Global Warming is to blame???

Pages

418 posts / 0 new
Last post
Storm Rider's picture
Storm Rider
Offline
Joined: 11/15/10

In 250,000 years the continents will be back together again.  Humor me and take 650,000 divided by 4.5 billion.

fishmahn Said:
multi-You should read a little closer. YOu seem to be missing the point. I'm talking unique figures and a trend dating back to over 650,00 years ago and it coincidentally began it's climb after the industrial rev. Seems to me the natural reaction would be to do a little more investigation instead of dismissing something of this possible magnitude. Again, to even speak of the possibility of this to some seems to be an admission of failed political ideology.


fisherman25's picture
fisherman25
Offline
Joined: 11/26/10

eyexer Said:
guys, I know this is fun but come on, the dude seriously has some issues.  with him it's very much like "it depends on your definition of is".  He's living in the world where if the greenazi's tell him the sky is green for three or four days in a row, by god he's going to come on here and tell us the sky is green.  then throw out all kinds of garbage the greenazi's baked up to support his green theory.   It's rather sporting isn't it?

I actually get really sick of listening to his "same ole" BS!  He is Obama's brother as far as I am concerned.  They both belong in Dancing with the Stars since they dance around everything their asked.  Then he waits for about 12 hours while people pounce on him doing all sorts of dance practice and scripting.  Then in the mere hours of the morning, he applies all his new dancing skills spins circles around all the questions that had been asked the night before. 

I may have just made some of you puke, but thats what I do listening to his broken record spinning wild on each of these topics.  Sorry...thats how I feel. 

It's All Good's picture
It's All Good
Offline
Joined: 10/14/09

Like a few others, I've been hesitant to jump in and get kicked around.  My father once told me " opinions are like a-holes ; everyone has one, and most of them stink".  Not the first time I ignored his wisdom, and certainly I will pay the price with a lashing from the conservative "whips" of eyexer, 3X, gst, etc. 

Both sides of this global warming/climate change debate can (and do) pull studies out their backsides all day long to defend their stance. Politics only further muddies the water. 

I'm definitely not the "sharpest stick in the pile", so I have to dumb things down.   I consider myself a sportsman, in that fishing and hunting has, and will be, a large part of my life.  I am passionate about these endeavors. Even more important, I care about the health of my family and friends.  Most everyone on this site would probably make the same statements.  In addition, most of us truly hope our children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy game, fish and the outdoors as we have.  If so, then I believe we (sportsman) have an obligation to preserve, protect and propogate wild critters and wild places for the next generation(s).  

Pollution is a bad thing for all ecosystems.  Whether it is trash or toxins in a small North Dakota watershed or excessive CO2 and other nasty crap being spewed into the air from a large factory in Pittsburgh, it's not a good thing for most living things.  I don't have to be a scientist, republican or democrat to understand such.   

For those of you who are thinking "another crazy-arss greenie whacko who is defending fishmahn", bear with me.  I was raised as "red" as they come.  My dad played baseball and graduated from high school with Dick Cheney and he's not afraid to tell you about it.  Mom was a private business owner who hates government & taxes more than rattlesnakes.  Spent my whole life in Wyoming and North Dakota, markedly republican/conservative states.  I'm probably more "middle of the road" than most on this site, but definitely not a liberal.  

The "math" for me is simple.  Pollution in/on our air, landscape, rivers and streams is detrimental to ecosystems and all that live in them.  The more than is introduced, the worst the negative effects (both short and long term).  The EPA is a flawed, but a necessary government agency.   I stand "left of the fence" on this issue.    I can't proclaim there is a scientific correlation between pollutants/emissions and the drastic weather we've experienced.  I just know it is bad for us as well as wild critters and wild places.  It does not matter if I trip on a pop bottle pheasant hunting, snag a tire or some other garbage while fishing or fly through a smog cloud landing at the Denver airport.  I don't like to see it, won't codone it and feel a fight should be made to stop it whenever possible.   

At the risk of sounding corny. . . . . I am a sportsman.  Thus, I am a conservationist. 

