Comments for New climate report says global warming is 'human-induced' »
Posted By ameliog 5 months, 3 weeks ago in Science & Technology"Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States," was released in Washington by the interagency Global Climate Research Program. The report is based on research generated during Republican and Democratic administrations and was produced by experts from 13 government agencies and several major universities.
The report unequivocally said global warming "is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."
Read Full Story at rgj.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 88
-
48%
pc255 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you apparently missed the latest Obama fiasco........
Reply
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/06/30/media-ig...
Media Ignore EPA Suppressing Skeptical Global Warming Report-
70%
GWHayduke5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A shameless link to your own submission?
Reply
Stooping pretty low, but we expect no less.
Here's how it works, pc.
Consumer behavior drives economic activity, particularly demand.
Those consumers with an inkling of responsibility for something other than themselves, want to be environmental stewards.
Consumer behavior is changing.
Greenhouse gas reducing technology can actually SAVE consumers money and generate new jobs.
The old manufacturing economy is dead and cannot be revived.
The future in the US is technology and service.
Participate or be diminished - not by your government, but by the global economy.-
38%
b-happy5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I guess the one thing I don't understand is that the world was covered by ice at one point and now it isn't and at that time their were no cars or human based carbon gases. So how did the ice melt? Where did all those glaciers go?
Reply
I want to see the research on how the ice melted before and then compare the world from then to the world now. Unfortunately, this article only gives one line about how this is caused by humans and then the rest of the article is predictions on what will happen to the earth, Not very conclusive until they show us HOW and WHY this is all going down.-
88%
GWHayduke5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree, b-happy.....the evidence is difficult to mine and predictions are based on current trends and their anticipated continuation.
Reply
But also remember that the existence of human activity on the Earth, although brief, has been among the most significant factors in impacting the face of the Earth.
You likely dont keep your own microcosm of existence (your home) contaminated with filth and waste, why should it be OK to allow it on a macrocosmic basis?
Just because you cant see it doesnt mean it isnt having an impact on you,-
-
-
100%
crespi5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
TonyByron. Let me put you in a room with as much oxygen as you want but a higher and higher concentration of carbon dioxide. You will soon have headaches, start barfing, and pass out.
Reply
Look up carbonDIoxide poisoning.
There is a REASON we EXPEL (get rid of) C02 from our bodies.
But since Cons are so anti-science you may be unaware of the finer points of metabolism...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Tangent0015 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This 'suppressed report' is pure bunk:
Reply
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-24-scant-evid...
-
-
82%
NoWayMan5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
and once again, the naysayers are at least a step behind the arguement.
Reply
they keep trying to tell us its not happening, or that it has nothing to do with humans, but right or wrong (um, they're wrong) all that is moot at this point.
cause we're already moving on it. things are already happening.
the arguement now is about what to do, not if we should or shouldn't do anything at all.
like cap and trade for instance. that idea deserves and demands a real discussion, and there are many on both sides of the aisle who support this flawed system.
so naysayers, time to catch up with the rest of us. collectively, we're already well beyond what you're trying (and failing) to convince us of. its time for you guys to stop trying to tell us the world is flat (cause it ain't) and time to start dealing with the fact that the world is round.-
40%
tadair9195 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Warming Trend: PDO and Solar Correlate Better Than CO2" by Joe D’Aleo, Consulting Meteorologist (2008)
Reply
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/warming-tren...-
17%
b-happy5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So I guess NoWayMan would say it was conclusive if the Bush administration had come out with a report saying that Global Warming was NOT caused by humans? Would the argument be over for everyone?
Reply
How do we know this isn't a political stance that Obama is taking? Oh ya I forgot, it's King Obama. Do you really think that he studied what the so called "Naysayers" brought up in their scientific evidence?
It's amazing to me how many times people can be lied to by politicians and they still believe everything that they say. I remember one time a black man who we all trusted telling us that their were WMD's in Iraq. THat seemed pretty conclusive. But once again we were lied to. How can you tell me that the Obama administration is any different? THey have an agenda to fulfill and until they show us the evidence then, ya, I'm a naysayer, not a Sheeeeppppllleee. -
-
-
-
50%
tadair9195 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the idea that co2 causes global warming is a causal idea that was promulgated by the so-called intellectual class. public opinion has adopted this idea based on the "hockey-stick" which shows a huge disproportionate spike in earth temperature in relationship to a rise in co2. but we are very bad at determining causal relationships.
