Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[rruff]

Producing significant quantities of hydrogen is not cheap.

It takes more energy to produce hydrogen from water than what we get from it in energy, though that isn't necessarily a problem if we use something like solar to produce it. Hydrogen is a real bitch to store and deal with though. Doesn't seem like a good choice for replacing fossil fuels.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You know that cold spell 25k years ago where much of the northern hemisphere was covered by an ice sheet several thousand feet thick? That is more the norm than the exception. And we are due for another cold spell.

You got that backwards. We're leaving the ice age...rapidly. It likely won't come back for millions of years. People should get used to the idea of higher sea levels because it's practically an inevitability.

 

[eidairaman1]

Its all a Ponzi Scam

 

[rruff]

You got that backwards. We're leaving the ice age...rapidly. It likely won't come back for millions of years. People should get used to the idea of higher sea levels because it's practically an inevitability.

How did you deduce that?

 

[BiggieShady]

People overestimate our atmosphere ... human emissions are clearly visible in this video and almost all absorbed by plant life at spring, but excess of CO2 always remain in atmosphere each year and that makes the global trend

 

[INSTG8R]

I have been watching Years of Living Dangerously on Discovery and it's pretty clear the amount of damage we have done.Great series so far.

 

[SK-1]

If it bleeds it leads.

 

[rtwjunkie]

I have been watching Years of Living Dangerously on Discovery and it's pretty clear the amount of damage we have done.Great series so far.

When you watch series like that, you have to remember, they are not entirely objective. The ultimate goal is ratings. That is why it's important to seek out as much boring source data as possible.

 

[eidairaman1]

Dont believe media at all. We should be worried about the crap the FDA approves for use in food and slam those companies for fact their additives contribute to Cancer.

 

[silkstone]

Mature and sensible till the warmest people get offended that their religion is being called out and start with the name calling. So typical.

And here's some more proof this 95%-97% consensus lie is just that...a lie. What a propagation of lies!
Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
Ill be glad to remove this Arrow from your quiver...sir.

You've got to be kidding me. That Forbes link was for a contributor, That guy works for the heartland institute!!

These guys also denied that tobacco caused cancer (in the 90's). The article is political BS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

I stick to my previous comments.

 

[rtwjunkie]

You've got to be kidding me. That Forbes link was for a contributor, That guy works for the heartland institute!!

These guys also denied that tobacco caused cancer (in the 90's). The article is political BS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

I stick to my previous comments.

So, it's fair to say you are one of the ones who would rather argue till death whether humans are responsible or not (and accomplishing nothing but engaging in rhetoric), instead of finding a middle ground to agree to do what we can to improve our environment and clean things up a little and try to make things a little better?

As for your deriding the Forbes article, that doesn't change the fact that Cook is the "source" that most politicians with an agenda refer to regarding the 97% of scientists believing we are responsible. If you go and do your own research, you'll find just as many scientists who say the evidence is inconclusive, and you'll see that Cook, who was funded by liberal interest groups is on the take.

 

[eidairaman1]

All politicians are doing is trying to milk people of more money to fatten their wallets not improve human life. Notice how a side only gets richer where the people they made promises to only get poorer.

If politicians did give a damn why doesnt the US have a cross country and in city mass transit rail system? Invested in by politicians?

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Tony Blair. Former GB prime minister was paid $ 440000 for a 2 hr speech.

He didnt need to rob us when he was in charge after all hes only worth by his estimates 25 million quid.
He lives in 6.5 million pound house.

I agree with what @rtwjunkie says.

Goodnight.

 

[SK-1]

You've got to be kidding me. That Forbes link was for a contributor, That guy works for the heartland institute!!

These guys also denied that tobacco caused cancer (in the 90's). The article is political BS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

I stick to my previous comments.

I can source the same damning evidence from many other places. The message is true and clear. You just happen to hate the messenger.
As I said earlier... Arrow from quiver is removed.

 

[silkstone]

I can source the same damning evidence from many other places. The message is true and clear. You just happen to hate the messenger.
As I said earlier... Arrow from quiver is removed.

Then do it. While your at it, show me some recent peer reviewed papers that deny climate chance.

If you are going to argue against the science, you have to use something a little more reliable to support your argument.

Also individual graphs do not prove anything without the scientific analysis and conclusions that need to go with them.