PikePits's picture
PikePits
Offline
Joined: 10/16/09

I'll take a whipping Too. Having just read every post; and seeing that most of it is back and forth between a few, I'll put my neck on the chopping block. My numbers might be smaller in terms of sample size, and my facts might be more of personal opinion, we have a right as Americans to "DO IT". A countdown from 5 to 1 puts it into my perspective.

5. HAROLD CAMPING(2011)--His flawed and often changed approach to The End-All swayed thousands of people to spend life savings. Harold has since suffered a stroke; moved his date to October, and family members stated a "Change in Proramming."

4.NOSTRADAMUS(2012)--This one kind of scares me because he predicts that we kill each other; along with the fact he has a little history, and killing each other makes the most sense right now according the government(at least from a spending standpoint).

3.BP--They were made to be accountable for their NON-NATURAL Disaster. They had to pay an exaspirating amount of money to try to right their WRONG and it was a WRONG that happened in 2010.

2. THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS--While this is a Freak of Nature; the fact of the matter is that this is a product of protecting the Least Tern, The Piping Plover, and a handfull of beauracy driven barges. None of these have a very favorable outlook this year.

1. My Grandparents. They are the ones that I blame. It was their parents that homesteaded in the river bottoms. It was the Government that moved them to high ground. Grandpa told me about his first tractor and Grandma made sure I knew the Rosary by the time I had ABC down. They only had less than 2000 years of information to base their facts on. In fact the Pope just tweeted that they weren't keeping up.

The evolution of the information highway makes it awful hard to explain things to kids with access to this rhetoric B.S.  I've got a feeling that circumstances beyond our control will ultimately lead to a demise to a already softening society. It used to be attractive to serve a country if only for a fact to pay for school. Now school is as dead as the Rosary(Wait the Pope just TWEETED. R U Kidding me). And the flag. Global Warming is merely just another log on the fire(IMO), Yep, I don't have a job right now for at least the duration of this flood. That's why I realize that now is the right time to educate my kids on the basis of life as it happens today with an emphasis on what happened yesterday vs. tomorrow.

One step at a time...Be careful.

TUFFdog's picture
TUFFdog
Offline
Joined: 9/19/06

CO2 is not a pollutant or greenhouse gas! I repeat, CO2 is not a pollutant or greenhouse gas! This is fact not theory. Anything else is garbage.

Once a King, Always a King

But once a Knight is never enough

Farnorth's picture
Farnorth
Offline
Joined: 5/23/02

TUFFdog Said:
CO2 is not a pollutant or greenhouse gas! I repeat, CO2 is not a pollutant or greenhouse gas! This is fact not theory. Anything else is garbage.

The EPA disagrees with you on the greenhouse gas issue.

Their website lists CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and Flourinated gases as greenhouse gases.

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Big Rack,
From a scientific standpoint what is the reason for your division problem there.  Are you aware of the maturation sequence of the earth from  it's birth.  What was the global situation at that time?  Somewhat like it is today?  Are you aware when life began or when it was possible for life to begin let alone when the first bipeds entered.  Not too much pavement or townhouses around not to mention any geographic similarities.  Once again let's attempt to somewhat compare apples to apples and variables involved at the time such as mineralization, ocean sink capabilities, forestation, marine diverstity etc.  Of course there has been tremendous upheavals in our climate but I really shouldn't have to relate what occurred to life much later but before we entered the picture. In many cases it was mass extinction as I've repeatedly stated before.  Do you get it?  Let's attempt to relate similarities in a living microcosm not changes that occurred when it would have been uninhabital with no global similarities to what is in existence now.
Eyexer-Yeah guy I'll respond .  You present things like Fox news ditties and "data" showing increases in the polar ice caps.   Are you serious or do you want to continue the talk about F Singer?  Does this mean I can use Stephan Colbert and Stewart for my investigative work?  How about reading from a blog and letting the story end there?  AS far as your polar caps you're obviously in the dark as far as the antarctica land ice disappearing at a record rate.  I suppose you heard the sea ice has temporary increases in this region.  There is a freshening from the glacial run off causing a layering. This composition causes less mixing which results in the ice you must be talking about but it melts in the summer anyway.  It comes down to the fact that it's losing roughly 200 GT of land ice/yr.  So yes, someone has issues as you stated.  The issue being there's one of us engaged here with no scientific background.  Maybe you should talk to your liberal brother concerning this.

