Global Warming is So Much Hyped - Do You Know There is NO Scientific Evidence to Prove it? »
Posted By WikiMap 5 months ago in NewsMany support the carbon tax and trade tariffs now being discussed in Congress as a way to stop carbon dioxide emissions and the supposed harm to the environment. Global warming is what it is called. However, there is no scientific proof that it exists.
Read Full Story at strangestories.info »
1548 Views Share Story 237 Comments Report
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 223 of 237 Comments (view all)
-
74%
CRYMTYPHON5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Global Warming is So Much Hyped. "
Reply
Is that even proper english?
Global Warming is so much hyped, - what?
Hyped science?
Or should it be , so much 'hype' ?
Bad grammer is reflective of bad logic
and poorly thought-out ideas.
In this case, it is reflective of the babble of
someone who isn't even presenting an argument.
We get a tossed-salad of vague references and hard-facts
about geologic ages, trains, and Al Gore
- sprinkled with the general idea that
anything can be declared 'unproven' and 'hype'
if only you click your heels and believe .-
30%
gwhiddon5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Riiiight - there, a liberal elitist. You think because you can spell and know your grammar that you are more intelligent than someone who misspells a word and hasn't learned perfect grammar.
Reply
Want to bet that most of the people voting for Obama the elitist can't even spell, or some even read?
All they were voting for was someone to pay for their gas, rent, and buy them a car.
Buying votes. -
88%
Goppy5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FROM:
Reply
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
In 2007, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth.
As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control.
CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.
My guess is ... since these guys are scientists ... they must be Liberal Elites ... and ... of course ... were engaged in buying votes for Obama.
LOL
. -
81%
Goppy5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FROM:
Reply
InterAcademy Council
As the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies, the InterAcademy Council (IAC) issued a report in 2007 titled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future.
Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.
Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.
Current patters of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long term welfare of humanity?
Well ... my fellow Christian Conservatives don't care about the 'long term welfare of humanity!
NO WAY!!!
The Modern Interpretation of Red State Christians is that ... the END is coming ... the RAPTURE is near .... and anything we can do to hasten the end will be all that much better!
Of course, that kind of short changes future generations .... but HEY ... Modern Conservatism is a LIFESTYLE CHOICE.
My fellow Christian Conservatives say: S C R E W the consequences!
. -
87%
Goppy5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FROM:
Reply
Joint science academies' statements
Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses.
The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
My fellow Christian Conservatives say ... "Them nations are bastions of atheism .... obviously ... on accounta ... God said He's in charge ... therefore ... to PROVE God's in charge ... we need to POLLUTE MORE ... it's an expression of the Conservative Lifestyle ... as in ...
... expressing that we have no accountability for our actions ... cause God will take care of us.
It's the Lifestyle Choice of the Modern Conservative in America!
. -
92%
Goppy5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FROM:
Reply
National Research Council (United States)
In 2001, the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:
The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century.
The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.
--------------------------------------------------...
Interestingly ... the Bush Whitehouse FORCED this Research Council to add insert this sentence into the first paragraph ... but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.
Why did they do that? Because the Bush Administration was ANTI-SCIENCE ... believing that ... GOD is in control.
Ahhhh ... being UN-accountable is such an easy way to live ... to never claim responsibility for one's actions.
Well ... that's a Lifestyle Choice of the Modern Conservative.
. -
50%
Klarissa5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1890...
Reply
Cows with Gas: India's Global-Warming Problem
By burping, belching and excreting copious amounts of methane — a greenhouse gas that traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide — India's livestock of roughly 485 million (including sheep and goats) contributes more to global warming than the vehicles the animals obstruct.
With new research suggesting that methane emission by Indian livestock is higher than previously estimated, scientists are furiously working at designing diets to help bovines and other ruminants eat better, stay more energetic and secrete smaller amounts of the offensive gas. -
88%
Goppy5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FROM
Reply
Institute of Biology (United Kingdom)
The UK's Institute of Biology states:
“There is scientific agreement that the rapid global warming that has occurred in recent years is mostly anthropogenic, ie due to human activity.”
As a consequence of global warming, they warn that a “rise in sea levels due to melting of ice caps is expected to occur.
Rises in temperature will have complex and frequently localised effects on weather, but an overall increase in extreme weather conditions and changes in precipitation patterns are probable, resulting in flooding and drought.
The spread of tropical diseases is also expected.” Subsequently, the Institute of Biology advocates policies to reduce “greenhouse gas emissions, as we feel that the consequences of climate change are likely to be severe.”
