article, but you also quoted data from Goddard. Those are American scientists and by your own words they are not to be trusted on the issue of Global warming. Thus, the above is OBVIOUSLY false.

CRU is a source of data. Not a major source.

lmao... ok... I get it now... you ARE indeed a fucking moron. Enough said.

Yes... as I stated in my previous post in response to the second article.... it was written in 2006. Do you have anything to support all the dire predictions? You know a LINK to ACTUAL DATA????? Rather than more articles of opinion?

I also cannot help but notice that you failed to address the above. Why is that? Can you not find the data to support all those dire predictions from the second article in that post? Surely most of them have occurred.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Originally Posted by wiseones2cents View Post
What we know is the planet is warming and this article acknowledges that. The difference is two things. One? The cause and two are we contributing to it?

You tell me how any man/woman with more than 1/2 a brain can tell me that these pollutants in the air and water and soil do not do harm and affect our enviornment??

Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant! It is one of many gasses found naturally on planet Earth. Anyone with half a brain cell should know this is a gaseous element in our atmosphere, and not a man-made pollutant!

Greenhouse effect, is caused by carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, ozone and water vapor in the atmosphere, and without the greenhouse effect, we couldn't live on Earth. Carbon dioxide represents just 4% of the greenhouse gases, most of it is water vapor. The THEORY was, man-made carbon dioxide was raising the CO2 level sufficiently enough to amplify the greenhouse effect. The foundational basis for this was the infamous 'hockey stick' graph, showing the 'alarming' rate at which temps have rose with increased CO2.... but that has now been discredited because data was destroyed and manipulated. It was a weak argument to begin with, man is responsible for about 5% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and most of that is due to our BREATHING! Yes... every human, in fact every mammal, on the face of this Earth today, yesterday, and all of history, produces and emits carbon dioxide every time it breathes!

Now, why don't you tell me what people with half a brain cell can reasonably conclude from those facts?

 

[wiseones2cents]

http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/world_statistics_by_area.htm

Ok... I was off... it is 5.3%... do the math yourself... you see... I provide actual links to the data I use to support what I state.

You mr.lazy want me to do the math myself?lolNope. And I see no mass percentage on your link.

No actually you were off by alot. Canada is about 6.7% and Russia is about 11.5%.I am not at home but will post the proof when I get home.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_total_area

LMAO... did you actually just try to use what you personally have seen as proof? After you just mocked the person who claimed 'it snowed early in TX' as some sort of 'proof'?

You want to compare a state that witnessed ONE day of abnormal weather as opposed to 2 large countries that have been experiencing abnormal weather for years???LOL

Yes, most of us prefer our opponents to provide links to the data they use. Just as the scientists who requested the original data from the CRU and from Goddard do.... that is how science works... the CRU and Goddard release their 'findings' and others get to check their work. By providing your links, now we can actually discuss the actual infomation you are using rather than continuing to play your stupid game of 'u go look it up'.

Now we can see that your data is weak at best.

The second site takes a bunch of one year (sometimes less) pieces of weather data and says its a 'finger print of global warming'.

Next... we see your site's data is through 2001... which ignores the bulk of the data that suggests global temperatures on average have NOT increased since 1998.... you see... it does not encompass anything from 2002-2009.

Your first link is simply an opinion article that does nothing to suggest global warming is caused by man.

Yawn......New species hatching from warm weather and animals changing behaviour is opinion?

OK.Lets see you talk your way out of this juice info.This is saying that EVERY scientific agency agrees we contribute to global warming. And that the science is determined by PROOF not opinion polls. And the proof sides with us being a factory.


Wikipedia (Links)
Global_warming_controversy (click on link)

Scientific
Consensus
Main articles: Scientific opinion on climate change, Climate change consensus, and Climate change denial

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.[22] With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007[23], no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[24]

Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science is based on facts and not on opinion polls.

P.S. Anything else? Do you give up yet? You CLEARLY lost this debate in every way.

 

[DamnYankee]

Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant! It is one of many gasses found naturally on planet Earth. Anyone with half a brain cell should know this is a gaseous element in our atmosphere, and not a man-made pollutant! ...

Anything can be a pollutant. 'A Pollutant is a resource that has been misplaced.'

But, since CO2 is readily consumed by plants and plankton that provide a dampening effect, it is hard to conceive that we mere humans are producing too much of it.

Still, I prefer to err on the side of caution, and advocate nuclear power.

