What Do We Think About Climate Change

Jesus H..... In my best McEnroe, YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING!... man whaaaaat?!

BTW the link is broken Jim, twin ]url[ tags I think?

"White House staffer Lew Moninsky" LOL!

 

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/Bush-jets-and-Katrina.htm

This should probably show the "enormous" amount of research and careful studies that goes into this internet page here, which you quote, Jim....

Or does it sound more logical with flying islands???
Vatican sued for Katrina; Act of God...???

man....

Probably one of your average (in level of quality) sources of information....

 

I'd almost believe anything these days... life is getting ridiculous on several fronts!

 

gatta get me one of them flying islands, build a Casino, park it somewhere nice, travel again when the locals are getting broke....

 

That EcoEnquirer website is indeed the biggest piece of ******-**** I've ever seen! Amazing!
Probably a group of students laughing their heads off.

Now: what about this?
http://www.dhmo.org/

Boston, you should devote your efforts to fight DHMO instead of losing your time doing it with CO2.
See:
- DHMO contributes to global warming and the "Greenhouse Effect", and is one of the so-called "greenhouse gasses."

- DHMO is an "enabling component" of acid rain -- in the absence of sufficient quantities of DHMO, acid rain is not a problem.

- DHMO is a causative agent in most instances of soil erosion -- sufficiently high levels of DHMO exacerbate the negative effects of soil erosion.

- DHMO is present in high levels nearly every creek, stream, pond, river, lake and reservoir in the U.S. and around the world.

- Measurable levels of DHMO have been verified in ice samples taken from both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps.

- Recent massive DHMO exposures have lead to the loss of life and destruction of property in California, the Mid-West, the Philippines, and a number of islands in the Caribbean, to name just a few.

- Research has shown that significant levels of DHMO were found in the devastating Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 which killed 230,000 in Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and elsewhere, making it the deadliest tsunami in recorded history.

- It is widely believed that the levee failures, flooding and the widespread destruction resulting from Hurricane Katrina along the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005 were caused or exacerbated by excessive DHMO levels found in the Gulf of Mexico, along with other contributing factors.


Cheers!

 

97% of scientist agree
21 million
700 thousand
hits

you guys are desperate for denial

 

Wel said, Boston the scientist!

 

so apparently now having a background in the sciences is some kind of evil on a thread that is supposed to be having a scientific debate

wow

and you wonder why I am so disgusted with the ethics on this page

 

Again with 97% silliness. Read the poll results, not the tea leaves. The 97% our self-proclaimed CO2 Il Duce loves to issue proclamations about refers to the number of "self identified" climate experts of 489 persons polled that believe the earth has warmed over the last 100 years.

That is a far cry from his claim that 97% of all scientists believe that global warming is caused by the human races use of fossil fuels. That claim is not supported by anything other than his rhetoric.

It is not known however if the scientists who do believe that the earth has warmed are aware that the data used to support that claimed is distorted, and deliberately so. Much of the data used comes from ground based weather stations. The type of location these stations are placed is not a constant. Some are placed on black flat rooftops, they are much hotter than the surrounding air. Some are placed on highway meridians, or near air conditioning exhaust vents. Even to the "unwashed masses" (the term Boston uses to describe those of who have not achieved his level of intellectual perfection) the bias in the data would be obvious and cannot be mitigated by trying to balance it off. It falls back to GIGO, garbage in, garbage out. The data from ground based stations should be tossed. When you do that, things get interesting. Data from atmospheric weather balloons and imaging from satelites do not support the warming theory, at all. In fact they show the earth cooling for most of the last decade and the most reliable evidence show it to be continuing to do so until 2030. How long does the Earth have to cool to show it is not warming? Know why that sounds like a silly question? Because it is!

What it comes down to. If the data used to explain warming is wrong. If anthropogenic CO2 (human caused) isn't causing the warming that is now in doubt by reasonable people without a social engineering agenda. Why are we attempting to write an action plan for an event equivilent to try to plan a response to "What if all the crabs come out of the ocean at the same time?"

With all of the problems facing the human race we can ill afford to squander the wealth of the developed nations trying to change the outcome of an event that is not happening, and even if it were, was not caused by the human race, so would obviously be beyond our control to influence.

 

Go to any canal, swamp or garbage pile, stick something into it. What comes up.... Methane, sulfur dioxide, all greenhouse gases. Lots of them. In the course of any day. The millions of acres of swamp, canals, and volcano's do more for Global Warning gases than all the cars, planes and ships in the world. Do the math.

That said the biggest problem is garbage contamination into ocean, particular SEWER, treated or untreated from all major cities on waterfront throught the world.


And CO2 is not a bad gas, trees need it. During other periods in earth's history their have been much higher levels of CO2 and animals and plants thrived.

 

Remember when they where all down on cows for farting too much methane... then those wacky Germans went and came up with this --> Plants revealed as methane source {link} Now they don't pick on Cows so much...

 

What is a lack of ethics (or then simple moronism) is to proclame yourself as a scientist, as it is evident you are not. Neither am I a scientist, nor any of the posters in this thread, as far as I know, except prove in contrary. But although probably some of such posters have quite better scientific background than you or me do, none of them has dared to present him/herself as a scientist. Scientists do not come to these kind of forums to have stupid conversations like this one.

Cheers.

 

​

 

Another one here:

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090506010317AAAcYyf
(climate scientists...).

From one of the contributors: Quote:

The specific questions in the 97% poll were:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

"Of these specialists [climate scientists], 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."

So basically there were 3 climate science researchers in the sample who don't think global temperatures have risen since pre-1800s levels (hard to believe isn't it?) and 2 who said humans aren't significantly contributing to global warming. It's only logical to assume that the 2 who answered 'no' to question 2 also didn't answer 'risen' to question 1, so basically they have no freaking clue what they're talking about (sorry, but anyone who says global temperatures haven't risen since 1800 is ignorant of climate data). I suspect they were people like Tim Ball who claim to be climate scientists but aren't. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that one of them was Tim Ball.

As for what climate scientists disagree on, in most cases it's climate sensitivity (how much the planet will warm/cool in response to rising temperatures due to AGW). Guys like Christy and Lindzen think the planet will naturally counteract anthropogenic warming with negative feedbacks - namely increasing cloudcover. They don't dispute the human cause of global warming. Few climate scientists do - I don't think even Spencer disputes it.

*edit* I find it very amusing that several deniers are claiming never to have heard of this study. I've personally referenced and linked it several dozen times. Goes to show deniers aren't interested in learning and block out any information they don't want to hear.
Source(s):

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf


Quote end...

Think this one could be pointed out:
Goes to show deniers aren't interested in learning and block out any information they don't want to hear.​

 

Double posted...

Well your'e supposed to have two eyes.....;-D