This is far worse than anyone is saying. Its about mass extinction and man is the cause. See the talk at Ted peter ward mass extinction... and even he is underestimating how fast and how extreme the conditions.. He does however out line what has happened in the past 10 extinctions on earth. We are now in the process of what will be the eleventh extinction most all the complex life on earth. The question is what will we do at the eleventh hour to avoid our own extinction if any thing.
To the brainless conservative on here who thinks AGW should be endlessly debated upon but never acted upon, well, I don't think that bomb threats and death threats should be acted upon by police if they are directed at terrorists and tyrants like GW Bush or Chris Christie or Republicans or Democrats or the fascist DEA. I think it should be endlessly debated whether free speech should ever be curtailed.
My problem with this topic is that with the Climategate, the GLobal Warming stuff was discredited very badly for me. On the other had, all those who disagree with this theory give us "different truth", but also say that everyone should make his own research. To be able to do that, i'd have to become scientist myself. i'm just an IT guy and i don't want to become climatologist...
Credibility of IPCC and their theories are very close to zero for me, but there's nobody else who would make me really belive or rely on what the really situation is. And when we boil down all the things that are presented to us by the Global Warming "presenters", they all say that "we think", "CO2 might",... So basically they admin they not now for sure, and yet we let them restrict freedoms of us and others by applying rules and laws which we don't even know will make any difference.
@Kropikovo Credibility of police and people who get rich being in the military have zero credibility with me.
Soldiers get paid to murder people. They get rich, living off government welfare, to steal other countries' oil.
The only ones who deserve life and liberty are mathematicians, pro-animal rights vegans and atheists, scientists, and environmentalists, and those who don't breed.
alright listen up fags, the only 2 reasons that global warming or climate change wtv how you fags call it is not talking place is because the oil companies still want to make some more money before quite the market and they've haven't seized enough foreign electric car companies !
no. in fact a few months ago they were saying that "we can't explain why the sudden drop in global temperatures don't match the models we are presenting" then shortly after "climategate" broke we had "the past 10 years were the hottest ever!!!"
so no i don't. but lets say i do: prove it was man made. prove that this is not just a cyclical phenomenon.
yes. changes in precipitation patterns are the primary causes of deglaciation.
but lets assume (like you believe) that higher temps are what are causing these glaciers to melt. prove that this warming isn't caused by natural cyclical fluctuations of global temperatures?
"Climategate" is a joke. It's like saying that the mistakes of a few doctors negates 100+ years of medical research.
The rising amount of Co2 corresponds with rising overall world temperatures that are at a more rapid rate than what happened in the past. It's not from the sun's output either (they can measure for that).
Check out the EPA's website, although by your comments you're just not going to see the forest for the trees.
whats not so funny about this joke is that these "mistakes" happened to be intentional misrepresentation of data, AND happen to be the most influential data sets used by the IPCC
remember, this statistical saying "correlation does not equal causation". if you look at some data sets, it actually supports the hypothesis that rising CO2 levels are caused by rising temperature levels.
Isn't the fact if CO2 causes any temperature increase itself in question? Opposers say that it's the other way around! Who is right? More importantly who and how has ever prooven what is the correct conclusion?
You talk about not seeing forest for the trees. As far as i can work out, i'm contactly shown one and the same tree all the time, only from two different sides, while they say it's actually two trees.
Science cannot be trusted unless politicians leave it be.
No, CO2 and heat is a proven fact. Your statement is like saying that if 99 out of 100 doctors prescribed surgery, but one quack prescribed blood letting, then you would go with blood letting.
"Opposers" as you put it, are those on the payroll of big oil and big coal companies.
"Science cannot be trusted unless politicians leave it be," so in other words, you think the climate change deniers should shut up listen to the vast majority of scientists who say that it's real, right?
First of all, please don't repeat the same rubish i'm being fed on TV. This kind of manipulation without any really facts + discrediting others doesn't help me see the truth. Thanx
"No, CO2 and heat is a proven fact." if this is a proven fact, why is it that there are so many ppl saying otherwise?
"those on the payroll of big oil and big coal companies" Scientists who are acused of this testify that it's not true.
"vast majority of scientists" What where? is there some list???
If all what you and globalwamingests say was 100% proven fact. If all this was without a shadow of doubt true, no such voices would arise. And masking your opposition as "agents of the evel oil and coal companies" is simply funny. Or it would be funny if it wasn't so sad
Overall, your comments have no information value, therefore i render them useless. I haven't learned anything new, which i hopped for. Thank you
I wouldn't dare feed you the same "rubish" you see on TV or respond with the same "manipulation without any really facts" as you do.
