Global Warming? are humans to blame?

in the UK dead people go to the dentist and doctor

 

Surprisingly enough, the scientific consensus for evolution and the consensus for anthropological climate change driven by CO2 are about the same -- various percentages in the mid-90's, depending on which specific study you're looking at.

I assume the pile of evidence is higher for evolution, because it's been accumulating for generations. But apparently most scientists believe what evidence we have for CO2-driven climate change is just as compelling....

 

even more stark is the reality that not only does the theory of evolution hold a slightly lower acceptance than Climate Shift, but the theory of gravity holds an even lower consensus view, yet you don't see ole whackadoo's jumping off ladders to see if gravity is still working.

Rapid Global Climate Shift has "the" highest consensus view of any theory, as far as I have yet discovered. And I've been a proponent of the changes needed to combat climate shift for a long time. So if the statement was all that far off I'm sure someone would have provided reliable evidence to refute it by now.

Although there are still some folks who believe the world is flat :idea::idea::idea:

 

Boston
You exagerate shamelessly!
Many agree the earth is warming. But do NOT agree it's warming rapidly, or headed for contastrophe, or that CO2 is more than just one of several factors. You then claim ALL are in agreement with the extremest cult you admire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

"Christopher Landsea, a hurricane researcher, said of "the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant" that "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound",[54] because of comments made at a press conference by Kevin Trenberth of which Landsea disapproved. Trenberth said that "Landsea's comments were not correct";[55] the IPCC replied that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights, as long as they are not saying anything on behalf of the IPCC" and offered to include Landsea in the review phase of the AR4.[56] Roger Pielke, Jr. commented that "Both Landsea and Trenberth can and should feel vindicated... the IPCC accurately reported the state of scientific understandings of tropical cyclones and climate change in its recent summary for policy makers".[55]

In 2005, the House of Lords Economics Committee wrote that "We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations". It doubted the high emission scenarios and said that the IPCC had "played-down" what the committee called "some positive aspects of global warming".[57] The main statements of the House of Lords Economics Committee were rejected in the response made by the United Kingdom government[58] and by the Stern Review.

Speaking to the difficulty of establishing scientific consensus on the precise extent of human action on climate change, John Christy, a contributing author, wrote:

Contributing authors essentially are asked to contribute a little text at the beginning and to review the first two drafts. We have no control over editing decisions. Even less influence is granted the 2,000 or so reviewers. Thus, to say that 800 contributing authors or 2,000 reviewers reached consensus on anything describes a situation that is not reality.[59]

He added:

I’ve written a number of papers about the precision of our climate records. The impact of Kyoto-like proposals will be too small for we scientists to measure due to the natural variations of climate and the lack of precision in our observing system. In other words we will not be able to tell lawmakers with high confidence that specific regulations achieve anything in terms of climate in this country or the world. Additionally, the climate system is immensely complicated and really cannot be tweaked for a predictable outcome.[59]"

 

http://www.slideshare.net/AutoSurfR...state-of-global-warming-by-patrick-j-michaels

"When I see the word "denier" used as in "Global Warming Denier" it tells me everything I need to know about the person. They are ignorant of scientific method and the difference between hypothosis, theory and fact. And that is a shame, because people like them have been manipulated in the name of one "Great Cause" or another for all of history. (The Crusades, Eugenics, Prohibition - they all worked out so well.) Pope Al Gore the First sits at the top of the hierachy taking up collections to the tune of over 100 million dollars while his followers carefully select the science they believe in order to be consistent with their religion and berate the unbelievers. To question doctrine is to be branded a "denier". All facts must fit into doctrine. Mars warms because of solar activity? It flies in the face of doctrine so pretend (even though it denies scientific method) that what happens on one planet can not happen on another. The ice record shows that CO2 increases AFTER a warming period? Just slide the chart over a little bit to make it fit doctrine. There. Now CO2 is a cause and not an effect. Doctrine is fulfilled. But science thrives on constantly questioning, testing and evaluating observations. If you create a religion based on loosely strung together observations, label it "science" and then expect no one to question it, your ignorance of science and history is sorely lacking. The louder you scream at the people questioning your doctrine, the more you prove our point about it being - at best - poor science and at worst - just another religious fad. "

Personally, I think bad science is WORSE than a religious fad. And I KNOW Al Gore is a NEW WORLD GLOBAL GOVERNMENT agent. He admits it!