Reply
we've all seen the headline that reads "red-wine drinkers live longer," yes? and haven't we all thought to ourselves, "gee, maybe drinking red wine once a day will make me live longer, too?" But this line of reasoning neglects the fact that red-wine drinkers typically fall into a certain socio-economic status. of which, charts show tha people who live in this lifestyle are happier, and happier people live longer. Could this have nothing to do with red wine? Naw, that's too complicated...
But that is precisely the problem. It is our constant drive for a 30-second sound byte that allows us to falsely believe in causal relationships that do not exist. Once we have accepted the idea by the intellectuals, then we will accept anything that fits into this paradigm, and reject anything that does not.
Chart after chart after chart clearly shows that warming *proceeds* c02, not the other way around. but time, and time again, the scientists who also rely on established belief systems will do whatever necessary to justify the fallacy as the egg coming before the chicken.
so it is. public opinion is adopted purely by the intellectual class who don't see the irony of accusing the "detractors" of "denial," coming right out of the mouths of the enslaved deniers who detract from the real science of it.
READ: c02 follows changes in temperature, *not* the other way around.
wrap your head around it here: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesan...-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned3 Replies
-
-
-
-
47%
tadair9195 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"A full 900,000 years of ice core temperature records and carbon dioxide content records show CO2 increases **follow** increases in Earth’s temperature instead of leading them. This makes sense because the oceans are the primary source of CO2, and they hold more CO2 when cool than when warm. Warming causes the oceans to release more CO2."
Reply
--Jay Lehr, Ph.D. science director of The Heartland Institute.-
40%
BB645 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not sure of Lehr, but from the reports presented years ago by the Natural History Museum of London, they claimed that a huge increase of CO2 caused the Ice Ages. High CO2 was found at the same times as the fast freezes. I still think this is cyclical with the movements and health of our sun. I still haven't found enough evidence explaining the Global Warming claims. The science doesn't support this. Ice cores can be helpful but they're not explaining the full picture. That plus if we're having real warming, the samples have been corrupt. That plus there are glaciers increasing in the Southern Hemisphere so again, I question their validity.
Reply -
93%
Dionys5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The Heartland Institute."
Reply
Enough said.
"The Heartland Institute is an American libertarian/conservative free market-oriented public policy think tank based in Chicago, Illinois."
"The institute is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, "an informal and ad-hoc group focused on dispelling the myths of global warming".[4]"
"In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that a bibliography written by Dennis Avery and posted on Heartland’s Web site, titled "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares,”[8] included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. "
LOOK! MORE LIES PROMULGATED BY THE HEARTLAND!
"Dozens of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford wrote "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!""
A global warming sceptic group being unethical and lying?!?!? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
-
-
53%
BB645 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They're quoting weather reports claiming an increase? How about the decrease we've seen over the last 10 years.
Reply
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how you can have about 120 years of semi-accurate data concerning world temperatures but then make such huge claims when the planet by your own standards is over 5 billion years old. The info you have doesn't meet your room for error. What scientific method do you use? Where is your actual work? You've drawn a conclusion with less than convincing evidence. How did you do it. I don't mean fancy computer generated pictures, movies from a failed presidential candidate searching for a purpose or some fat-a$$ed wannabee movie producer. Where is your proof that can be repeatedly confirmed as truthful?
I've asked for this but apparently this is a religion and not based on any scientific data. They'll post a bunch of fluff sites from the usual twigs & berries groups but rarely is there any convincing proof. We know the planet's weather moves in cycles. There are hot years and there are cooler years. But again, this doesn't follow any of their models. -
vmoptions-web-directoryComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
33%
4cprocess5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just for the hell of it one night I decided to do a little "test" myself using a little simple math. Reason being that I remember growing up in the 60's and 70's of all the hype that surrounded the "over population" of our earth. Everywhere you turned there were doomsday articles about food shortages, water shortages, power/fuel shortages, disease, and all the other scenarios that come with the "sky is falling" ideology of certain groups.