My fellow Christian Conservatives say ... "Them scientis foks is makin a mountain outta a mole hill ... I got me central air coniditionin ... why should I care bout 'Golbal Warmin'. Plus, I dont live near the ocen.
and anybody that do ... well ... that jus proves that God dint smile on em."
See?
Modern American Conservatives believe in having NO consequences for human behavior.
.
It's a Lifestyle Choice.
. -
93%
Goppy5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FROM:
Reply
American Geophysical Union
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:
The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming.
Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.
Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850.
The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities.
Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.
My fellow Christian Conservatives say ... "Whats the ding dang big deal ... as Ann Coulter SAID ... God GAVE us this planet ... it's ours to RAPE ... PILLAGE ... and PILFER ... in a consequence free state of being!"
Ahh ... a consequence free state of being ... that's the Lifestyle Choice of the Modern Conservative.
.
. -
92%
Goppy5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FROM
Reply
American Academy of Pediatrics
--------------------------------------------------...
OK ... all you Christian Conservatives OPPOSED TO ABORTION ... check out this one...
--------------------------------------------------...
In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued the policy statement Global Climate Change and Children's Health:
There is broad scientific consensus that Earth's climate is warming rapidly and at an accelerating rate.
Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, are very likely (>90% probability) to be the main cause of this warming. Climate-sensitive changes in ecosystems are already being observed, and fundamental, potentially irreversible, ecological changes may occur in the coming decades.
Conservative environmental estimates of the impact of climate changes that are already in process indicate that they will result in numerous health effects to children.
Anticipated direct health consequences of climate change include injury and death from extreme weather events and natural disasters, increases in climate-sensitive infectious diseases, increases in air pollution–related illness, and more heat-related, potentially fatal, illness. Within all of these categories, children have increased vulnerability compared with other groups.
My fellow Christian Conservatives counter .... "Why do we care about the health of children? We've already PROVEN we don't care about the health of children by supporting Modern Republicans in voting against expanding SCHIP. ....
.... my fellow Christian Conservatives go on to say ... "You libbies just don't GET the ramifications of our Conservative Lifestyle Choice ... we only care about UNBORN children ... not LIVING CHILDREN. ..... only the UNBORN .... "
Well ... one part of that comment I DO agree with ... I really DON'T get the American Christian Conservative ... unless I frame their Lifestyle Choice as Morally Vacant.
. -
90%
Goppy5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FROM:
Reply
American Medical Association
In 2008, the American Medical Association issued a policy statement on global climate change declaring that they:
Support the findings of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which states that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that these changes will negatively effect public health.
Support educating the medical community on the potential adverse public health effects of global climate change, including topics such as population displacement, flooding, infectious and vector-borne diseases, and healthy water supplies.
My fellow Christian Conservative's response?
"We had snow in North Dakota in early June ... so Golbal Warmin caint be right. Besides ... God dint tell us he was raisin the tempature ... when God tells us He'sa raisin the tempature ... THEN we'll believe you LIE-berals."
.. -
90%
Goppy5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FROM:
Reply
American Society for Microbiology
In 2003, the American Society for Microbiology issued a public policy report in which they:
.. recommend “reducing net anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere” and “minimizing anthropogenic disturbances of” atmospheric gasses:
Carbon dioxide concentrations were relatively stable for the past 10,000 years but then began to increase rapidly about 150 years ago…as a result of fossil fuel consumption and land use change.
Of course, changes in atmospheric composition are but one component of global change, which also includes disturbances in the physical and chemical conditions of the oceans and land surface. Although global change has been a natural process throughout Earth’s history, humans are responsible for substantially accelerating present-day changes.
These changes may adversely affect human health and the biosphere on which we depend.
Christian Conservatives say .... "why should we care ... we are just un-accountable cogs in God's plan for the destruction of our planet ... "
The ASM goes on to say ...
Outbreaks of a number of diseases, including Lyme disease, hantavirus infections, dengue fever, bubonic plague, and cholera, have been linked to climate change.
Christian Conservatives say ... dying and suffering is all part of God's plan ... part of the Lifestyle of the Conservative is to watch ... dispassionately ... the suffering of mankind ... and accept it as God's will .... Because God DOES NOT want us to use our brains to solve problems.
.
. -
90%
Goppy5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FROM:
Reply
Polish Academy of Sciences
In December 2007, the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN) issued a statement endorsing the IPCC conclusions, and states:
"it is the duty of Polish science and the national government to, in a thoughtful, organized and active manner, become involved in realisation of these ideas".
