Global Warming is over.

[Farbin Kaiber]

If you keep crying wolf, and there is never a real wolf for the folks in town to shoot, they stop listening to you scream about a wolf. Then one day, you REALLY see a wolf, nobody is gonna pay any attention.

[mrsleeve]

If you keep crying wolf, and there is never a real wolf for the folks in town to shoot, they stop listening to you scream about a wolf. Then one day, you REALLY see a wolf, nobody is gonna pay any attention.

I suppose they stopped telling that story to children in the last 20 years or something......

[herbivor]

here it is in a nutshell and why, at 58, i don't believe 90% of the AGW camp

its obvious man has some influence

its also obvious and a undeniable fact that pro AGW scientists have been caught lying, exaggerating, and hiding data to support their models. emails are deleted, freedom of information requests are not fulfilled. it is also a fact their models are not for public scrutiny. this alone ends the argument for me.

funding for AGW comes solely from gov't sources, it is a very big business, very large dollar amounts. it creates an incentive to lie, cheat and manipulate to continue the funding.

it is also undeniable fact that the pro-AGW argument is used for political aims, namely at the UN and federal governments around. political aims that have nothing to do with AGW.

it is also fact there is no proof. that imminently qualified experts in climate science refute the pro AGW crowd science. that there is no 97% consensus on anything.

etc

Again, as usual, everything you say is completely opposite of reality. Your brain should be preserved for science when you die.

[frankenbeemer]

^Way to not read my previous post. We can make up all kinds of fun ideas of reality with our imaginations.

Ah yes, the dust bowl, Grapes of Wrath and all, seems like only yesterday. Good point! Science at its best.

[Kershaw]

wow dude, do you know why farms have trees lining the fields?

[frankenbeemer]

Are you really going to try and argue real evidence with your interpretation of reason?

I can not parse this.

[gwb72tii]

Again, as usual, everything you say is completely opposite of reality. Your brain should be preserved for science when you die.

herb, that's funny, even for you. ha ha

btw
- did you get a pm/email from me?

[frankenbeemer]

wow dude, do you know why farms have trees lining the fields?

I think I do. But the "wow dude" has me concerned.

[mrsleeve]

wow dude, do you know why farms have trees lining the fields?

yup sure do

[z31maniac]

I don't.

I just drove past literally tens of thousands of acres of farms on my way back from Montana. I saw 5 trees in Nebraska. And 3 in Kansas. ;)

[Q5Quint]

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/30...l#xref-ref-4-1


I can't understand the push back on this issue~ why do you *not want to believe in human-caused global warming? It is obvious that we change the world- we are about to damn up the freaking amazon river- a billion cars and 1600GW of coal power plants worth of emissions.... damn aerosol cans were making a mess of things just 20 years ago. ACID FREAKING RAIN.

The last go round the sulfur cap and trade from powerplant emissions worked wonders. 'Oh it is a gubbment conspiracy to destroy the economy' they said. Luckily for that issue you can actually see/feel acid rain... and when it starts falling on your head and destroying your crop land then you will change your mind. When the dust starts blowing into your capital then you will change your mind. These are the same idiots that wait to put up a stoplight at an intersection until somebody dies, the reaction mindset instead of addressing future issues.

Think about the future. If we double the emissions and cars.... what do you think will happen? nothing? What if we triple the number? Still nothing?

'10 billion peoples worth of emissions will have no impact on the environment' is what you are saying and I know for a fact that you are smarter than that. You have to admit that at 'some point' our emissions WILL EFFECT the atmosphere.... just like they did with hfcfc's from aerosol cans and just like they did with sulfur emissions.

I cant seem to find a source that disproves 928 and more papers pointing out the obvious facts. We are trying to put up a stoplight before we get t-boned/acid rain/or make another giant hole in the ozone layer. Yes it will cost more but it is obviously in our best interest. No conspiracy theories here, just the facts.

“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”
― Thomas Paine

Environmental damage aside I think we should stop using as much oil and coal because it makes us dependent on other countries- not a big fan of nuclear either because it costs so damn much and requires big gubbment to manage. I would like to change things now but as limited resources get more and more scarce and the price keeps going up.... people will change anyway over time because it makes financial sense. Balanced budgets, no debt, self-sufficient, and working to make our community and our homes the best in the world. I do not want to buy a ford made in mexico, but I would buy a bmw made 150 miles away in South Kakalaki (well technically I hate the x3 and x5 and they don't make z4s there anymore, so maybe not).

[nando]

I kind of see polluting the environment as a deficit, like our government borrowing money. Eventually, we'll have to pay it back, + interest.

in the long run it's cheaper to deal with the problem than wait until it's too late. How expensive you do think it will be to deal with a 6 meter sea level rise..

[z31maniac]

How expensive you do think it will be to deal with a 6 meter sea level rise..

Bye Bye Houston!

Anyone got a map of how much closer that would put me to the ocean?

[gwb72tii]

Again, as usual, everything you say is completely opposite of reality. Your brain should be preserved for science when you die.

you don't like it when you're wrong do you? :p

i assume you agree with me that man has some influence

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/mas...nding-exposed/

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/put...n-perspective/

[nando]

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).

yeah, this guy is pretty credible... the guys with PHDs are obviously unqualified, but the talking head that has a book to sell you, well..