I also advocate use of natural gas, especially for transport fuel, since a lot of it will leak out of the ground if we don't use it and is much more problematic as a greenhouse gas if unburned.

 

[wiseones2cents]

Q!!

No moron... that comment was directed to you once again stating how easy it is to google. You provided a few articles.... yet continued to reference how easy it is to google to find your data.

Are you still avoiding my offer?lol It doesn't mater. You have clearly lot this debate.

So what you are saying is that you want us all to believe that a Scientists country of origin has any bearing on their research? So you have of course dismissed then the work of Mann and Hansen... you obviously dismiss their work because they too are American Scientists. Thanks for stating the hockey stick bullshit is dismissed. We appreciate you admitting you were wrong.

With NASA on our side which has no affiliation to big business? I would say yes. These guys are biast.

A very convenient excuse.... typically written by those who cannot indeed do what they claim to be able to do.

But I did give you enough info to back myself and I will fix the link and show how full of shit you and your sources are.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/04/990412075538.htm

Yes, had you actually paid attention... I have stated time and again that the earth warmed on average up until 1998. Since then it has not. Which leads to the question I have been asking.... if man is indeed the cause and CO2 is indeed the pollutant that is causing the greatest effect... then WHY has the earth on average NOT continued warming over the past 12 years given that CO2 levels have continued rising????????????????

Because the polar caps are melting and cooling it down.

I have stated time and again the reasons for fighting pollution and cleaning up our environment. If you paid attention you would know that. The point I have made is that we are wasting time, money and intellectual capacity on the fear mongering rather than on fighting the pollution. Instead, morons such as yourself would rather run around like chicken little proclaiming CO2 is the culprit when their is NO evidence to support such a claim.

If big business wasn't trying to interfere and you people didn't support them, we would. They are using the same misinformation tactics the tobacco industry used to try to prove that cigarettes are not linked to cancer.

Wow... what a shock... your link doesnt work.... and again moron... if you want to use an article to support YOUR positions... YOU provide a working link. When any of us GOOGLES a 'title' we end up with thousands of hits... which means we don't know which one you are referring to. IF you are too fucking ignorant to figure that out after having it explained to you 1000 fucking times, then perhaps you should simply go back to your coloring book and leave the discussions to the rest of us.

Here it is again. I actually tested it before I posted it but I will try again. Clearly states that the Sun has absolutely nothing to do with the warming. Source?NASA. Can't go any higher than that.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/04/990412075538.htm


And the beauty of it? Now they are stepping in to help!Thank you NASA!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091217/ap_on_sc/climate_monitoring

So sorry, but not only did you fail to link properly to your article, but you also quoted data from Goddard. Those are American scientists and by your own words they are not to be trusted on the issue of Global warming. Thus, the above is OBVIOUSLY false.

LMAO!!!This article is speaking of Scientific academies all over the world!!!

You are still in denial.Pathetic.

lmao... ok... I get it now... you ARE indeed a fucking moron. Enough said.

Your telling me every meteorologist in the world uses CRU info exclusively???

 

[wiseones2cents]

Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant! It is one of many gasses found naturally on planet Earth. Anyone with half a brain cell should know this is a gaseous element in our atmosphere, and not a man-made pollutant!

Its not CO2 that is the problem.It is all the other pollutants associated with it, when burning fossil fuels.

Carbon minoxide from cars for example is toxic.Can you imagine what harm all these cars and factories are doing to the enviornment? Where does all this pollution go??

Greenhouse effect, is caused by carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, ozone and water vapor in the atmosphere, and without the greenhouse effect, we couldn't live on Earth. Carbon dioxide represents just 4% of the greenhouse gases, most of it is water vapor. The THEORY was, man-made carbon dioxide was raising the CO2 level sufficiently enough to amplify the greenhouse effect. The foundational basis for this was the infamous 'hockey stick' graph, showing the 'alarming' rate at which temps have rose with increased CO2.... but that has now been discredited because data was destroyed and manipulated. It was a weak argument to begin with, man is responsible for about 5% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and most of that is due to our BREATHING! Yes... every human, in fact every mammal, on the face of this Earth today, yesterday, and all of history, produces and emits carbon dioxide every time it breathes!

The problem is not CO2 it is other toxins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel


Environmental effects
Main article: Environmental issues with energy
In the United States, more than 90% of greenhouse gas emissions come from the combustion of fossil fuels.[17] Combustion of fossil fuels also produces other air pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, volatile organic compounds and heavy metals.