"Problems of global warming, climate change, and their various negative impacts on human life and on the functioning of entire societies are one of the most dramatic challenges of modern times."
"PAS General Assembly calls on the national scientific communities and the national government to actively support Polish participation in this important endeavor."
My fellow Christian Conservatives say ... "Why should we care bout what them Pollaks say ... ?" ...
Of course, when the Proud Poles rose up against Communism ... the Polish People were the inspiration of Christian Conservatives and were pointed to as proof of the power of Christianity in opposition to Communism.
NOW ... well ... what to Poles know.
.
More evidence that Modern Conservatism is a LIFESTYLE CHOICE ... that relies on shifting alliances and pretzel logic.
. -
88%
Goppy5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FROM
Reply
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
In 2001, the Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences issued the position paper Mitigating climate change:
Putting our carbon dioxide back into the ground:
"We contribute to the global problem of changing climate by our emissions of greenhouse gases - especially carbon dioxide – from industrial processes.
A warming Earth has significant problems for Canada – instability in agricultural productivity, sinking of northern infrastructrure into melting permafrost, greater vulnerability of low-lying coastlines to storms.
My fellow Christian Conservatives say ... "Why should we care bout them ding dang Canadieans?"
See?
There can be no better proof that Modern Conservatism - is a LIFESTYLE CHOICE ... ... ... CHOOSING to be so callous requires a conscious thought process ... a process of elimination.
As my fellow Christian Conservatives might say ... ""Golbal Warmin MIGHT be real ... I've seen a variety of climatological effects ... but frankly ... in the end ... I really don't care ... and it's my Christian Right .... nay ... my Christian DUTY ... to NOT care bout human impact of CO2. ""
""Besides ... we never liked the Montreal Canadiens .... they dint speak English ... the language of God.""
Conservatism in America ... a Lifestyle Choice.
. -
-
75%
donald515 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fact: something has to be causing the over 6 degree increase at the poles in the last 50 years.... not just a case of believing or religious superstition to the opposite, or a state of denial so big business doesn't have to change its gluttonous ways!!
Reply
Thanks Goop for all the hard work.... facts sure aren't a right wing suit, only opinion, usually in the form of lies and deceptions!
-
-
81%
engineer5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here is a graph from NOAA, the part of the government which follows global warming. You will see the proof there!!
Reply
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globtemp.html-
-
59%
beavith15 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
its not proof.
Reply
its evidence that supports an hypothesis.
what it doesn't support is 'why'.
just because it correlates with increased human emission of carbon dioxide, that isn't the same thing as causation.
AGW, as a policy, is a consensus view. its politics. its not science. -
45%
Endoscopy5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
try this one on for size. It claims global cooling since 1998. It also shows that man is a very minor creator of CO2.
Reply
http://www.minimalgovernment.net/media/mg_20090327...
This was created from presentations at the New York conference on global warming. Don't you love science?
-
-
100%
jordan115 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Am I to surmise that because someone says there is no proof, that it's a fact? This isn't an arugment. It's another case of 'my scientist is better than your scientist.' What are the affects of carbon monoxide? Well, lots of folks have used it to commit suicide by putting a hose from their tailpipe into their closed car. So it's a safe bet that it has the propensity to do harm. But how much is enough? Shall we wait and see until it's too late to do anything about it? I'll be proactive. That seems a touch saner than demanding 100% concensus.
Reply-
DrJenComment removed: Retracted by user16 Replies
-
-
67%
crghss5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Are you insane? Because a person can run "a hose from their tailpipe into their closed car" and kill themselves is a reason to change every aspect of life. So since people O.D. from prescriptions drugs lets stop making them. Since people can hang them self with a rope, well gar-darn it lets stop making rope.
Reply
We've really entered the realm of the absurd....... -
71%
mesodude5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Am I to surmise that because someone says there is no proof, that it's a fact? "
Reply
--That's how cons get through life- by using extremely crude logic and reasoning. At their convenience, the absence of tangible proof can be used to claim something is definitely true (the existence of a deity or that Bush kept them safe) or untrue global warming theory). That's why we know cons hate science (well, education in general really). According to them, thousands of scientists the world over don't know what they're talking about (but people who watch Rush LImbaugh nightly are brilliant, special and of superior intellect) and higher education, for the most part, is dominated by evil biased liberals. Cons are astounding in their ability to rationalize. Positively astounding. -
-
-
64%
mesodude5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"It gets more and more confusing every day.
Reply
Each side have some own "proofs" and for common people its really hard to ditinguish what is truth."