Reply
So just for the sake of argument, knowing that the world's population has at least doubled since that time I used the world's population figure of 8 billion as a starting point. Keep in mind that this is not rocket science but simple math.
If you take the world's population today and placed every man, woman and child in a 6 foot square area (36 sq. ft) I wondered how much of an area that would require?
Using simple math I figured the square foot of area in an acre and then a square mile and divided by 36. The total sum came to somewhere (give or take a few square miles) around 10,000 square miles.
Now that sounded like a whole lot to me at the time so to put things in perspective I ran a list of the square mile area of each state in the United States and one state came within a couple of hundred square miles to the exact figure. Just off the top of your head can you guess what state?
The answer is Massachusetts. Surprised? I was profoundly surprised especially when I got up and walked over to my globe knowing that this earth consists of only 25 percent land mass and looked at how small this state looked on a global perspective.
That's when I realized how naive man can actually be. To actually believe that such a small component on this great globe could have such a tremendous impact on it was simply incomprehensible let alone totally ludicrous. Try it, if you have a globe get up and take a look at how the state of Massachusetts compares to the grander scheme of things.
To take matters just a small step forward I wondered how that would compare to a county in a neighboring state and found one not that far away in North Carolina with the same area. That's one county in one state! One single county in a single state could hold the entire population of the world.
So as I read these headlines both pro and con on today's news networks and I hope you would too, is I let it remind me about how wrong we were back then and how little we have learned since then. Funny thing about all of this is it was a simple education in basic math that let me to the answer that I sought which simply was, how large of a "footprint" does man really have on this great earth that we all so much cherish.
The answer I came up with was right there before my eyes.
Not much.
In God We Trust-
80%
Dionys5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"To actually believe that such a small component on this great globe could have such a tremendous impact on it was simply incomprehensible let alone totally ludicrous."
Reply
Maybe you should let all the fishermen and women who realize the ocean's completely overfished know that they're mistaken. Or all the people affected by toxic waste? Or all those people who are dying because of lack of potable water due to humanity's influence?
Please stop cutting and pasting your crap that is plainly intended to trick stupid people into believing that humanity doesn't have an impact on the earth.-
82%
Dionys5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" Funny thing about all of this is it was a simple education in basic math that let me to the answer that I sought which simply was, how large of a "footprint" does man really have on this great earth that we all so much cherish."
Reply
Yes. Plainly your crap is designed so that people who barely have an understanding of math will be tricked into thinking that humanity doesn't have an impact on earth.-
-
-
100%
jakesguile5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your statements were actually sounding "smart" until you started that troll crap. But you're forgetting that all those people? They sh*t and p*ss up that 36 sq feet within a week, every week. Never mind the toxins produced from the factories they created, which extend past their 36 sq feet, or the cars they drive which emit outrageous amounts of CO2, or the diseases some of them have which contaminate one another and create MORE issues. Or the deforestation that would occur, creating CO2 changes in the area. The dustbowl, which is being recreated in Brazil as we speak, making the soil useless. By "man-made" it's not just "emitted from 'Man'" it means from all things that are made by man as well. This means that tangently, animals on farms, especially cows also fall under "man-made" because man brought those cows to that area and led them to be birthed in that quantity. Man's interference there exacerbated the problem.
Reply
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
33%
4cprocess5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Please stop cutting and pasting your crap that is plainly intended to trick stupid people into believing that humanity doesn't have an impact on the earth."
Reply
Not sure where you're going with the "cutting and pasting" here because I keyed this entire entry myself but as far a the fishermen and women I look at myself as a fisher of men unlike the trolling behavior you are so well known here for.
And as far as trickery goes here you are the one claiming that there are "stupid" people here. This is no trickery, just simple math and if you feel anything otherwise then you must be the only "stupid" one here.
Do the math simon, if you can?
In God We Trust-
14%
4cprocess5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For those who Dionys is referring to as being "tricked" into my way of thinking here is the simple math breakdown equation.