This is getting to the point of chewing rubber but the facts remain if you go back to 1000 AD and follow the ice core data the level of co2 was relatively flat  at 280 ppm or less until you get to the 1800's and the industrial rev.  From that point the co2 has gone nearly vertical.  By 1980 it was 335 ppm and the last data I looked at it was over 390.
(Check the Law Dome Ice cores or others,  they are very similar)

97% of today's climate experts agree humans are causing global c change.  IT appears there are a few here that  think they're more qualified "experts".  Whatever let's you sleep better at night!


fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Tuffdog-YOu aren't getting your information from Exexer are you?
A green house gas is a gas in the atmosphere that absorbs or emits radiation. Co2 does a very good job of this.

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

This is getting totally unbelievable once again. Must be time to put the canopy on the boat and go fishing.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

It's All Good,   I may be a conservative by discription, but hopeully only pull the whip out for lashing when it is called for (at least in my opinion). I agree with most of what you have wrote (the EPA part is a little more complimentary than I would have given, a bit more emphasis on the "flawed" aspect to me seems appropriate, with a possible suggestion of totally revamping the entire agency).

Your opinion is given in a clear straight forward manner void of condescending comments and name calling and you do not suggest that perhaps you are a little better informed,read,thought, ect.. than others. Why would you take a lashing for this?

One of the first things my parents taught me (they hope) and hopefully I am passing down to my kids is the ability to think on your own. Look at something and use your God given powers of reason, deduction, intution, common sense (thinking) and the earned bonus of what  knowledge you have gained because of the afore mentioned gifts to make decisions and choices in life. Not to be a "useful idiot" as it were simply buying into and following others agendas. More times than not this has been a benefit in my life if I follow thru with it.

So while I know what you mention is not good for the planet, wildlife, my family and friends, ect...(and I try to do my part not to contribute)  as a result of those afore mentioned traits, it's impact on the long term global future is not as clearly defined in fact as fish wants us to accept in his condescending manner as it is theory.  Does that mean we simply dismiss it, of course not but to use a phrase fish did, to simply follow these GW theories and agendas like lemmings of a cliff without examining their background and basis is of what use?  

Mr Pitts, Nice composition !

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

These guys reportedly love the Tree as they try to suffocate it.

 Nuke the Whales

TUFFdog's picture
TUFFdog
Offline
Joined: 9/19/06

Only 4 Points that Matter

1. The Greenhouse Signature is missing.
Weather bolloons have scanned the skies for years but can find no sign of the telltale "hot spot" warming pattern that greenhouse gases would leave. There's not even a hint.
Something else cause the warming.

2.The strongest evidence was the ice cores, but newer, more detailed, data turned the theory inside out.
Instead of carbon pushing up temperatures, for the last half-a-million years temperatures have gone up before carbon dioxide levels. On average 800 years before. This totally throws what we thought was cause-and-effect out the window.
Something else caused the warming.

3. Temperatures are not rising.
Satellites circling the planet twice a day show that the world has not warmed since 2001. How many years of NO global warming will it take? While temps have been flat, CO2 has been rising, BUT something else has changed the trend. The computer models don't know what it is.

4.Carbon dioxide is already doing all the warming it can do.
Adding twice the CO2 doesn't make twice the difference. The first CO2 molecules matter a lot, but extra ones have less and less effect. In fact, carbon levels were ten times as high in the past but the world still slipped into an ice age. Carbon today is a small player.

Just Sayin.

Once a King, Always a King

But once a Knight is never enough

TUFFdog's picture
TUFFdog
Offline
Joined: 9/19/06

Anyone know what Dihydrogen Monoxide(DHMO) is?