--It doesn't get more confusing by the day. Cons wish that it did but that's not happening. They're squealing louder and louder but, for the most part, people know that this is all about their fears that they won't be able to continue to destroy the planet for profit. The idea that there is a scientific debate is a joke. No one believes cons care about science and we don't take their silly whining seriously. ;-P -
86%
minxman5 months ago
-
50%
oldslowjim5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You appear to know much about the issue. How about a link showing that any of the "accepted" computer models can take the data sets used to forecast future global warming, reverse the data sets, and accurately forecast the past? I am certainly not aware of any.
Reply
If the scientists hyping their models truly could do this, it would go a long way toward having people accept that they know what they are talking about.
So give us a link that will show this! -
-
35%
Wolfie20075 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
minxman
Reply
It became especially confusing last year when the global warming crowd noticed that the earth was actually getting colder not warmer. So instead of wasting all the hard work they had done to terrify the useful idiots about global warming they just changed the name of their scam to "climate change". Climate change is a real winner for them as who know just what that means?
-
-
73%
purpleicon5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is a tiresome argument. It has been proven by scientists that global warming is happening. Many people don't want to believe it because it is easier not to. Jordan11 is right. Shall we wait until it is too late to change or stop the damage ? Species are disappearing, and 2/3 of animals may be gone by 2050. Climatic disasters will affect 325 million of the worlds poorest, and create drought and starvation. I really don't understand the stubborn denial of global warming. Don't we want our future generations to have a clean and life sustaining planet ? I think it is immoral not to do anything to slow down global warming.
Reply-
-
-
50%
oldslowjim5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Although the climate may be on a general warming trend, the real issue is should we spend trillions of dollars changing man's input of co2 to the atmosphere in hopes that this will reverse the trend?
Reply
Or, should we spend trillions of dollars in mitigation of the effects?
Remember, you are placing billions of people at risk by assuming that the warming trend is man-made and is therefore reversible. If you are wrong, we will have wasted trillions of dollars that could have been used to help alleviate the suffering of those billions of people whose plight is due to non-man-made, therefore non-reversible, global warming.
Since you are playing with other people's lives, make your choice carefully!
-
-
52%
Klarissa5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Across North America, snow cover for winter 2008/2009 was above average, the 12th largest extent since satellite records began in 1967.
Reply
The 43-year mean North America winter snow cover extent is 17.1 million square kilometers for the 1967-2009 period of record.
A series of snow and ice storms struck the U.S. during the winter. For information on the U.S. winter snow events, please visit the U.S. 2008-2009 Snow Season Summary page.
I too can pick and choose statistics!!!!!!-
-
100%
wtagg5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Which demonstrates that it neither proves or disproves.
Reply
I look at it this way, conservatism is a lifestyle. To be purposefully wasteful is not conservative. If you are not recycling, you are not conservative.
Talk is cheap. It is much harder to walk.
-
-
Bluedragon912Comment removed: Spam
-
64%
CHAM5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks Wiki good post.
Reply
Engineer. I tried to respond to the graphs but my Computer had a heart attack. Got myself back in the land of the living now so let me respond to your graphs link above.
The graphs are excellent and relay truthful data, but the data that is important was not shown because it wasn't asked for-and that data would be: Is Global Warming a result of Human input? If so what is the magnitude of human input?
Global Warming is occurring, it just isn't the result of human input. Chill. The cool down cycle will kick in within the next several years. The cycles last around 700 years on average. The Little Ice Age began ( the cool down started ) around 1300.
Those graphs you showed begin at 1800 and the significance about that is that is approximately the time that the Little Ice Age ended. I sure would expect the earth to warm up after an Ice Age. See what I mean about asking the right question?
Studies I have examined indicate that the percent of warming attributable to human input is about 2.7% of the total. Somehow I don't believe that the 97.3% not attributable to human input is the driver in this warm-up. Would everyone agree to that?-
75%
ForrestPhelps5 months ago
-
50%
mesodude5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Studies I have examined indicate that the percent of warming attributable to human input is about 2.7% of the total. Somehow I don't believe that the 97.3% not attributable to human input is the driver in this warm-up. Would everyone agree to that?"
Reply
--I guess I"m wondering why you think you're more knowledgeable and compelling than people who've studied this stuff all their lives.
-
-
-
78%
Goppy5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL ... and there you have it ... .
Reply
I like how you can put scientific issues into parables that your fellow Christian Conservatives can relate to.
To the Christian Conservative ... Global Warming and Scientific Research can best be explained as a series of .... farts.