I've already listed several points in my posts that you fail to address or respond to, other than "don't feed me that rubish."
You're like the kid in the back of the class who claims the earth is flat without any offering any proof of his own, other than "don't feed me that rubish." Do you have any "really facts" to offer?
I wasn't reall laughing reading this. Again, you simply try to discredit someone who doesn't agree with you. Points you mentioned aren't 100% proven, therefore should be debated and re-examined. This is valied for those for and also against theory of global warming.
Last part of your post is again a technique to discredit someone / manipulate others.
Start debating, stop accusing. Anyway, since the debate with you is not leading to any usefull exchange of opinions, thanx and bye
OK, last reply. The debate should start because of documentaries like this one:
"Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off"
Accusing people of being a denier, as you did and stating something about "vast majority of scientists" (which btw simply isn't true) does start a discussion.
Stop repeating the same things other people say to discredit opinions of other people! Accept the fact that there are people with other opinion and listen to it!
That crackpot "documentary" is a pack of lies. It showed graphs with data that stopped in the 1980s. Why the 1980s? Because to include more data would've disproved its claim.
Carl Wunsch, who was in the "documentary" said his views were "completely misrepresented" and the show was "pure propaganda." The company that made it ADMITTED that it DID misrepresent his views.
Eigil Fris-Christiansen said his research was misrepresented and the "documentary" was "not accurate."
@Kropikovo Exactly. Many people believe socialism or communism are the best economic policies.
Many people believe in astrology (I don't). Many believe aliens from other planets visit earth (I do).
Many people believe that having sex with children is good for children (I don't, but I respect their opinion).
As long as you are logically consistent with your extreme tolerance, and don't cherry-pick on issues, then you don't deserve to be tortured and killed. Otherwise, you do.
@Kropikovo Because those ppl don't know shit. The vast majority of people (regardless of their past political stripes or even specific credentials) who have actually DONE the real research and DONE the real work in climate science and published their work in peer-reviewed climate journals have proven humans are heating the atmosphere and oceans faster than we and the rest of life can adapt.
What amazes me about this issue is that global warming deniers act like it's some sort of evil plot to give us a cleaner planet and wean us off our oil addiction.
The ultimate bottom line is it's bad for our environment, economy and national security to keep sending energy dollars overseas to dictators who don't like us.
If we develop alternative energies we can provide our own energy and sell the technology to other nations, instead of buying it from them if we fall behind.
what amazes me about this issue is that those who follow the church of heat, fail to see how corporations have there hands in this. Who do you think stands to gain the most from cap and trade? (think: bailout) and who do you think will suffer the most? (think: people can't afford healthcare)
if something doesn't make sense economically to use, the application of subsidies and regulation, does not make this thing make more sense.
Subsidies? Oil, gas and coal are subsidized. Ethanol is REALLy subsidized (cheap corn from farm subidies AND subidies at the pump).
If you want to talk free market, then let's end the tax breaks etc. for the polluters.
How about taxing oil for the TRUE cost of our addiction (i.e. our involvement in the Middle East)?
China and Europe are pushing alternative fuels. If we don't develop them now, we'll be buying it from them down the road as oil keeps getting more expensive.
oil taxes don't raise nearly enough to pay for the true cost of our oil addiction.
We spend a ton of money keeping that oil flowing, militarily and otherwise.
Our oil dollars wind up in the hands of people who don't like us. Think of what they can do with it.
Think about the leverage that gives them over our economy.
Think about the rising cost of oil, the taxes to keep it flowing and that we need to find better long-term sources of energy to meet our rising demand for it.
then why don't you invest in solar power, wind energy and the like? why do you not put your money where you feel comfortable putting it, and let me put my money where i feel comfortable?
a solution to oil will show up. its best to let it show up via market forces rather than trying to "legislate" and "subsidies" its delay.
I'd put my own money into it, but George Bush passed a trillion dollar tax cut for the rich and all I got was this lousy economy.
A solution won't "show up" on its own, that's why China and Europe are pushing ahead with alternative energies.
Right now we don't even have a level playing field for alternative energies because of the support that oil receives, along with the cost of keeping it flowing that's reflected in our own taxes (not the price of the oil).
can't debate? that's ok, just call people names. i mean that's what people who don't believe in evolution do.
your actually wrong believe it or not. i'm somebody who works for a living and has utility bills to pay. someone who would be put in an economic bind if "climate change" legislation was enacted.