Reply
288Msqf=1/1000=8M
28M=1/10x1sqmi=10
10x1000=10000sqmi
Sorry to abbreviate the equation but numbers really give me a headache. lol
In God We Trust-
-
-
67%
chevydog5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I guess one can't assume that man doesn't affect the planet. But if you're old enough (as I am ) to remember back to the mid/late 1970's, we were assured by the same scientific authorities (qualitatively) that the world was slipping into the next Ice Age. Were those guys --qualification-wise no different than the bunch supporting global warming today-- wrong? Possibly. Scientists are human after all. I don't like to get into the "my authority is better than your authority" game. For my money, they're all the same people; and in my professional lifetime, we've been assured of mutually contradictory things by them. IMHO, it should give one pause as to what we really know and don't know.
Reply
Also, people are throwing around numbers for core samples and atmospheric CO2 concentrations like candy. As an engineer, I am very concercerned about the representativeness of samples. the EPA gives me very precise rules about how I am to sample a discharge stack (e.g.) for particulate. Miscible gases are alot easier. What I'd like to be sure of is whether a certain concentratation of CO2 in a sample is really representitive of what was in the atmosphere (water?) at that time worldwide? Or just in that one place? Or somewhere between? IMHO, we can't just assume that water or air is uniformly mixed around the world--if it was, we wouldn't have what we call weather.
There's lots of room for intriguing speculation. But personally none of it is anything I'd want to bet the ranch on. If one is going to make world-shattering changes, I think you need lots more than what we have. Buying whole hog into GW may or may not be scientific; but it's certainly not prudent.
-
-
-
100%
jakesguile5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you're not including all the data, just what would happen in an ideal situation if all people stayed in 36 sq ft squares, never moved, never ate, never drank, never went to the bathroom, never did anything. THEREFORE, your math is flawed.
Reply-
0%
4cprocess5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"you're not including all the data, just what would happen in an ideal situation if all people stayed in 36 sq ft squares, never moved, never ate, never drank, never went to the bathroom, never did anything."
Reply
They would die and all your "fears" would be resolved.
This statement in no way rebukes my math.
Try again but this time maybe make a more cohesive statement and you may want to include some facts.
In God We Trust-
Neutral
jakesguile5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
EXACTLY you dumbass! They would DIE, your figures don't reflect REALITY, that's what I was SAYING.
Reply
Where is the waste that these people create? Where is the waste their cars and factories and jobs create? I didn't rebuke your math, I told you you didn't finish the problem. Your math is fundamentally correct YES, but you haven't finished the problem. You stopped at step 2, there's more to the equation you haven't placed in there yet. If every person in your 8 billion craps out a pound of crap a week (which is a fairly liberal estimate, I'd gauge it at 2-3 lbs a week or more) that's 8 billion pounds of sh*t a week. Spread that over their 36 sq ft space and you have a pile of **** the size of Mass. PER WEEK. There are 52 weeks per year, by the end of the year more than half of the US would be covered in about an inch of ****. This happens per year, every year. This is from people waste alone. Never mind how much waste our factories spew out, or our cars, or our domesticated pets (which count as man-made via the fact that they were domesticated). I just brought out a HUGE argument against me, include the waste produced by our cars and factories. OBVIOUSLY human's sitting in a 36 sq ft place doing nothing isn't going to cause global warming, THAT WAS MY GODDAMN POINT.
-
-
-
-
-
-
13%
Wolfie20075 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's the report Obama wouldn't release.
Reply
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/06/30/media-ig...-
Neutral
Tangent0015 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's a link to a story regarding the report with a slightly different 'take'.
Reply
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-24-scant-evid...
-
-
PetesakeComment removed: Hard Banned10 Replies
-
100%
QuailMan5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Chart after chart after chart clearly shows that warming *proceeds* c02, not the other way around. but time, and time again, the scientists who also rely on established belief systems will do whatever necessary to justify the fallacy as the egg coming before the chicken." For this and other, similar lag/lead questions: Read up on global warming "feedback," especially how water factors in. If read responsibly, that should answer all your questions.
Reply
4cprocess, no offense intended here, simply curious: Why do you end your posts with "In God We Trust?" It does seem an odd choice, given the phrase's past.-
100%
jakesguile5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Some people here posit that they are of the morally righteous and quote God-related things or Bible verses while not technically being "Christians," in the true sense of the word. They believe in God and Jesus, but they don't follow Jesus' teachings of peace and love. These are not true Christians you see, they are morally vacant, like the creepy chick in S. Darko
Reply -
Neutral
4cprocess5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No offense taken. Just wish others here would be more tolerant of those who choose to believe in God and trust me, they know who they are.