.
Pride in Ignorance ... it's part of the expression of the Conservative Lifestyle.
.
-
-
-
30%
Wolfie20075 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
russk
Reply
So your point is.........? The conservatism of scientists is greatly threatened when the government and entities like General Electric are handing out big money only to those scientists who will support the cause of global warming now known as climate change. This is not science! -
80%
russklettke5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The critics of global warming theory apparently missed grade school science, where the scientific method is taught. Basically it goes like this: scientists are extremely, extremely conservative in drawing conclusions on anything until they have an accumulation of evidence that is consistent and indisputable. Research involves adopting a hypothesis, and the study then tries to disprove the hypothesis – they try to prove their own best idea wrong. They invite criticism from their peers by publishing the findings of their research. To me (a non-scientists), it amazes me how humble science is, always keeping the door open to contrary evidence and a willingness to consider other perspectives based on the scientific method.
Reply
It should be noted that the media often misinterpret scientific findings. There is error in popular perception that can result from this.
I'd like to note that I was taught all this in a Christian elementary school (Missouri Synod Lutheran), which I attended for nine years (K-8). We were also taught creationism alongside basic science, and had an introduction to the theory of evolution (debunking it in a fundamental Christian context, but teaching it so we could be functional in higher levels of scientific later in our education). That was 40 years ago -- it's interesting to note how this whole argument has become polarized. More disturbing, how some media pundits and even elected officials at the national level seem to lack this elementary school education.-
-
50%
Klarissa5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data....
Reply
"Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin.
Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O),
and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.
-
-
80%
caveboy15 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
wow , since gasses cause Global warming how come we can't just have the caveman pay for it ? Imagine it being cold in the caveman day's , and all of a sudden a taradactal farts . One caveman say's to the other , HEY - Your taradactal farted so you owe cavewoman some grease so cavewoman can cook caveman some food . Yep guy's , It was the gasses ! Pay up !
Reply-
71%
Goppy5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL ... and there you have it ... .
Reply
I like how you can put scientific issues into parables that your fellow Christian Conservatives can relate to.
To the Christian Conservative ... Global Warming and Scientific Research can best be explained as a series of .... farts.
.
Pride in Ignorance ... it's part of the expression of the Conservative Lifestyle.
.
-
-
100%
CHAM5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Russ. I agree with you. Science is an empirical thing. Unfortunately for the masses, who don't read much factual data, and research even less, the potential for mis-leading spin is significant.
Reply
As a study in this statement I just made, go back and read what those who adamantly support the "Global Warming Theory" use as an argument of support - that all facts show that the Earth is warming up. This would be correct, the Earth is in a warm up cycle, but therein lies the problem. Those who advocate control want to blame the warm up on the human factor, while steadfastly ignoring the fact that the Earth has gone thru periodic warm-ups and cool downs since way before the advent of man.
So the question shouldn't be "Is the Earth Warming up?", rather the question should be "Is the Warm-up cycle now on going, the result of human pollutants or is it a normal cycle that has an amount of human pollution?" And if the answer is yes, then that brings the third question " Is the Human Pollutant contribution significant to the cycle?". If that answer is yes, then we might consider what we should do about it.
In my reply to ForrestPhelps above I raise this question. One thing I really hate about the current protocol of Propeller is the "hiding" of replies, it causes me to have to go thru the clicking open of "replies" otherwise I might miss something of real input simply because it isn't open to scan reading.-
100%
ettucat15 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If, as you say, earth has gone through cycles of warm-up/cool-down, (which is something I believe) isn't it fairly dangerous for man to disrupt this natural phenomena with artificial remedies. Perhaps this is the natural course of events that must occur in order to keep the earth from exploding one day. Such a dilemma.
Reply -
80%
CRYMTYPHON5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cham said: "Those who advocate control want to blame the warm up on the human factor,"
Reply
The consensus of the experts is consistant, clear and takes into account previous climate periods. How the heck would it not?
And the consensus says in don't-give-a-damn-about-politics terms,
that human activity is altering our climate now
You do not discard science,
on the grounds that a political group might be
taking advantage of what is scientificaly proven.
Not honestly, anyway. -
100%
ForrestPhelps5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To: CHAM
Reply
On the subject of opening ALL comments.
Go to the first comment of a post. Click on the timestamp under the name of the poster. This will take you to that comments data. On this page, you can then click on a link labeled "All Comments" and all the comments in the thread posted up until that point will be revealed.
