Global Warming Poll

[InHouston]

Do you believe in Global Warming?

[White_Male_Canada]

Do you believe in Global Warming?

No fair, trick question.

Temps have increased, so yes it is warmer but since 1998 temps have not increased. The left wants everyone to believe man is responsible, which is untrue.

So if your question was, 'do you believe man-made CO2 is the main reason for global warming? ' then I`da voted no.

[LG]

It's not a question of believing or not believing in global warming, as if global warming is some kind of religion that one chooses to subscribe to or not.

The question is: Having looked at the evidence, having heard the different viewpoints, taking all the facts I am aware of as a keen reader and as a scientist into account, do I believe that humans activity is contributing or will contribute significantly to climate change?

My answer is yes.

Another question is: Have some political factions and has big business presented a case that tends to go against much of the body of scientific evidence, against the findings of research institutions and the scientists who spend most of their times dealing with both the facts and uncertainties of climatology?

Yes

Next: Have such political factions and some scientists tried to represent a case that on the surface seems scientific but, on inspection, is riddled with errors, for the sole purpose of promoting a conservative or big business agenda, and are the scientists presenting this evidence usually connected to interests within the industry?

Yes

Finally: Has a selection of rightwing windbags, like Rush Limbaugh and also like the poster right above me, repeated their mantra ad nauseum in the hope of deflecting the issue, serving their own interests or those of the political parties or corporations they support and confusing unsuspecting laymen by blinding them with false science?

Yes, yes and again, sadly, yes.

[White_Male_Canada]

I



Finally: Has a selection of rightwing windbags, like Rush Limbaugh and also like the poster right above me, repeated their mantra ad nauseum in the hope of deflecting the issue, serving their own interests or those of the political parties or corporations they support and confusing unsuspecting laymen by blinding them with false science?

Yes, yes and again, sadly, yes.

Here`s the problem you cannot escape.

CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere and only 3.6 per cent of greenhouse gases. Of that only 3.4 to 5% is man-made, hence only about 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gas in total.

That is not deflection, that is destruction.

How does 0.12% equal the majority of warming even though as proven, CO2 does not antedate temperature increases ?

[trish]

We've already answer all that crap ten times before in previous posts. We can't help it if you're a slow learner. Go back and re-read.

[LG]

Here`s the problem you cannot escape.

CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere and only 3.6 per cent of greenhouse gases. Of that only 3.4 to 5% is man-made, hence only about 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gas in total.

That is not deflection, that is destruction.

How does 0.12% equal the majority of warming even though as proven, CO2 does not antedate temperature increases ?

Firstly, what you take to be proven has not been proven- all that has been shown is that ice cores show a lag between temperature increases and CO2 rising, but this does not preclude the chance that increased CO2 caused further rises in temperatures- positive feedback, something that you have yet failed to grasp (and please don't go into the anecdotal evidence from stomatal data that your tried last time- that was pretty pathetic) . This is not really worth discussing again. You have consistently shown how you fail to understand the concept of sources and sinks of CO2 and of feedback mechanisms relating to CO2 and water vapour, for example, that further exacerbate the problem.

If you understood all these things you would not be repeating yourself once more like a broken record. But, alas, you do not and so we are forced to read your pointless posts again and again.

You have consistently chosen to throw about numbers you hardly understand, like the ones you tried to use once more, too often repeated by neocon Fox hacks, Rush Limbaugh and the likes of James Inhofe, the ultrastupid Bible-thumping senator who has compared environmentalists to Nazis.

You have failed to accept that, also, that most of the skeptics have their own interests at heart rather than those of either the planet, the economy or the voters, and you seem incapable of understanding how much of the "science" that disagrees with the consensus is coming from scientists with industry ties or is funded by big business.

What is more, you have consistently thrown the most unpleasant epithets at anyone who disagrees with you and seem to believe that you are the font of all knowledge and that I am an "anencephalic kook". What a nice person you must be...

Well you're not the font of all knowledge and (dare I say it) I don't even think you're very nice. Of course none of us knows everything, it's true. But the fact is that you have lost this debate several times over against posters with a far greater understanding of science than you. The material is all there, for those who want to search for it, although I suspect you will be rushing to edit most of your posts for the 7th time as you always do. Each time one of your positions is proven wrong, you immediately shift to a new one. It must be convenient for you to have no principles, right WMC?