An overdose can kill you.
Constituent in many known toxic substances.
Death due to accidental inhalation.
Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO can cause tissue damage.
Component of acid rain.
Gaseous DHMO can cause burns.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.

The list goes on. You might be surprised to know what this substance is. There are websites about this, if you can believe it. If you don't know and figure it out, you will see how a label and skew what something really is. Some of you might have it sitting next to you.
Scientists can be savvy dudes.

Once a King, Always a King

But once a Knight is never enough

TUFFdog's picture
TUFFdog
Offline
Joined: 9/19/06

Atmospheric carbon is at higher levels than at any time in the past 650,000 years. But go back 500,000,000 years, and carbon levels were not just 10-20 percent higher, they were 10 to 20 TIMES HIGHER! The Earth has thoroughly tested the runaway greenhouse effect, and NOTHING happened. Indeed the Earth slipped into an ice age while CO2 was far higher than today's levels. Whatever warming effect super-concentrated-CO2 has, it's no match for the other climatic forces out there. Further, it doesn't matter if it's man-made CO2 or ocean-made CO2. They are the same molecule.

Once a King, Always a King

But once a Knight is never enough

ggenthusiast's picture
ggenthusiast
Offline
Joined: 9/11/02

TUFFdog Said:
Anyone know what Dihydrogen Monoxide(DHMO) is?

An overdose can kill you.
Constituent in many known toxic substances.
Death due to accidental inhalation.
Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO can cause tissue damage.
Component of acid rain.
Gaseous DHMO can cause burns.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.

The list goes on. You might be surprised to know what this substance is. There are websites about this, if you can believe it. If you don't know and figure it out, you will see how a label and skew what something really is. Some of you might have it sitting next to you.
Scientists can be savvy dudes.

H20

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Tuffdog- Where did you get most of what you printed? The same source where you stated co2 was not a greenhouse gas? Simply repeating things over and over do not make them a fact .Your points that matter?The latest study I could find (2010) shows increased air (trophispheric) and ocean temps and levels. Decreased ...ice glaciers etc. and the ten hottest years globally have all occurred since 1998. YOu said the satellites haven't picked up an increase since 2001?? YOu also haven't read the past posts concerning the ordivician , high co2 levels and glaciation have you?. You're looking 200 million years before T Rex. For the sake of brevity I suggest you reread the old posts or actually look up Berner's geocarb work and see what he said concerning calculating the co2 levels at this time and it's relativity to the atmospheric and physcial changes going on during this period.
BTW where did you get your information that co2 is not a greenhouse gas????

TUFFdog's picture
TUFFdog
Offline
Joined: 9/19/06

First of all I like a little sarcasm. Second, you know nothing about what I have read or not. I simply stated the facts and you are welcome to look them up on non biased websites.

AGW is a political agenda. Those oppose have nothing to gain from it.

fish, you go ahead and have your opinion, cause in the end that is all it is. I am not trying to sway you the other way. Just giving the readers a little of the appropriate side of the coin. Research a little opposition and see what you come up with.

Once a King, Always a King

But once a Knight is never enough

bigguy1's picture
bigguy1
Offline
Joined: 12/12/06

June 30, 2011

A Nutshell History of Climate-Change Hysteria

By Anthony J. Sadar

At a time when the push is on to subject humanity to more crazy, shortsighted progressive environmental programs (read carbon regulations) to "save the earth" from its human population, a brief look at progressive airy predictions of the past is in order.

Enlightenment from the campus teach-ins of the 1960s and early 1970s slowly invaded conventional college classrooms so that the hippie-generation mentality of the time eventually became the hip academic norm. But, excitement over such topics as the planet's imminent collapse from too many people and too much ice quickly waned when population increases yielded no global food fights and Mother Earth began to melt her once-advancing ice caps.

Up until at least the mid-1970s, the frenzy to rescue the planet from industrial chemicals, especially pesticides like DDT, was fueled by Rachel Carson's alluring book Silent Spring. This work, published in 1962, sparked the modern environmental movement, providing activists with both a laudable goal (cleaning up the planet) and reprehensible ones (portraying industry and modern society as enemies). Silent Spring made it rather obvious to some that the modern industrial society needed to be disarmed of its "weapons" (synthetic chemicals). Regardless of the fact that it is the careless practices of industry and the wasteful excesses of society that should have been precisely targeted, not modernity per se, the battle to save the planet was on.