-
-
75%
davylightning5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
mesodude - Your "logic" is astounding. You hammer "cons" for being deists (as if no liberals are), yet accept global warming because it seems more likely or plausible? What scientists have is not "proof", it is called data. That data currently indicates that human beings are partially responsible for greenhouse emissions, due to the correlation between human activity and climate change. The consensus conclusion is that to reduce said emissions would benefit the survival of our own species (not the "saving" of the earth). However, I would venture to say that there is much more evidence in the form of the plausible for Intelligent Design -- am I to understand by your reasoning that you would support this conclusion as well? There are many very reputable scientists that believe in the idea of intelligent design in some form -- especially in the astronomy and mathematics dapartments of many major universities. Please do not presume that you could handle yourself in the arena of real debate. Content yourself in your illusion that all conservatives are backwoods rednecks so that you can feel smugly superior. If you break out of that box, I'm afraid you'll discover that you're not nearly as clever (or logical) as you believe yourself to be.
Reply -
-
100%
frctm55 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes. There is a killing to be made in environmental science. With all these climatologist driving around in Mercedes and living the celebrity lifestyle, its easy to see where the money is. By contrast, the oil and coal industry is a group of paupers with no political clout. I mean its not like they have any power or influence over our economy or our culture. Its those scientists with their dastardly agenda to control the world so we we'll all be forced to eat tofu, wear natural fiber clothing, and worship trees.
Reply
-
-
50%
Klarissa5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data....
Reply
"This is the statistically correct way to represent relative human contributions to the greenhouse effect.
From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively. For clarity only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart.
Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.
Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!
Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor)."-
100%
frctm55 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You miss one crucial point Klarissa. Water vapor is highly transitory. That is it varies significantly on a daily basis with the weather and local conditions but carbon dioxide is cumulative and, as such, acts as a catalyst which will increase the amount of water vapor in our atmosphere by trapping more heat. Furthermore, your data is from a commercial website. These are not the best source for providing unbiased information.
Reply -
38%
fjgalt5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
According to some scientists (see the British documentary "The Great Global Warming Scam" of two years ago and the over 31,000 scientists who do not accept AGW), CO2 levels LAG the temperature, so it cannot cause temperature changes. The oceans absorb CO2 when the temperature is cooler and release CO2 when it is warmer. Think of CO2 in soda.
Reply
The so-called proof of the AGW proponents relies mostly on computer models that can't predict past temperature changes. They are notoriously unreliable predictors as they rely on the assumption that CO2 levels precipitate temperature changes.
One cannot help but question the motives behind the anti-industrial mentality of the AGW proponents. Just a generation ago, from approximately 1940 to 1970, when the Earth was in a cooling trend while industrial CO2 levels were increasing, we were told it was man-made pollution and use of fossil fuels that were the cause of the impending new ice age.
When the Earth began to enter its next cycle of warming, from approximately 1970 to 2000, these same chicken littles proclaimed doom of global warming and the same cause -- industrial pollution and use of fossil fuels -- was and is blamed.
We seem to be in a new cooling cycle (which the computer models never saw coming) since about 1998 and I'll bet we'll be told it's our use of fossil fuels that is to blame. BTW, my spring flowers are blooming about a week later than usual; the sun is less active and the Earth is cooler.
The scientists and AGW supporters whose livelihoods depend on the billions of taxpayer dollars to research GW (now called climate change since the Earth isn't warming any longer) will obviously try to keep their jobs and incomes by convincing us we're in danger and that we need to keep supporting them. The climate change movement is a political one; it isn't based on science. -
100%
CHAM5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes Klarissa, this is what I was speaking about. I got the 2.7% by going to the extremes of all the variables that take the scenario to one direction, that how I arrived at the maximum percentage of human contribution. It is likely to be less as you pointed out. I was just pointing out to Engineer and old engineering exercise, calculating the tolerance stack-up.
Reply
The extremes that the Earth has experience during its life range from completed covered with an ice sheet to completely covered with vegetation ( i. e. pretty warm ). And there have been cycles in between = all this before human input. So where we are today is somewhere between the extremes and my guess if we could extrapolate a grand average probably in the one standard deviation area.
-
-
-
43%
fjgalt5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Vikings named Iceland because it was mostly ice and Greenland because they farmed there during the Medieval warm period, when the temperatures were warmer than now.
Reply
They stopped farming and Greenland froze when the Little Ice Age began around 1300 and from which we're still thawing out. Glaciers breaking up and ice melting should be expected and maybe people will once again be able to farm in GREENland.