Reply
Not sure what you are referring to about the phrase's past but I use the phrase to acknowledge my belief with others that putting our trust (which I believe is a sacred thing) in God will surely lead us and keep us on the right course for a greater life and brotherhood among men.
Hope this answer was sufficient.
In God We Trust
-
-
14%
lloydm655 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So now we have a new global warming report.When the old one didn't convince anyone to write the government,and insist they wanted their taxes raised expediently they change it to climate control,but now we're going with global warming Two.
Reply -
-
100%
antibrainwasher5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Correct Mr S. As Paul krugman pointed out, the denyers are traitors to humanity. I've been on this right wing sponsered time warner blog long enouth to recognize the tenicles of the Coal industry, BB64 and Simon Sez are both deniers paid by Coal and petroleum industry to spew misinformation and charlatan science.
Reply
These con deniers are indeed traitors, their self intrest and greed trump any thought for the well being of their own children. All they can see or hear or think about is greed.
The only principle behind the rethug parth of cons is to make the rich richer, and there is no better example of reality deniers like the flat earth lockstepping cons that would murder generations of children, choking the planet in a cloud of burned fossil fuel, just to line their pockets. -
-
-
-
-
-
100%
pokydoke5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Klarissa, My father, my Step Mother and my Brother are all scientists. Scientists don't get a pay increase when they get a grant. The money goes to staff, equipment and logistics to cover the cost of their research. I lived through my Father getting grants and he got many of them. My Father was a Biologist teaching and working at Boston University. I remember going to France so that he could do some research on tissue transplants with some French colleagues. He had to do it on half pay because he wasn't teaching. His research helped lead the way to organ transplants in humans. My Dad was driven but it wasn't to make money. Your statement is from ignorance
Reply-
100%
Tangent0015 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Scientists are also a fiercely competitive lot, always looking for ways to one-up or debunk someone else. They're not really the sort to participate in a vast conspiracy, follow in a lemming-like fashion or be easily 'bought'.
Reply
Scientists generally choose to be scientists from a love of the subject matter, not a desire to become fabulously wealthy. Do universities and institutions chase grant money? You bet! That's how they survive. But if it became known that an institution 'leaned on' scientists to cook their research for the sake of a grant, that institution would instantly lose all credibility and perhaps their academic accreditation. It's the same for individual scientists. You have a better chance getting a 'pass' for an indiscretion as a pedophile priest than as a compromised scientist.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Progressive5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Reply
http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7B612... -
83%
pokydoke5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I really don't understand global warming deniers. If we react to global warming and reduce pollutants and green house gases and we're wrong, well the worst we've done is clean up things. If on the other hand we do nothing because we believe these deniers with their flimsy rational and we find out they were wrong,well then we are dead and dieing. Doesn't take a genius to figure out which way to go. Even Klarissa and BB64 should be able to see that.
Reply-
Neutral
Klarissa5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
poky - you are incorrect in thinking that people who think that we don't know enough to take drastic action do not believe in being caretakers of the earth.
Reply
Please get out of the black/white mode of thinking.
We in California have a lot of rural areas - and some of the drinking water has been poisoned by MTB.
that is what happens when the so called "cure", based on incomplete information, is worse that the original problem.
Just perhaps we are more concerned about doing the VERY BEST thing than you are, because it sounds as if you think that we know enough about the cause of climate change to do dumb things like some scientists have suggested.
For one - floating a bunch of tinfoil in the air to reflect the sun.
Or bringing back smog - which reflected the sun.-
100%
RickyDawkins5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"floating a bunch of tinfoil in the air to reflect the sun"
Reply
This may actually work... but only if the Klarissas of the world are willing to donate their tinfoil hats!
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/photofeatures/200...
-
-
Neutral
ameliog5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's a reasonable approach to the issue pokyduke. This has been posted on propeller quite awhile ago but it discusses the options and risks to each position, along the lines of what you mentioned.
Reply
The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See
-
loading ...
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.