Past Decade Warmest on Record, NASA Data Shows

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: mbc85 The day I start seeing with my own eyes or it start affecting me, (the heatness of the globe and co2) is the day ill start believing in all this "the world is getting hotter and it's a problem".

Yessirree, I just betcha looked out'chr winda and din't see none o' them there greenhouse gases floatin' by yer double wide, didja. An' by golly, winter still came and it still got cold, din'd it!

Quote by: mbc85 I guess they excluded the 30000 scientists that are suing al gore over the global "warming" lies, not my words their own (google it, too lazy to link

Wow... 30,000 scientists? Boy, that's a lot! {Only 9,000 of whom actually had PhDs, but why quibble}

What Ever Happened to the Lawsuit Brought by Weather Channel Founder Against Al Gore over Global Warming?

John Coleman: Still Waiting for that Lawsuit

Scientists Agree Human-Induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says

97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming

Quote by: mbc85 Conspiracy conspiracy.

Yeah, here's a few of the know-nothing conspirators...

National Academy of Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Meteorological Society
National Weather Association
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NASA
American Association for the Advancement of Science / The Journal Science
American Chemical Society
US National Research Council
Journal of the American Medical Association
Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies
Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes
The National Geographic Society
the World Meteorological Organization
Scientific American Magazine
The Journal Nature

... but what the heck to they know when compared to a has-been local news weatherman and a right-wing radio talk show host.

Quote by: mbc85 All of those things can kill you. Global "warming" supposedly does but I see no proof of it.

Have you even looked? I doubt it. But then, I doubt you'd understand it if you did. Look here.

Quote by: mbc85 And even IF there is a global "warming" problem, it sure as hell is not affecting farm produce.

Really?

Global warming affecting crop yields adversely, study finds - Mar. 2007

Global warming reduced crop yields over past 20 years - Mar. 2007

Global warming affecting crops says Sharad Pawar - Dec. 2009

Quote by: mbc85 Ever since the "warming", records have shown that there's increase in lots of farm produce.

Prove it.

Quote by: mbc85 Not too long ago some government files were "leaked" that showed the whole plan behind the global "warming" theory.

Oh goodie!!! Always wanted to see the "plan" to invent global warming. Please, share it with us. This oughta be good.

.

[mbc85]

To the research letter, I found something interesting that they say almost at the end, something about farmers adapting to the heat because more heat helps some crops grow bigger.... mmmm if that's all it takes to beat global "warming" killing crops then it shouldn't be that hard. "Farmers will never do this not any time soon it's insane and absurd!" well.... check the record setting crops we had last year. There's is a report that I have but my phone is messing up, but check it out it's from the usda, just go there.

Okay I want to get into detail with all your other comments but with my phone is pretty hard. So ill get back at u some other day.

Ps. I am glad I found my first "friend" in here

[lukas8u]

You can't stick your fingers in your ears and go la-la-la-la forever.
Eventually you gotta man up and deal with the problem.
And if we don't, and soon, there will be consequences.

[mbc85]

Well lukas8o when the problems start wake me up, ill gladly help. But so far I have heard of 0 deaths, decrease in crops, and no world ending because of global "warming". (Unless you are waiting for 2012?)

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: mbc85 But so far I have heard of 0 deaths, decrease in crops, and no world ending because of global "warming".

Like I keep saying, you haven't heard of anything, because you haven't listened.

Global Warming Leads to 150,000 Deaths Every Year

France heat wave death toll set at 14,802 - USA Today, Sept. 2003 - "Environmental experts warn that because of climate change, such heat waves are expected to increase in number in coming years, meaning Europe — a continent that historically has enjoyed a temperate climate — will have to make adjustments."

Why Global Warming May Be Fueling Australia's Fires - TIME Magazine, Feb. 2007 - "The raging infernos that have left more than 160 people dead in southern Australia burned with such speed that they resembled less a wildfire than a massive aerial bombing. Many victims caught in the blazes had no time to escape; their houses disintegrated around them, and they burned to death."

Amazon 'faces more deadly droughts' - BBC, Mar. 2007



Feel free to keep sticking you virtual foot in your mouth through your monumental ignorance.

.