-
-
75%
pokydoke5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Several years ago when global warming was being discussed it was theorized that excess arctic glacial melt would result in a lower salinity of arctic ocean water. This lower salinity could result in a change in the Gulf Stream, a reduced current. The result of this reduced current would be cooler and wetter summers in the Northeastern US. I'm sure any of you living here in the Northeast can attest to the cool wet weather we have had every June for the last four years. I grew up here in the NE and June typically was sunny with moderate temps in the seventies, not anymore. Just an observation, make of it what you will.
Reply -
86%
CRYMTYPHON5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1) That the earth has cycled between warm and cool geologic periods, - is no refutation that we are changing the weather now.
Reply
2) A strong majority of scientists agree that Global Climate Change is happening. Quoting contrarians, Web-petitions or ExonMobil study groups only proves this.
3) Telling world organizations of meteorologists, climatiologists, chemists and biologists that they have forgotten to take into account a) the vikings b) water vapor c) cows d) mars
- is delusional.
4) The model presented of CO2 increases in our atmosphere,
trapping heat from sunlight,
- does not care what you think about Albert Gore, carbon taxes, or liberalism. You do not 'pos' or 'neg' science
unless you are nuts.
5) Possibly there is no good strategy to solve GW.
Changes may simply shift the damage. This does not remove our obligation to be honest in our measure of the problem;
- and our obligation to try.-
40%
CHAM5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The thing about CO2 is if you look at the Heinrich Events you might note that the question is does the CO precede the temperature rise or is the increase in CO2 a result of the temperature rise?
Reply
And finally, if the amount of contribution of humans is less than 3% why would you blame humankind for the temperature rise? I know why certain Politicians would make that blame, but why would anyone that can read and think for themselves?
-
-
-
83%
DEMONSLAYAR5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dear skeptics, lets try a new approach. If there is indeed global warming and we take proper measures to correct it then we will all be better off. I think that is simple enough.
Reply
Now, if there is no real global warming and we take the measures to reduce co2. what will be the result? First, we will be using less oil that is sold to us by mid east terrorist nations,less money for terrorists, hmmmm. second: we will save money simply because every time we by oil our money leaves the country and is lost to our economy. Third: new technology breeds new technology. That alone makes it worth the effort.So why is anybody even arguing weather or not global warming is real? either way, if we take the steps as though it is real, we all win in the end :)-
75%
rimbaud5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Global Warming aside, our food (fisheries) and water sources are in trouble. Only good can come from a conservative, not liberal, approach to our harvesting of the world's natural resources. And we really don't need to curb our use! Just curbing our waste would go a long way to extending the life of those resources.
Reply -
67%
mesodude5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Demon, as a really clever person here pointed out, if we are wrong we will have "wasted" trillions of dollars cleaning up and protecting the environment. Think of it...TRILLIONS. That we would spend so much money on a whim just wobbles the mind, no? Why have a clean planet only to find out that we cannot reverse the impact of what we've done already? And does anyone really *need* smog-free air? Sure, we waste trillions on bombs and guns to protect ourselves but it says somewhere in the Constitution that if it's for war, money is no object. No need to ever question an expenditure or look at a balance sheet. If it's for war, then gosh darn it, it's worth it. ;-0
Reply
-
-
33%
JoanieT5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Global warming was invented as part of phenomena designed to brainwash you into accepting more taxes. Not that the environment should be disregarded-- it shouldn't be. But climatic changes have occurred on this planet from its very beginnings and man-made pollution did not have a thing to do with it. Al Gore, et al (read: DEMOCRATS) only want you to pay higher taxes. Their "global warming" theory is designed to get you to thinking that they MUST increase taxes, and so you go along like mindless sheep!
Reply
So what can we do to help the earth and conserve? I challenge all you young people who voted for Obama (even though you were clueless as to what he's all about) to QUIT THROWING TRASH AROUND PUBLIC PLACES. TO STOP THINKING IT'S "COOL" TO POLLUTE AND LITTER THE EARTH. REFRAIN FROM BUYING DISPOSABLE ITEMS AND BUY THINGS THAT LAST INSTEAD! WALK OR BIKE TO THE CORNER STORE INSTEAD OF DRIVING. THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE!!! We should all strive to do better by caring. And I'll throw in-- to PRAY TO GOD that morons see the light and conserve our resources instead of wasting them.-
-
-
67%
mesodude5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Global warming was invented as part of phenomena designed to brainwash you into accepting more taxes. "
Reply
--Why are you credible?
"But climatic changes have occurred on this planet from its very beginnings and man-made pollution did not have a thing to do with it."