One battleground that soon became the main theater of the war was society's culpability to climate change. But, early on, the conflict was quite different from what it is today. In the 1970s, besides Vietnam, society was sensitized to a worldwide cooling trend. In addition to cover stories in Time, Newsweek, and other popular magazines of the era, the cover of books like The Cooling by Lowell Ponte teased, "Has the next ice age already begun? Can we survive it?" Inside the book, Mr. Ponte notes, "A handful of scientists denied evidence that Earth's climate was cooling until the 1970s, when bizarre weather throughout the world forced them to reconsider their views."

The cover of Our Changing Weather: Forecast of Disaster? by Claude Rose pondered "Will our fuel run out? Will our food be destroyed? Will we freeze?" The back cover claimed: "Northern hemisphere temperatures have been falling steadily since the 1940s. Glaciers are advancing once again. Scientists no longer debate the coming of a new ice age: the question now is when?" ("Scientists no longer debate..." sound familiar?)

Kids were prepped for the coming catastrophe with a brief book by Henry Gilfond called The New Ice Age, which boldly displayed on its dust jacket large thermometers with ominously dropping temperature levels.

In addition, society was informed at the time from another sector, but with a more hopeful approach. A Christian tract by Walter Lang and Vic Lockman proclaimed: Need We Fear Another Ice Age?

And, of course, students were being properly taught to face the inevitable. For instance, some learned that polar bears might roam New York City (which proved true, but luckily they've been captured in the Central Park Zoo). Even future atmospheric scientists discovered the scientific foundations for the advancing ice in meteorology lectures at The Pennsylvania State University.

Well, as we all now know, the frights of the past were unfounded. We were encouraged to be scared of the wrong things. We have come to realize that it wasn't a "human volcano" of particles from an industrial society that would be chilling thermometers into the future, rather human-produced gases, primarily carbon dioxide, that would send the mercury soaring.

The current hype was officially kicked off with a proclamation by Dr. James Hansen of NASA in his testimony before Congress on June 23, 1988. Dr. Hansen announced that "the greenhouse effect is here and is affecting our climate now." With that statement, bolstered by a room purposefully made very warm and humid for the hearing and an unusually hot and dry summer in the eastern part of the U.S. that year, hothouse-earth hysteria was off and running.

In the late 90s, to support the new storyline, actual temperature measurements after 1900 were appended to proxy temperature data (e.g., using tree-ring analysis) from prior to 1900 to produce the infamous "hockey stick" graph. This graph replaced the traditional temperature trend graph in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official global climate report for 2001. The supplanted traditional graph had clearly, but inconveniently, displayed a "medieval warm period" from about the 10th to 13th centuries AD and "little ice age" generally from the 17th century until the mid-1800s. Furthermore, the hockey-stick graph was featured in Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth and unfortuately has replaced the traditional graph in a popular climatology textbook used to instruct a new generation of Penn State students.

The rising temperature trend experienced most recently (a trend currently leveling off) began in the mid- to late 1970s. This trend was first referred to in the 1980s as the "greenhouse effect" (which is a generic descriptor of roughly -- very roughly -- how warming of the planet occurs), the popular term became "global warming" in the 1990s, and finally conveniently morphed into "climate change," just in time to hedge against weather variability (that continues to alert an increasingly incredulous public).

As it turns out, though, "all's well that ends well." Fortunately for Mother Earth and her people, academic scientists have been laden with plenty of government funds to thoroughly research the atmosphere to arrive at confident conclusions. These scientists are now finally able to assure us that climate calamity caused by industry and callous working-class culprits -- and definitely not, for instance, the sun -- can be declared with absolute total academic certainty, theoretically. And, fortunately with enough dollars (billions upon billions of them) redistributed in the right way to correct our errant ways, the global village may yet experience its climate nirvana.