[Questatement]

Quote by: Sonart . And please, Que... save us the effort and don't refer us to... Dr. Richard Lindzen Dr. Frederick Singer Prof. Philip Stott Piers Corbyn Patrick Moore John Christy or Roy Spencer ...been there, done that. .

Okay, what about some of the IPCC's own? Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002 and Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team.

Africagate: top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility

I am curious as to just when will you admit you're being fed this chicken little BS in the name of science...

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Questatement I am curious as to just when will you admit you're being fed this chicken little BS in the name of science...

I agree with Dr. Watson. I am incredibly pissed at the UN report for their sloppiness. They had to know that every skeptic activist organization on earth would be combing the report for errors, and now to have 4 whole mistakes be found. It's unforgivable.

But then, I've never really relied on the UN for may information, have I?

National Academy of Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Meteorological Society
National Weather Association
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NASA
American Association for the Advancement of Science / The Journal Science
American Chemical Society
US National Research Council
Journal of the American Medical Association
Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies
Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes
The National Geographic Society
the World Meteorological Organization
Scientific American Magazine
The Journal Nature

So I sure you're all wallowing in the smug glow of a few admitted errors.

But that doesn't change for one instance the reality of global warming, that it's happening faster than predicted and that we're causing it, and despite a few errors in predictons, you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that AGW is not happening.

So comb away and find all the typos you can... the scientific evidence against you just keeps building and building and building.

97% of Climate Scientists Agree: Humans are Causing Global Warming

And you can't change that!

.

[Questatement]

I don't believe I ever took the position that global warming is NOT taking place nor that man is adding to that reality... just that it has been hi-jacked by alarmists who are finally being put in their respective place.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Questatement I don't believe I ever took the position that global warming is NOT taking place nor that man is adding to that reality... just that it has been hi-jacked by alarmists who are finally being put in their respective place.

So, if Global Warming is happening and man is making it worse by his actions, what do you feel is the proper "non-alarmist" road to correcting the problem? I mean, let's say that YOU were setting policy. Do we need to try to cut our dependence on fossil fuels? Do we need to invest in finding as many net-neutral fuels and energy sources as possible? What, specifically, do you find to be reasonable solutions? I assume you would not suggest we just try to use more of our "own" oil and coal and keep ignoring what you admit is a real but "exaggerated" problem. I mean, rather than just operating as a nay-saying contrarian, you do have what you consider to be a plan that addresses the core issue, that being the damage we do to the environment by continuing our over-dependence on sources of energy that are not only dangerous, but also dangerously finite.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Que just that it has been hi-jacked by alarmists who are finally being put in their respective place.

Global warming IS alarming. Maybe not the 15 to 30 year 'imminent catastrophe' alarming, but certainly within 100 - 150 years catastrophic alarming. The Himalaya ice and glacier may not be completely gone by 1935, but the best science still says that enough of it will be gone within the next 50 years to be a massive threat to both China and the sub-continent. The equatorial rain forests may not be completely gone withing 20 years, but they are disappearing at an alarming rate - both from deforestation and climate change - and their effectiveness as 'The Lungs of the Planet' - as a massive carbon sink - will be greatly reduced within the next 50-75 years. The Netherlands may not be completely under water within the next 50 years... just mostly.

The consequences of AGW may not be as alarming as some predict, but they are still very alarming... 'the end of life on earth as we now know it within 100-150 years' alarming, and that magic 'Point of No Return' is still out there, Que... the point at which global warming begins exponentially snowballing out of our control, and nothing we can do will reverse it due to an endless number of positive feedback loops.

Global warming 'past the point of no return' - 2005

Debate on Climate Shifts to Issue of Irreparable Change - Washington Post, Jan. 2006

Global Warming: Beyond the Tipping Point - Scientific American, Oct. 2008

So at some point - 100 years, 150 years, 200 years - temperatures are going to just keep rising to a point where, except for a narrow arctic strip, life will simply be unsustainable over most of the planet. We'll have created and artificial Venus.

And your solution is let them worry about it then??? Good lord, if nothing else, think of it as a patriotic threat...

Global warming is now officially considered a threat to U.S. national security - NPR, Dec. 20009 - "Global warming is now officially considered a threat to U.S. national security. For the first time, Pentagon planners in 2010 will include climate change among the security threats identified in the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Congress-mandated report that updates Pentagon priorities every four years. The reference to climate change follows the establishment in October of a new Center for the Study of Climate Change at the Central Intelligence Agency."