Forest fires are burning more intensely because the conditions are so dry and everything burns including the underbrush. Fires can also create a microclimate that sucks in oxygen so much that it creates its own wind and creates more heat---just like bellows and a forge.
There are areas where the fire burned so hot that it cooked the soil and so the forests aren't bouncing back like the used to---this has been widely reported and is backed by forestry officials and firefighters.
This is far worse than anyone is saying. Its about mass extinction and man is the cause. See the talk at Ted peter ward mass extinction... and even he is underestimating how fast and how extreme the conditions.. He does however out line what has happened in the past 10 extinctions on earth. We are now in the process of what will be the eleventh extinction most all the complex life on earth. The question is what will we do at the eleventh hour to avoid our own extinction if any thing.
carlvilbrandt 7 months ago
To the brainless conservative on here who thinks AGW should be endlessly debated upon but never acted upon, well, I don't think that bomb threats and death threats should be acted upon by police if they are directed at terrorists and tyrants like GW Bush or Chris Christie or Republicans or Democrats or the fascist DEA. I think it should be endlessly debated whether free speech should ever be curtailed.
mphello 8 months ago
My problem with this topic is that with the Climategate, the GLobal Warming stuff was discredited very badly for me. On the other had, all those who disagree with this theory give us "different truth", but also say that everyone should make his own research. To be able to do that, i'd have to become scientist myself. i'm just an IT guy and i don't want to become climatologist...
Kropikovo 1 year ago
Credibility of IPCC and their theories are very close to zero for me, but there's nobody else who would make me really belive or rely on what the really situation is. And when we boil down all the things that are presented to us by the Global Warming "presenters", they all say that "we think", "CO2 might",... So basically they admin they not now for sure, and yet we let them restrict freedoms of us and others by applying rules and laws which we don't even know will make any difference.
Kropikovo 1 year ago
@Kropikovo Credibility of police and people who get rich being in the military have zero credibility with me.
Soldiers get paid to murder people. They get rich, living off government welfare, to steal other countries' oil.
The only ones who deserve life and liberty are mathematicians, pro-animal rights vegans and atheists, scientists, and environmentalists, and those who don't breed.
mphello 8 months ago
alright listen up fags, the only 2 reasons that global warming or climate change wtv how you fags call it is not talking place is because the oil companies still want to make some more money before quite the market and they've haven't seized enough foreign electric car companies !
KennethZuo 2 years ago
Glaciers and snowpack on mountains are disappearing--FACT.
This is a key source of drinking water for millions of people around the world--FACT.
The spring warmup is coming sooner each year--FACT.
Forest fires are buning hotter and more severly because of drier conditions out west, a trend that has been growing for about a decade--FACT.
As governor Sarah Palin called climate change a real threat and called on her state to take action because it was most at risk--FACT. (& flip flop)
eatmorenachos 2 years ago 3
neat.
man is not the cause -- Fact
JAROSLAVAGINA 2 years ago
"man is not the cause," that's a claim, not a fact. You can't disprove any of the points I raised, can you?
eatmorenachos 2 years ago 3
conversely you cannot disprove any of the points that i raised. logic's a bitch isn't it?
JAROSLAVAGINA 2 years ago
So you admit the glaciers are melting? You acknowledge the earth is getting warmer?
eatmorenachos 2 years ago 3
no. in fact a few months ago they were saying that "we can't explain why the sudden drop in global temperatures don't match the models we are presenting" then shortly after "climategate" broke we had "the past 10 years were the hottest ever!!!"
so no i don't. but lets say i do: prove it was man made. prove that this is not just a cyclical phenomenon.
JAROSLAVAGINA 2 years ago
So you think all those glaciers are just melting on their own?
eatmorenachos 2 years ago
yes. changes in precipitation patterns are the primary causes of deglaciation.
but lets assume (like you believe) that higher temps are what are causing these glaciers to melt. prove that this warming isn't caused by natural cyclical fluctuations of global temperatures?
JAROSLAVAGINA 2 years ago
Response No. 1.
"Climategate" is a joke. It's like saying that the mistakes of a few doctors negates 100+ years of medical research.
The rising amount of Co2 corresponds with rising overall world temperatures that are at a more rapid rate than what happened in the past. It's not from the sun's output either (they can measure for that).
Check out the EPA's website, although by your comments you're just not going to see the forest for the trees.
eatmorenachos 2 years ago 4
whats not so funny about this joke is that these "mistakes" happened to be intentional misrepresentation of data, AND happen to be the most influential data sets used by the IPCC
remember, this statistical saying "correlation does not equal causation". if you look at some data sets, it actually supports the hypothesis that rising CO2 levels are caused by rising temperature levels.