According to Environment Canada:

"The electricity sector is unique among industrial sectors in its very large contribution to emissions associated with nearly all air issues. Electricity generation produces a large share of Canadian nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide emissions, which contribute to smog and acid rain and the formation of fine particulate matter. It is the largest uncontrolled industrial source of mercury emissions in Canada. Fossil fuel-fired electric power plants also emit carbon dioxide, which may contribute to climate change. In addition, the sector has significant impacts on water and habitat and species. In particular, hydro dams and transmission lines have significant effects on water and biodiversity."


Did you hear that? 99% sure!

Now, why don't you tell me what people with half a brain cell can reasonably conclude from those facts?

They can conclude that pollution is BAD for our enviornmment. If you dont believe me? Go inhale the fumes from your car.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You mr.lazy want me to do the math myself?lolNope. And I see no mass percentage on your link.

No actually you were off by alot. Canada is about 6.7% and Russia is about 11.5%.I am not at home but will post the proof when I get home.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_total_area

Thank you for providing the link. You see, that way I can see where your data is coming from and see how it compares to the site I provided. The land mass by country is the same... but the total land mass is different on the two sites. I do admit I don't know which is the correct one. I was going off of the data I found.

Also... I did the math based off my site. I was not being lazy, I was encouraging you to CHECK my math based on that site. You see... that is how it works. I provide an assertion with the data I used to make it. Then you have the ability to check my data and say something like... 'hey, here is another site that contradicts what you stated and the data behind it'.

You want to compare a state that witnessed ONE day of abnormal weather as opposed to 2 large countries that have been experiencing abnormal weather for years???LOL

tell you what moron... show me where I tried to use one states weather. Show me one post where I stated any such nonsense.

Yawn......New species hatching from warm weather and animals changing behaviour is opinion?

No... but it is not evidence that MAN is causing the warming.

OK.Lets see you talk your way out of this juice info.This is saying that EVERY scientific agency agrees we contribute to global warming. And that the science is determined by PROOF not opinion polls. And the proof sides with us being a factory.

Wikipedia (Links)
Global_warming_controversy (click on link)

Scientific
Consensus
Main articles: Scientific opinion on climate change, Climate change consensus, and Climate change denial

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.[22] With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007[23], no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[24]

Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science is based on facts and not on opinion polls.

P.S. Anything else? Do you give up yet? You CLEARLY lost this debate in every way.

LMAO... again... no link... what a shock... and again... the data most of those government agencies use comes from where? The CRU, NASA, NOAA...

I understand fully that the governments of the world are all (to my knowledge) behind the AGW theory. The point is that not all scientists are behind it.

The point is that it now appears that the data from the CRU cannot be checked without recompiling the original data. We know Mann manipulated the hockey stick. We know that Hansen has been caught with consistently bad data at Goddard. Now we find the CRU data is questionable at best.

 

[wiseones2cents]

Thank you for providing the link. You see, that way I can see where your data is coming from and see how it compares to the site I provided. The land mass by country is the same... but the total land mass is different on the two sites. I do admit I don't know which is the correct one. I was going off of the data I found.

Also... I did the math based off my site. I was not being lazy, I was encouraging you to CHECK my math based on that site. You see... that is how it works. I provide an assertion with the data I used to make it. Then you have the ability to check my data and say something like... 'hey, here is another site that contradicts what you stated and the data behind it'.

This is why you need discernment and logic when sifting threw all the mis-information.

Logically, knowing the size of Canada and Russia? I knew you were wrong even beofre checking the data.

tell you what moron... show me where I tried to use one states weather. Show me one post where I stated any such nonsense.

In the other thread. The fact that you tried to disregard heating trends in 2 major countries and the arctic as 5% is what is nonsense.

No... but it is not evidence that MAN is causing the warming.

According to all the data I supplied? Without a shadow of a doubt? Man is causing or heavily contributing to it.

LMAO... again... no link... what a shock... and again... the data most of those government agencies use comes from where? The CRU, NASA, NOAA...

I understand fully that the governments of the world are all (to my knowledge) behind the AGW theory. The point is that not all scientists are behind it.

The point is that it now appears that the data from the CRU cannot be checked without recompiling the original data. We know Mann manipulated the hockey stick. We know that Hansen has been caught with consistently bad data at Goddard. Now we find the CRU data is questionable at best.