Anthony J. Sadar is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist specializing in air-quality issues and environmental risk communication.

Farnorth's picture
Farnorth
Offline
Joined: 5/23/02

TUFFdog Said:
First of all I like a little sarcasm. Second, you know nothing about what I have read or not. I simply stated the facts and you are welcome to look them up on non biased websites.

AGW is a political agenda. Those oppose have nothing to gain from it.

fish, you go ahead and have your opinion, cause in the end that is all it is. I am not trying to sway you the other way. Just giving the readers a little of the appropriate side of the coin. Research a little opposition and see what you come up with.

Dude,
You stated flat out that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas.  You said it was a fact.

I'm waiting for you to explain that comment.

A quick search indicates that the following credible agencies disagree 100% with your statement of "fact":

NASA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
EPA

All are full of reputable scientists.  Either you misspoke or they are wrong.  I'll believe you and the rest of what you post when I see the retractions on the individual agency websites.  Until then, your credibility is zero.

When you assert something to be FACT, it is customary to be able to back it up with reliable sources.

I happen to lean toward the anti-global warming side of the argument (even if some of my comments might indicate otherwise) but I would like to see more research.  False statements that are easily rebutted don't help the cause.

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Dude,
EPA a "credible agency" ??????????? Full of "reputable" scientists ???????

bigguy1's picture
bigguy1
Offline
Joined: 12/12/06

For anyone wanting an indepth analysis of the co2 discussion, this is must reading. Done by reputable scientists(although unlikely to be considered so by fish) and complete with all references.

http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf

bigguy1's picture
bigguy1
Offline
Joined: 12/12/06

Here is an analysis of the Climategate e-mails and their effect on science and the global warming debate. The analysis is performed by a physicist from Australia. Again, must reading.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf

bigguy1's picture
bigguy1
Offline
Joined: 12/12/06

Btw,
Some on this thread have accused global warming skeptical scientists of representing "Big Oil" and thus have no credibility. On my previous post I gave the link to the analysis of the Climategate e-mails. As you will discover by reading the e-mails and the analysis, Shell Oil is one of the funding sources and 'strategic partner' of the East Anglia Climate Center and the discredited global warming alarmists. So those of you pointing fingers about the purity of the scientists advocating your opinion need to read the actual e-mails from your heroes.

Farnorth's picture
Farnorth
Offline
Joined: 5/23/02

gst Said:
Dude,
EPA a "credible agency" ??????????? Full of "reputable" scientists ???????

I actually hesitated about that one.  Cross EPA off if you are so inclined.

Use NOAA then.  My point remains the same.

I haven't studied this subject anywhere near enough to get into a detailed debate and I don't intend to.  But, you can't state something is a "FACT" when NOTHING available supports that statement.  It becomes a credibility issue.

Suppose we want to debate NFL football and I post that "The Vikings have more Superbowl succes than the Packers.  Thats a FACT."  Pretty easy to figure out if I posted a fact or not.  After that, I wouldn't expect anybody to read anything else I post other than for entertainment purposes.  My credibility would be shot.

I said that I lean toward the same side of this issue you do.  I don't want people on "my side" of the debate doing the same things that the other side gets criticized about.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

From the link bigguy provided. interesting read!

It is at this "stitching together" layer of science—one could call it a "meta-discipline" —that the principles of the scientific method have broken down. Reading through the Climategate emails, one can see members of that community—usually those with slightly different experience and wisdom than the power-brokers—questioning (as they should) this "stitching together" process, particularly with regard to the extremely subtle mathematical methods that need to be used to try to extract answers. Now, these mathematical and statistical methods are completely within my own domain of expertise; and I can testify that the criticisms are sensible, carefully thought-out, and completely valid; these are good scientists, asking the right questions.

So what reception do they get? Instead of embracing this diversity of knowledge—thanking them for their experience (no-one knows everything about everything) and using that knowledge to improve their own calculations—these power-brokers of climate science instead ignore, fob off, ridicule, threaten, and ultimately black-ball those who dare to question the methods that they—the power-brokers, the leaders—have used. And do not be confused: I am here talking about those scientists within their own camps, not the "skeptics" which they dismiss out of hand.