--How many studies have you done?
"Al Gore, et al (read: DEMOCRATS) only want you to pay higher taxes. Their "global warming" theory is designed to get you to thinking that they MUST increase taxes, and so you go along like mindless sheep!"
--Al Gore has a Nobel Prize. Name all the awards you've received for scientific achievement. If you run out of space highlighting all your accomplishments, just start another post. ;-0
"So what can we do to help the earth and conserve? I challenge all you young people who voted for Obama (even though you were clueless as to what he's all about)"
--Yeah...You sound reeeeeeeeeeally knowledgeable. ;-x
-
-
11%
JoanieT5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Our ignoramus of a president is on a runaway power trip and is following in the footsteps of Adolf Hitler, taking control of the housing industry, the banking industry, the auto industry, the health care industry, etc. He's George Harrison's "The Taxman," ready to tax even the air you breathe. Al Gore et al and the Global Warming bandwagon are part and parcel of the same thing. Yet liberals just love these schmucks for all their rules and regulations. If this pompous a$$hole of a president continues to get his way, you liberals, and everyone else along with you, won't have two ***** worth of liberties left. So,I say to the mindless sheep (now called DEMOCRATS)to either wake up, or sit down and shut up!
Reply-
-
-
75%
donald515 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Joan, if you weren't so complicit with Dumya to let our economy fall apart.... then Barack wouldn't be in a position to have to do drastic means to bail out America!
Reply
Did you take Dumya's stimulus checks? Hey, it was also Dumya who bailed out the banks after he did nothing when bear-Stearns or Enron failed.... telling the rest of the business world to go ahead and screw the average American!
You right wingers gave us the Great Depression too!
Facts, compared to your lies, deceptions and fears (mostly fears, you poor scared women)! -
75%
mesodude5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Our ignoramus of a president is on a runaway power trip and is following in the footsteps of Adolf Hitler, taking control of the housing industry, the banking industry, the auto industry, the health care industry, etc."
Reply
--Wow. Ok,Joanie? First, sit down and take your meds.You sound really fearful and unstable. Not a good combo. You strike me as someone who likes to talk for extended periods of time without stopping to catch your breath. Why on earth, then, would you be worried about a tax on oxygen? Seriously... ;-0
"Yet liberals just love these schmucks for all their rules and regulations. If this pompous a$$hole of a president continues to get his way, you liberals, and everyone else along with you, won't have two ***** worth of liberties left."
--Ok...Change unstable to *dangerously* unstable.
"So,I say to the mindless sheep (now called DEMOCRATS)to either wake up, or sit down and shut up!"
--Is this Michele Bachmann? ;-0
-
-
20%
JoanieT5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Our ignoramus of a president is on a runaway power trip and is following in the footsteps of Adolf Hitler, taking control of the housing industry, the banking industry, the auto industry, the health care industry, etc. He's George Harrison's "The Taxman," ready to tax even the air you breathe. Al Gore et al and the Global Warming bandwagon are part and parcel of the same thing. Yet liberals just love these schmucks for all their rules and regulations. If this pompous a$$hole of a president continues to get his way, you liberals, and everyone else along with you, won't have two ***** worth of liberties left. So,I say to the mindless sheep (now called DEMOCRATS)to either wake up, or sit down and shut up!
Reply -
22%
horsun4tjs5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
GLOBAL WARMING IS AS PHONY AS OUR ROCK STAR PRES OBAMA WITH HIS ROPE-A--DOPE WIZARD OF OZ SPEECHES, THAT WHEN HE FINISHES SPEAKING AND READING OFF THE TELEPROMTER, AND COMES OUT BEHIND THE CURTAIN "OZ STYLE" HE CAN NOT TELL YOU WHAT HE JUST SAID OR READ OFF THE TELEPROMTER. THERE IS ONLY ONE THING THAT CAN CHANGE OUR CLIMATE IT IS CALLED "THE SUN" IT IS SELF-LUMINOUS, GASEOUS SPHERE ABOUT WHICH THE EARTH AND OTHER PLANETS REVOLVE AND WHICH FURNISHES LIGHT, HEAT, AND ENERGY FOR THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND UNLESS AL GORE OR OUR ROCK STAR PRES CAN FIGURE A WAY TO TURN IT TOO SH-T, LIKE THE BANKS, AUTOS AND HEALTH CARE WE ARE SAFE FOR NOW. REMEMBER GOD BLESS AMERICA WITHOUT GORE AND OBAMA WILL BE A BETTER PLACE.
Reply
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.