No link???Something is wrong with this board. I double checked the link.

I will post it again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy


But my point stands

Scientific
Consensus
Main articles: Scientific opinion on climate change, Climate change consensus, and Climate change denial

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.[22] With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007[23], no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[24]

Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science is based on facts and not on opinion polls.


LOL Your making assumptions. Prove that the data is all coming from CRU.

This is the only leg you have to stand on the CRU emails.lol Oh and the fact that it snowed in Texas.LMAO!!!!

The article I posted stated that most scientists that disagree about GW have no science to back it. Just their opinion. And in science? Proof is what counts and all the scientific proof(even the so called falsified) point to GW and humans as being the cause or heavily contributer.

There is NO scientific data that goes against it. And I also supplied proof from NASA that the Sun is not causing the rises in temperature. So what is sherlock?

Oh and the cooling? What do you think happens when the earth heats up too much and results in the melting of the ice caps? Give up? Temporary cooling.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

This is why you need discernment and logic when sifting threw all the mis-information.

Logically, knowing the size of Canada and Russia? I knew you were wrong even beofre checking the data.

Again, the two sites have different numbers. Which again is why people provide links to the data they are using.

In the other thread. The fact that you tried to disregard heating trends in 2 major countries and the arctic as 5% is what is nonsense.

Again... moron...

I did not disregard the trends in those two countries. I stated that it is cherry picking data to take two countries RATHER than taking the GLOBAL averages when discussing global warming. Which it is. Because even by your numbers... there is 70% of the world covered by OCEANS. You are accounting for 20% of the LAND. 20% of 30% is SIX percent of the total global surface.

According to all the data I supplied? Without a shadow of a doubt? Man is causing or heavily contributing to it.

LMAO... you have not provided any recent data. That 'data' you provided was a bunch of cherry picked stats. It was NOT any type of analysis of global trends... and it did NOT include anything beyond 2001.

No link???Something is wrong with this board. I double checked the link.

I will post it again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy


But my point stands

Scientific
Consensus
Main articles: Scientific opinion on climate change, Climate change consensus, and Climate change denial

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.[22] With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007[23], no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[24]

Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science is based on facts and not on opinion polls.


LOL Your making assumptions. Prove that the data is all coming from CRU.

This is the only leg you have to stand on the CRU emails.lol Oh and the fact that it snowed in Texas.LMAO!!!!

The article I posted stated that most scientists that disagree about GW have no science to back it. Just their opinion. And in science? Proof is what counts and all the scientific proof(even the so called falsified) point to GW and humans as being the cause or heavily contributer.

There is NO scientific data that goes against it. And I also supplied proof from NASA that the Sun is not causing the rises in temperature. So what is sherlock?

Oh and the cooling? What do you think happens when the earth heats up too much and results in the melting of the ice caps? Give up? Temporary cooling.

Again... you are simply quoting the "consensus!!!" crap. THAT is what is falling apart right now in case you hadn't noticed.

So you are saying that when the globe heats up, it naturally corrects and starts cooling? Great... welcome to the correct camp. The globe does indeed warm and cool in cycles.

 

[wiseones2cents]

Again, the two sites have different numbers. Which again is why people provide links to the data they are using.

And it is obvious your link is flawed and so are your calculations.

Again... moron...

I did not disregard the trends in those two countries. I stated that it is cherry picking data to take two countries RATHER than taking the GLOBAL averages when discussing global warming. Which it is. Because even by your numbers... there is 70% of the world covered by OCEANS. You are accounting for 20% of the LAND. 20% of 30% is SIX percent of the total global surface.

I believe global averages are calculated by more land temperatures, then ocean. Ocean temperatures are different.

LMAO... you have not provided any recent data. That 'data' you provided was a bunch of cherry picked stats. It was NOT any type of analysis of global trends... and it did NOT include anything beyond 2001.

You are clearly in denial and a waste of my time to debate.

Again... you are simply quoting the "consensus!!!" crap. THAT is what is falling apart right now in case you hadn't noticed.

So you are saying that when the globe heats up, it naturally corrects and starts cooling? Great... welcome to the correct camp. The globe does indeed warm and cool in cycles.

Yes though what happens when there is less and less ice Einstein? And more and more heat being added to the mix? What would increase is the rate of thaw and that would have gigantic consequences.