.

[Lamna nasus]

Quote by: Questatement Okay, what about some of the IPCC's own?.

Is Robert Watson stating that anthropogenic forcings to Climate do not exist and that the entire IPCC report is wrong ?.. No.

So denialist jihadis making mountains out of molehills like Swifthack on the internet in order to disingenuously suggest that anthropogenic forcings to climate change are impossible on a global scale, has the same merit as believing that Creationism is science.. ie. None.

Watson is merely making the point that there is a valid lesson to be learned, never include scientific studies that have not been peer-reviewed in a reputable scientific journal in the IPCC reports.

Quote by: Questatement I don't believe I ever took the position that global warming is NOT taking place nor that man is adding to that reality...

I am going to have to ask you for an unequivocal statement on that.. just so there are no misconceptions about where you stand on the science.. do you accept that there is reputable, peer reviewed, scientific evidence that anthropogenic forcings can have a significant effect on climate on a global scale, that CO2 is one of those forcings and the evidence for that theory greatly outways the evidence produced by contrarians .. yes or no?

.. 'alarmists'?.. lets not forget hysterical neoconservative stormtroopers quoting completely discredited political lobbying like the Oregon Petition and the Leipzig Declaration as 'scientific' evidence, while forecasting the end of the world by global stalinist conspiracy.

[mbc85]

Sonart have you heard of the medieval warm period? was that cause by global "warming" and the people or was it nartural? Go forward a few centuries and welcome to "the little ice age", was that global "warming too? Lower temperature. Go forward again and we have warmer temperatures again, see the pattern? If science was more advanced during the MWP we could have data that could give us a better understanding of what's happening now, but since we don't we go with what we have, measly 130 years of data, and which shows that climate was going up and down all throughout the century.

We can't conclude if global "warming" is really dangerous or if we are jumping to conclusion, because we know scientist make mistakes (remember the world was flat?) all the time and they get corrected. The thing with this issue that pisses me off is that algorean "scientists" proclaimed global "warming" as an imminent threat to the world. That is causing this and it's causing that and they gave data, erroneous data!

[mbc85]

(Continuation)
First it was the ice is retreating at an alarming rate!! And if we don't stop it we are gonna be under water and we need to build an ark to save humanity.... Well here West Antarctic Ice Sheet May Not Be Losing Ice As Fast As Once Thought | The University of Texas at Austin

Then it was the mountains are losing the ice, see global "warming" is doing that and it's gonna help for the big flood..... here No Sign Yet of Himalayan Meltdown, Indian Report Finds | Skeptics Global Warming

Then there was the whole food supply dying because of global "warming"..... check the damn usda and see that's a lie! (Btw I showed you that ur 07 article about crops being lost to GW was a tad bit unreliable)

Then it was co2 causing global "warming"..... water vapor is the greatest contributor to greenhouse gas, (google it) so oceans are our enemies now? (I can see the US going to war with the pacific and atlantic)

And the most erroneous "scientific" data is what the ipcc gave as "AR4". Here's a recent interview with the chairman "http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15473066" note that the chairman admits not reading all his emails yet if there is an error found in reports of data please send it in an email to him. You know why? Cause that way he can use the same excuse he used in that interview about the errors on some data, "I didn't read about them".

Here is a site that has some RECENT (not 03 or 07) articles that show some more erroneous data "http://global-warming.accuweather.com/"

[mbc85]

And yes we can have some deaths over heatness and droughts and twisters happening more but that's been happening since ancient times! They just didn't record it. Global "warming" is not gonna destroy our civilization but we do need to bring down the co2 emissions.

I don't mind the fight to bring down co2 emissions, I understand that if we keep producing them eventually (very long eventually) it's gonna affect the world (still not kill us). But don't try to tell me it's affecting us now, don't bring bs like that to the table. The reason behind global "warming" is money. The "greenhouse gas bill"? Selling co2 credits to companies is just the start of a chain that is gonna end in more taxation for people.

If we don't want to adapt to a more warm earth we have to help out, but we will not die because of global warming.