 

Yobi --Why is god making the planet warmer. YOU say he made the sun--has it gone wrong ---

I suppose the other planets in the solar system are getting hotter too like our moon.

 

Actually Frosty about half the planets should be warming and about half cooling. Its been going on for a long long time. If you think about it, since the sun is not rotating at the exact center of the solar system but instead being pulled a bit by the gravity of all the other stuff in the solar system, everything is in some way either moving towards the sun a bit or moving away, in relative equilibrium. So it stands to reason, at least to a guy names Milankovitch, that half the planets are gradually getting more radiation while about half are getting a bit less than at any other point in there orbit.

 

Frosty
GOD doesn't toy with us, like a bored child pulling wings off flys or exploding ants with a magnifying glass and suns rays.

Yes, mars and other planets were warming at the same time as earth. It's the sun, Frosty. Natural continuous cycles. Not alarming. We only warmed 8/tenths of a degree C in 150 years.
A fraction of a degree warming is NOT catastrophe.

 

Bored children do what???? is that what you do to gods creatures, your going to hell and don't PM me with religious bollocks.

If your convinced you going to an eternal life then off you go then!! Bye bye.

 

If you bring up religion in the thread, I WILL respond! In a PM!

 

Excuse me, but that's a load of crock. And of course, I mean that in the kindest, most gentle and positive way possible....

The anti-evolution folks ran that argument into the ground years ago: "that isn't science, it's just another religion." Didn't work for them, won't work for you.

There are skeptics, and there are deniers. You spent most of your post mocking the motives, intelligence and integrity of those you disagree with. To me that makes you a denier, rather than a skeptic.

To top it off, you crawled out on a conspiracy limb and said Al Gore is an "admitted" New World Global Government agent. It's impossible to admit being an agent of something that isn't there....

That makes it pretty clear that your root objections to climate change are ideological and political, rather than scientific. And when you say such things, it undermines your credibility. It puts you in the company of people like Robert Welch (founder of the John Birch Society), who proclaimed that President Eisenhower was a 'dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy.'

edit: you're shooting the messenger. Al Gore didn't invent climatology, and he didn't do the research that implicates CO2 as the driving force of anthropological climate change. Scientists don't listen to him; he listened to the scientists.

 

Troy
I never post what I can't defend.

Al Gore cited the “cap-and-trade” legislation in the U.S. Congress that by President Obama’s own estimate would cause utility bills to skyrocket for American consumers.

Those taxes are good, Gore said.


“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change, and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global government and global agreements,” Gore said.

His address was captured on video and posted on YouTube:

" 'Heaven And Earth' by Professor Ian Plimer, the Australian geologist and professor, purposes to restore a sense of scientific perspective to a debate which has been hijacked by ‘politicians, environmental activists and opportunists’.
Plimer doesn’t trust computer models turning out doomsday scenarios, because they seem to have little if any basis in observed reality.
Eco-guilt is a first-world luxury. It’s the new religion for urban populations which have lost their faith in Christianity.
The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology,’ says Plimer.
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, he argues, is the biggest, most dangerous and ruinously expensive con trick in history."

 

butterflies and zebras, moon beams and fairy tales is all "she" ever sees.

 

If you say global warming is not a religion with you, I believe you.

Can you say it's not a religion with someone else? You can SAY it.

 

Worship of Gaia
The environmentalist movement has taken on a new age religious philosophy, and this belief system is considered to be the religion of choice for urban atheists and is one of the most powerful religions in the Western World:

“ The religion of environmentalism is a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths. There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.
Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative religious beliefs. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith. Facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them. [3]
”

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore sees a "spiritual crisis" in global warming. [4] He also believes that goddess worship is a better and more legitimate spiritual belief than Christianity and that the life of human beings is comparable to that of trees.[5] British biologist James Lovelock [6] first publicly explained the Gaia theory - that the earth as a whole is a living, conscious organism. [7] Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho) has described this phenomenon as "environmental religion" and says that it has "profound constitutional implications" because of the First Amendment prohibition on government establishment of religion. [8]


Dr. Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the department of meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies and is known as the father of scientific climatology says of global warming:

“ It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts. [9] ”

Environmentalism has been called "school prayer for liberals", in the sense that it functions as a substitute spiritual experience for them, since they lack a true spiritual connection to God. This allows them to feel good about themselves, if only temporarily. [10]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Environmentalist