This is not "climate science", it is climate ideology; it is the Church of Climatology.

It is this betrayal of the principles of science—in what is arguably the most important public application of science in our lifetime—that most distresses scientists.

It seems as if fish has a bit in common with the "powerbrokers" of  Global Warming.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

fishmahn Said:
 Simply repeating things over and over do not make them a fact .Your points that matter?The latest study I could find (2010) shows increased air (trophispheric) and ocean temps and levels. Decreased ...ice glaciers etc. and the ten hottest years globally have all occurred since 1998.

fish, you have been asked to show your "science" behind this claim regarding the last 10  years.
 You have not.

You have been asked to provide a source of legitimate science that can claim they can isolate a given snapshot of a 10 year period somewhere in the ions of  time in global climate history to compare to verify your claim.
You have not.

It seems as if you are simply repeating this over and over in the hopes someone will accept it as "fact" in how it supports your basis of global warming.

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Far, you confuse the issue, NOAA,NASA  as examples have lost a ton of credibility as a organization regarding GW. Modeling programs,data being incorrectly tallied etc with results always skewed to advance AGW. Endorsement of the IPCC reports with false claims and data used all in an attempt by its leaders to garner more Fed funding.

These agencies are like every other Fed agency where they have to find creative ways to spend the money they get to ensure they get that amount again or more. So do not confuse the two facts. Yes there are upstanding very good and qualified scientist that work for each of these organizations. However that does not remove the other, nor make everything thing they claim FACT!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

TUFFdog's picture
TUFFdog
Offline
Joined: 9/19/06

Farnorth,

Yes there is proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but that it does not have a significant impact on the warming of the climate. CO2 however is not a pollutant, which the EPA would lead others to believe and they are currently trying get it listed as a pollutant. I am not going to go and spend a bunch of time backing up the facts that I have stated. Go ahead and research it for yourself. I have researched both sides and the info on AGW is not complete nor proven. There is a list of scientists that have invented these AGW models that are now on the other side of the coin. Quite a few have stated that now that they are not receiving government funding they are obliged to state the truth.

Once a King, Always a King

But once a Knight is never enough

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Doesn't anyone here fish?  Is this an attempt at 5000 posts? *l*
 I  read the latest  posts and did go back and reread some of the others.  The thing that seems to be difficult to drive home is that the supreme majority of educated global scientists believe we are affecting our climate.  Those that don't are a miniscule minority.  Aside from that I'm well aware  there are many variables to be considered and all avenues should be covered regarding the seriousness of the situation and the possible outcome..  I really do not believe that somehow the major majority of  the worlds educated science climatologists  are in a deep, dark conspiracy.  I'll relate another simple example.   Doesn't it seem a little coincidental that the c02 levels have gone nearly vertical since the industrial revolution going back to a time around the birth of Christ?  I think that's something that should be investigated.  For those of you who don't I really think you just want to hit that 5000 post thing.
I've also looked at some of the resource material used here...If you are genuinely interested in finding something that doesn't smack of special interests . I'll just list a couple here I've seen used.  STOP using sources like human events.com. The authors are tied with the Competitive Enterprises Institute. Thy've b een paid over two million dollars by large oil companies.  Another one is Global warming.org which is really a site that centers manily onf  the evils of cap & trade, how the global warming peopl;e will destroy jobs and the the media is attemtping scare tactics all with very little data.  Bob Yeatman writes it's articles and he also works for CEI.  Another is of course Fox.    And Hardwaterman who ever said everything that's stated by a particular interest is fact?  There are always going to be a few bad apples and simple statistics dictate there will be some mistakes even among the best minds and institutions.  .  The important thing  is to look at the majority of the data and  facts and eventually react if the situation warrants it.  Neanderthal really didn't react and went by the wayside. 


fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

tuffrdog-I'd like to see those scientists names that were previously under grant and now feel it necessary to tell the truth you spoke of. I'ts probably no one I work with but it would be interesting if these names ring a bell.

Pages