JAROSLAVAGINA 2 years ago
Isn't the fact if CO2 causes any temperature increase itself in question? Opposers say that it's the other way around! Who is right? More importantly who and how has ever prooven what is the correct conclusion?
You talk about not seeing forest for the trees. As far as i can work out, i'm contactly shown one and the same tree all the time, only from two different sides, while they say it's actually two trees.
Science cannot be trusted unless politicians leave it be.
Kropikovo 1 year ago
@Kropikovo ,
No, CO2 and heat is a proven fact. Your statement is like saying that if 99 out of 100 doctors prescribed surgery, but one quack prescribed blood letting, then you would go with blood letting.
"Opposers" as you put it, are those on the payroll of big oil and big coal companies.
"Science cannot be trusted unless politicians leave it be," so in other words, you think the climate change deniers should shut up listen to the vast majority of scientists who say that it's real, right?
eatmorenachos 1 year ago 2
@eatmorenachos
First of all, please don't repeat the same rubish i'm being fed on TV. This kind of manipulation without any really facts + discrediting others doesn't help me see the truth. Thanx
"No, CO2 and heat is a proven fact." if this is a proven fact, why is it that there are so many ppl saying otherwise?
"those on the payroll of big oil and big coal companies" Scientists who are acused of this testify that it's not true.
"vast majority of scientists" What where? is there some list???
Kropikovo 1 year ago
How can you say that without proving it?
If all what you and globalwamingests say was 100% proven fact. If all this was without a shadow of doubt true, no such voices would arise. And masking your opposition as "agents of the evel oil and coal companies" is simply funny. Or it would be funny if it wasn't so sad
Overall, your comments have no information value, therefore i render them useless. I haven't learned anything new, which i hopped for. Thank you
Kropikovo 1 year ago
@Kropikovo ,
I wouldn't dare feed you the same "rubish" you see on TV or respond with the same "manipulation without any really facts" as you do.
I've already listed several points in my posts that you fail to address or respond to, other than "don't feed me that rubish."
You're like the kid in the back of the class who claims the earth is flat without any offering any proof of his own, other than "don't feed me that rubish." Do you have any "really facts" to offer?
Thanks for the laugh.
eatmorenachos 1 year ago
@eatmorenachos
I wasn't reall laughing reading this. Again, you simply try to discredit someone who doesn't agree with you. Points you mentioned aren't 100% proven, therefore should be debated and re-examined. This is valied for those for and also against theory of global warming.
Last part of your post is again a technique to discredit someone / manipulate others.
Start debating, stop accusing. Anyway, since the debate with you is not leading to any usefull exchange of opinions, thanx and bye
Kropikovo 1 year ago
@Kropikovo ,
So all you've got to offer is to say it should be debated, but then you're not really doing that, are you?
eatmorenachos 1 year ago
@eatmorenachos
OK, last reply. The debate should start because of documentaries like this one:
"Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off"
Accusing people of being a denier, as you did and stating something about "vast majority of scientists" (which btw simply isn't true) does start a discussion.
Stop repeating the same things other people say to discredit opinions of other people! Accept the fact that there are people with other opinion and listen to it!
Than you can debat about anything.
Kropikovo 1 year ago
@Kropikovo ,
That crackpot "documentary" is a pack of lies. It showed graphs with data that stopped in the 1980s. Why the 1980s? Because to include more data would've disproved its claim.
Carl Wunsch, who was in the "documentary" said his views were "completely misrepresented" and the show was "pure propaganda." The company that made it ADMITTED that it DID misrepresent his views.
Eigil Fris-Christiansen said his research was misrepresented and the "documentary" was "not accurate."
eatmorenachos 1 year ago
@Kropikovo Exactly. Many people believe socialism or communism are the best economic policies.
Many people believe in astrology (I don't). Many believe aliens from other planets visit earth (I do).
Many people believe that having sex with children is good for children (I don't, but I respect their opinion).
As long as you are logically consistent with your extreme tolerance, and don't cherry-pick on issues, then you don't deserve to be tortured and killed. Otherwise, you do.
mphello 8 months ago
@Kropikovo Because those ppl don't know shit. The vast majority of people (regardless of their past political stripes or even specific credentials) who have actually DONE the real research and DONE the real work in climate science and published their work in peer-reviewed climate journals have proven humans are heating the atmosphere and oceans faster than we and the rest of life can adapt.
mphello 8 months ago
Response 1:
What amazes me about this issue is that global warming deniers act like it's some sort of evil plot to give us a cleaner planet and wean us off our oil addiction.