[Uncle Rhynchus]

But don't try to tell me it's affecting us now, don't bring bs like that to the table.

Right...even though Sonart has linked to multiple scientific resources documenting exactly that. Oh, but "mbc85" at Volconvo says it's bs, so it must be! After all, your word is unquestioned gospel, is it not?

[Questatement]

Quote by: lsbskins1 So, if Global Warming is happening and man is making it worse by his actions, what do you feel is the proper "non-alarmist" road to correcting the problem? I mean, let's say that YOU were setting policy. Do we need to try to cut our dependence on fossil fuels? Do we need to invest in finding as many net-neutral fuels and energy sources as possible? What, specifically, do you find to be reasonable solutions? I assume you would not suggest we just try to use more of our "own" oil and coal and keep ignoring what you admit is a real but "exaggerated" problem. I mean, rather than just operating as a nay-saying contrarian, you do have what you consider to be a plan that addresses the core issue, that being the damage we do to the environment by continuing our over-dependence on sources of energy that are not only dangerous, but also dangerously finite.

There are many promising technologies in energy which not only reduce CO2 output but also reduce and/or eliminate many pollutants which, unlike CO2, nature does not have a built-in remedy of response for. These technologies are emerging and will continue to until they dominate the market. I predict that algae will ultimately adsorb/eliminate our CO2 excess and provide the bulk of the biofuel market 10-20 years from now. Other land-based, non-food sources for biofuel will come in a close second.

I find it interesting that some of the governments who spend the most time and money alarming the public over GW also invest the least or, worse yet, appear to thwart these technologies. Did you ever ask yourself why the US trails India and China on all electric car production?

Personally, I drive a hybrid economy car, otherwise conserve energy at home, compost (including vermiculture), recycle, keep bees, and grow much of the food that my family eats. I know that home-level conservation is not the solution but my conscience is guilt-free nonetheless. You see, the biblical doctrine related to this issue is for believers to be care-takers of the planet according to a creative order/dynamic which is/was good from the start... not skew the numbers to manipulate the populace and enrich ourselves using bad (or lack-thereof) science.

2 Timothy 1:7
For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

Look at nature - see what works - cooperate with it - encourage it

[Questatement]

Quote by: Lamna nasus I am going to have to ask you for an unequivocal statement on that.. just so there are no misconceptions about where you stand on the science.. do you accept that there is reputable, peer reviewed, scientific evidence that anthropogenic forcings can have a significant effect on climate on a global scale, that CO2 is one of those forcings and the evidence for that theory greatly outways the evidence produced by contrarians .. yes or no?

You're awfully new here to be making such demands.

[Derach]

Quote by: Sonart . The consequences of AGW may not be as alarming as some predict, but they are still very alarming... 'the end of life on earth as we now know it within 100-150 years' alarming, and that magic 'Point of No Return' is still out there ... So at some point - 100 years, 150 years, 200 years - temperatures are going to just keep rising to a point where, except for a narrow arctic strip, life will simply be unsustainable over most of the planet. We'll have created and artificial Venus.

It is not too much for any reasonable person to ask that those people making predictions be reasonably accurate in the predictions they have made thus far. And the honest solution to people truly concerned with global warming isn't to overestimate their predictions so they can later fall back to the correct conclusion. Doing so only discredits the whole process.

[Lamna nasus]

Quote by: Questatement You're awfully new here to be making such demands.

Never too soon to establish the facts...

[Questatement]

Quote by: Lamna nasus Never too soon to establish the facts...

Okay then and welcome to Volconvo.

I believe man is heating up the planet or at least portions thereof.

The Urban Heat Island effect is not in dispute that I know of.

CO2's heating effect (though offset by thickening of the ozone and increased algae blooms which adsorb CO2) is not in dispute either.

Quote by: Lamna nasus .. 'alarmists'?.. lets not forget hysterical neoconservative stormtroopers quoting completely discredited political lobbying like the Oregon Petition and the Leipzig Declaration as 'scientific' evidence, while forecasting the end of the world by global stalinist conspiracy.

Without looking into these movements (for simple lack of interest) I will take your word that they are/were alarmist conspiracies or at least ill-conceived in nature.

Now, what exactly do those have to do with any position I have taken?