Look I can do the same:

 

[twilyth]

I think someone else alluded to this but there seems to be a tendency to see these issues in black and white. Either the premise is absolutely, 100% true or it's 100% bullshit. It's never one or the other when it comes to research and to try to frame the argument that way is disingenuous at best. As @silkstone points out, expertise in analyzing the data is often as important as the data itself and if you have a bias, you can always find results to support your bias.

 

[SK-1]

Also individual graphs do not prove anything without the scientific analysis and conclusions that need to go with them.

Look I can do the same:

Ummm What are you talking about? Like I posted even one graph in this entire thread. Your anger is making you blind.

And why would I post a peer reviewed paper BASED ON FLAWED DATA?

 

[dorsetknob]

Global warming truth or lie its an excuse for gov to tax you more
scientist will promote what ever will generate the most research grants for them

less than 30 years ago the big fear was a new ice age and so many scientist pushed for research grants to investigate this then when the grants dried up they promoted this "new" Theory of global warming that got the wallets open for research grants Governments go along with this because they can TAX you to invest in measures to cope with these theory's

The earth through global Vulcanism kicks out so much sulpher di oxide and methane each year that mans contribution don't really matter.

Earth as a Lump of metallic rock is cooling HAS BEEN SINCE IT FORMED
it will only get hotter as a result of our local star turning into a RED GIANT

by the time that happens who the f**k is going to be around to worry about that

 

[silkstone]

Ummm What are you talking about? Like I posted even one graph in this entire thread. Your anger is making you blind.

And why would I post a peer reviewed paper BASED ON FLAWED DATA?

If the data is flawed, the peer review, in most cases, will pick up on that. Just because someone doesn't like the data, doesn't mean that it's flawed. There is an actual reliable process that we use to discover if data is flawed. It's called the peer-review process (part of the larger scientific method).

The graph comment wasn't aimed at you specifically, but rather a counter to other graphs being posted. I am not angry at all, just shocked.

 

[rtwjunkie]

I think someone else alluded to this but there seems to be a tendency to see these issues in black and white. Either the premise is absolutely, 100% true or it's 100% bullshit. It's never one or the other when it comes to research and to try to frame the argument that way is disingenuous at best. As @silkstone points out, expertise in analyzing the data is often as important as the data itself and if you have a bias, you can always find results to support your bias.

Actually, Silkstone hasn't done anything except distinguish himself as an extremist who refuses to intelligently analyze the situation, and keeps spouting that the only truth is his side. I'm trying to get people to see the argument is pointless, because the date is inconclusive on both sides. It can't be proved either way.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

How did you deduce that?

Ocean carbon release 'ended last Ice Age'
Those same "burps" are happening now. It's due to pressures changing on the ocean floor and it's positive feedback. As large quantities of CH4 are released, they increase atmospheric temperatures which causes ice to melt releasing trapped CO2.

 

[SK-1]

There is an actual reliable process that we use

So I missed the part of you being a climate scientist. Worried about your funding getting cut? Now I understand.

 

[silkstone]

Actually, Silkstone hasn't done anything except distinguish himself as an extremist who refuses to intelligently analyze the situation, and keeps spouting that the only truth is his side. I'm trying to get people to see the argument is pointless, because the date is inconclusive on both sides. It can't be proved either way.

There is no debate in the scientific community about the fact that humans affect the climate. Kinda like how scientist have also proven that the earth is not the centre of the universe and is actually more than a few thousand years old and evolution is a fact.

What is the point in arguing a truth?

Show me some science that backs up your claims and I will analyse it with you until the sun goes down.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[rtwjunkie]

It has been proven. There is no debate in the scientific community about the fact that humans affect the climate. Kinda like how scientist have also proven that the earth is not the centre of the universe and is actually more than a few thousand years old and evolution is a fact.

What is the point in arguing a truth?

Show me some science that backs up your claims and I will analyse it with you until the sun goes down.

No debate? Where have you been? It's not been proven either way! There is scientific debate on this all the time, and neither side can prove that humans are or are not the cause. You're supposedly a teacher. I would have expected more from someone who is charged with developing a thirst for learning in people, and teaching them not to listen to actors and politicians who have only gotten one-sided facts. I'm disappointed in you. Educators should be those most with a thirst to learn truth, not be fanatics.