The ultimate bottom line is it's bad for our environment, economy and national security to keep sending energy dollars overseas to dictators who don't like us.
If we develop alternative energies we can provide our own energy and sell the technology to other nations, instead of buying it from them if we fall behind.
eatmorenachos 2 years ago
what amazes me about this issue is that those who follow the church of heat, fail to see how corporations have there hands in this. Who do you think stands to gain the most from cap and trade? (think: bailout) and who do you think will suffer the most? (think: people can't afford healthcare)
if something doesn't make sense economically to use, the application of subsidies and regulation, does not make this thing make more sense.
you can't legislate a time machine.
JAROSLAVAGINA 2 years ago
Subsidies? Oil, gas and coal are subsidized. Ethanol is REALLy subsidized (cheap corn from farm subidies AND subidies at the pump).
If you want to talk free market, then let's end the tax breaks etc. for the polluters.
How about taxing oil for the TRUE cost of our addiction (i.e. our involvement in the Middle East)?
China and Europe are pushing alternative fuels. If we don't develop them now, we'll be buying it from them down the road as oil keeps getting more expensive.
eatmorenachos 2 years ago
oil gas and coal are also taxed. ethanol is stupid
let china and europe put money into things that aren't economical. i see no need to jump off of that bridge as well.
JAROSLAVAGINA 2 years ago
oil taxes don't raise nearly enough to pay for the true cost of our oil addiction.
We spend a ton of money keeping that oil flowing, militarily and otherwise.
Our oil dollars wind up in the hands of people who don't like us. Think of what they can do with it.
Think about the leverage that gives them over our economy.
Think about the rising cost of oil, the taxes to keep it flowing and that we need to find better long-term sources of energy to meet our rising demand for it.
eatmorenachos 2 years ago
then why don't you invest in solar power, wind energy and the like? why do you not put your money where you feel comfortable putting it, and let me put my money where i feel comfortable?
a solution to oil will show up. its best to let it show up via market forces rather than trying to "legislate" and "subsidies" its delay.
JAROSLAVAGINA 2 years ago
I'd put my own money into it, but George Bush passed a trillion dollar tax cut for the rich and all I got was this lousy economy.
A solution won't "show up" on its own, that's why China and Europe are pushing ahead with alternative energies.
Right now we don't even have a level playing field for alternative energies because of the support that oil receives, along with the cost of keeping it flowing that's reflected in our own taxes (not the price of the oil).
eatmorenachos 2 years ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA
either you are a model fag or you work for some fat corporate
KennethZuo 2 years ago
haha and your probably some fool.
can't debate? that's ok, just call people names. i mean that's what people who don't believe in evolution do.
your actually wrong believe it or not. i'm somebody who works for a living and has utility bills to pay. someone who would be put in an economic bind if "climate change" legislation was enacted.
JAROSLAVAGINA 2 years ago
@eatmorenachos hehe.
Spring warmup is coming sooner? Not in our country... Here's everything as it should, for many many years. FACT
Forest fires are burning hotter? You mean that the wood in these forest is now able to emit more heat when burning? That's a bit of a nonsense. FACT
Sarah Palin is just a comic politician. If you haven't noticed, she's barely able to repeat stuff someone else tells her. FACT
Any warming on global scale not proven to be cause by humans. FACT
Kropikovo 8 months ago
@Kropikovo ,
Forest fires are burning more intensely because the conditions are so dry and everything burns including the underbrush. Fires can also create a microclimate that sucks in oxygen so much that it creates its own wind and creates more heat---just like bellows and a forge.
There are areas where the fire burned so hot that it cooked the soil and so the forests aren't bouncing back like the used to---this has been widely reported and is backed by forestry officials and firefighters.
eatmorenachos 8 months ago
@eatmorenachos How's this connected to global warming? You just described common behavior of a large forest fire.
Kropikovo 8 months ago
@Kropikovo Fires burn and spread more easily and more rapidly in hot, drier conditions such as they now have in the western U.S.
eatmorenachos 8 months ago
Hide the decline!
lrn2wlk4life 2 years ago
FRAUD.
GOdupont24 2 years ago
We hear so much from American noise-boxes, yet for some reason none of you seem to know the first thing about climatology.
Prove it, Fox News fan.
MaxSafeheaD 2 years ago 2