Those 30,000 "scientists" are not climatologists. A few are meteorologists, but as we all know, weather is not climate. I heard a few of them are dentists?
If you read the headline, it says they "want" to sue Al Gore. "Want" to? On what standing?
All the credible studies say that it is anthropomorphic global climate change. It is happening much, much, much more rapidly than it it ever has in the data. The fact that it has been warmer before, and the level of carbon dioxide has been higher before -- doesn't matter, because we humans were not around then, so it did not affect us. This time it is affecting us, and it is affecting all of life -- and like it or not, all of life is important to us.
Volcanoes caused the Earth to change from an ice planet, to one with mostly liquid water. How did the volcanoes do it? They released a lot of carbon dioxide, and even though the volcanic ash has a shorter term cooling affect, in the end the insulation of our atmosphere is what made life as we know it possible, and an abrupt change will affect us.
How do you think we eat? We eat other life forms. How do all those life forms survive? They also depend on the climate staying more or less as is.
Glen Beck** may not be convinced by the scientists, but I am. And if Glen Beck is right, and the 2,000+ scientists who have been working on this issue (and won the Nobel prize along with Al Gore) are all wrong, then I'll find Mr. Beck and shake his hand.
That would be a huge relief, if global climate change has somehow been faked. If that is the case, then all the scientists all the way back to Svante August Arrhenius in 1896 need to tell us how they pulled it off...
It doesn't matter to anyone who is sympathetic to Leftist ideology. They wish his self-induced disrepute were quickly forgotten and never again mentioned. Unfortunately for the liberal news media, society has not yet sunk so low where fabrication and falsification can pass as journalism.
Let us now return to our regularly scheduled programming (of Leftist fantasy) that everything on Fox news must be Right-wing lies and that Dan Rather would still be a darling, respected, powerful "journalist" (were it not for some rather problematic evidence that exposed him as being nothing more than a shill for the Left).
I, Frank Lee, have been rendered just about speechless.
WOW
In the same post you say that GCC happened long before humans existed, then you say this time we caused it ?
As for the climate fraud back to 1896, do you still believe "Piltdown Man" is the missing link ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
News is about facts, and so is science.
Those 30,000 "scientists" are not climatologists. A few are meteorologists, but as we all know, weather is not climate. I heard a few of them are dentists?
If you read the headline, it says they "want" to sue Al Gore. "Want" to? On what standing?
All the credible studies say that it is anthropomorphic global climate change. It is happening much, much, much more rapidly than it it ever has in the data. The fact that it has been warmer before, and the level of carbon dioxide has been higher before -- doesn't matter, because we humans were not around then, so it did not affect us. This time it is affecting us, and it is affecting all of life -- and like it or not, all of life is important to us.
Volcanoes caused the Earth to change from an ice planet, to one with mostly liquid water. How did the volcanoes do it? They released a lot of carbon dioxide, and even though the volcanic ash has a shorter term cooling affect, in the end the insulation of our atmosphere is what made life as we know it possible, and an abrupt change will affect us.
How do you think we eat? We eat other life forms. How do all those life forms survive? They also depend on the climate staying more or less as is.
Glen Beck** may not be convinced by the scientists, but I am. And if Glen Beck is right, and the 2,000+ scientists who have been working on this issue (and won the Nobel prize along with Al Gore) are all wrong, then I'll find Mr. Beck and shake his hand.
That would be a huge relief, if global climate change has somehow been faked. If that is the case, then all the scientists all the way back to Svante August Arrhenius in 1896 need to tell us how they pulled it off...
I think you misunderstand me: our climate has changed many times in the past; long before humans were here. This time however, it is being caused by us humans; or at least we are having a large effect -- and this time is the only time we need to worry about, because we are being affected by it. There is no contradiction.
The Piltdown Man is case and point about how the scientific process works -- fakes are exposed, and good science is accepted. There were skeptics then, and they did the science to prove the fake. None of the skeptics of anthropogenic climate change can show scientifically that it is anything but real.
Anthropogenic global climate change is good science, and the threats are very real. The risk is very high. It is difficult, and it is a big challenge.
Whether or not you feel that global climate change is real, or if it is anthropogenic, or that it is a threat at all, I hope you can watch this video; that lays out the four basic logic and risks of if GCC is real or not, and if we do anything about it or not:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnmarcus
So? SUV sales are probably still 10X hybrid sales and 100X electric vehicle sales...
Quote:
And why is that?
I don't know... Trying to keep up with the Jones'? The perceived safety? The ease of use factor? It's not to limit co2 emissions or lower dependance on foreign oil. I'd guess it's the exact opposite of why most visit this site. Why do you think it is, and is that a good or bad thing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnmarcus
Why is the news politically biased? I wish the news was reported based on fact and not agenda.
Quote:
That's impossible to find. No matter what happens, once you have a person report on it, that person injects their own viewpoint into that event.
I think it's true that no one can be completely unbiased, but that is no reason to not try to be as objective and accurate as we can be. The arguement that all media is leftist so we can slant things right to achieve "balance" seems ridiculous to me. I'd MUCH rather hear the truth than the junk we typically hear (leftist and rightist). I agree with Frank that most people tune in to what they want to hear. I must be in the unrepresent(ed/able) boring, truth seeking middle...
Those 30,000 "scientists" are not climatologists. A few are meteorologists, but as we all know, weather is not climate. I heard a few of them are dentists?
If you read the headline, it says they "want" to sue Al Gore. "Want" to? On what standing?
So, only climatologists may speak at all about AGW. Nobody else gets to comment on AGW. We must just shut up and listen to our betters. Got it. Thanks. (What happens if we don't? Do we get disappeared a la 10:10?)
You do realize that these 30,000 folks are already suing Al Gore for fraud. Right? I mean, can't you do even some basic Googling about this matter? As far as the Nobel prize is concerned, don't even get me started on that. I can give you at least one example of a man who did absolutely NOTHING, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize as a result.
As far as that goes, you still didn't answer my questions. How is it that a variable output star (the Sun) cannot affect the climate as much as people? Why is it that warming trends noted on other planets in this Solar System at the same time warming was noted on Earth, are somehow rationalized away as things other than the Sun having a slightly higher output?
Why can't Al Gore mention his ties with Enron, with regard to AGW-driven legislation? For that matter, why is it that Al Gore bought a huge beachside mansion? Isn't the spot his mansion sits on going to be flooded with rising seas due to AGW? Why does the BBC (a huge supporter of the AGW theory) have billions of dollars invested in concerns that only become profitable if AGW legislation becomes law? Why did those University of East Anglia scientists refuse to submit to FOIA requests? Why did they work to suppress scientific papers that were critical of AGW? Why did they manipulate and omit data in order to make AGW work at all?
You can whine about Glen Beck and Fox News all you want, but the truth of the matter is that the AGW theory has been rendered very suspect by the unscrupulous actions of those very scientists you worship. In my eyes, in fact, AGW's been disproven.
Today
Other popular topics in this forum...