Further reading:

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

ExxonMobil's IRS Report 2005
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/exxon-s-report-to-irs-2005

James Inhofe's campaign contributions
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allindus.asp?CID=N00005582
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00005582&cycle=2006

[White_Male_Canada]

Here`s the problem you cannot escape.

CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere and only 3.6 per cent of greenhouse gases. Of that only 3.4 to 5% is man-made, hence only about 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gas in total.

That is not deflection, that is destruction.

How does 0.12% equal the majority of warming even though as proven, CO2 does not antedate temperature increases ?


Firstly, what you take to be proven has not been proven- all that has been shown is that ice cores show a lag between temperature increases and CO2 rising, but this does not preclude the chance that increased CO2 caused further rises in temperatures- positive feedback, something that you have yet failed to grasp...

You and the politicized IPCC rely on runaway +feedback which has been refuted by the fact that temps have not increased since `98. And you`re CO2 fallacy is just that. Ths fac that there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb almost all of the IR in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands.Added CO2 would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption.Each time CO2 is doubled the increase in temperature will be less than previously simply because all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It`s been calculated that CO2 absorbance is 376 units per km for 380 ppm. Doubling CO2 at it`s absorbtion bandwidth would only cause an increase IR absorbtion of about 0.17%.

You`re agw religion is just that, and ues we`ve been thru it before and can go thru it all again. You`re belief is proven false.

[Rod la Rod]

Please "white male Canada" let us know your scientific credentials.

As a scientist I am interested in your analysis of atmospheric CO2 levels.

So far it seems like meaningless gibberish.

[svenson]

you could have asked if we beleve earth is round

[LG]

You`re agw religion is just that, and ues we`ve been thru it before and can go thru it all again. You`re belief is proven false.

Yes, we have been through it before and Trish and I whacked your ass back then, but I'm not in the mood to make you look stupid again because, unlike you, I have better things to do with my time. What's more, just for you, just 'cause I've had enough of your inanities, please see the image below (and English is supposed to be my second language, not yours) :

[White_Male_Canada]

You`re agw religion is just that, and ues we`ve been thru it before and can go thru it all again. You`re belief is proven false.

Yes, we have been through it before and Trish and I whacked your ass back then, but I'm not in the mood to make you look stupid again because, unlike you, I have better things to do with my time. What's more, just for you, just 'cause I've had enough of your inanities, please see the image below (and English is supposed to be my second language, not yours) :

Be glad to re-educate you anytime.

One, your runaway + feedback loop is nonsense because A. this is Earth, not Venus and B. Temps have not risen since 1998. So much for your runaway + feedback loop.

Two, man-made CO2 contributes only twelve one-hundreths of one percent of CO2 to the total gas. To argue man-made CO2 is the major and or sole cause of warming is ridiculous.

So, how does 0.12% create 100% of global warming knowing that your + feedbak loop theory is false since temps have not risen since 1998?

[trish]

when you repeat yourselve you force others to do the same.

[guyone]

Global warming is a ruse created by Margarate Thatcher to get more Nuclear power plants made in merry old England way back in the 1980's. The bolsheviks revisited this ploy to have some sort of a platform after they did absolutly nothing about global jihadist terrorism during the 90's. Sadly one bolshevik even went so far as to say that the war on terrorism was only a bumper sticker.

The earth's (Gaia in bolshevese) atmosphere is primarily made up of Oxygen (20%) & Nitrogen(78%) with a little Argon thrown in(coming in at a whopping 1%). Minor fluctuations in the remaining 1% of other gasses (including CO2) will not have that much of an effect on the atmosphere in general. The other little trick the bolsheviks play is the one where Carbon Monoxide (The major emission from vehicles) magically turn into Carbon Dioxide (emissions from humans & tiny fraction of combustion engine emission).

AND IF YOU FEEL THAT STRONGLY ABOUT POLLUTION STOP DRIVING AROUND AND USE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION LIKE ME!

[White_Male_Canada]

when you repeat yourselve you force others to do the same.

Thanks, those charts merely re-enforce what I`ve said. No temp increases since 1998. So much for the runaway + feedback loop theory. 8)

[trish]

CO is a hungry little molecule. It eats oxygen, which is why it's toxic to humans. Gee, I wonder what's it's called after it has had its fill?

By the way "jihad' is just something cowboys yell to get the doggies movin'.

[tsafficianado]

Guyone sez
AND IF YOU FEEL THAT STRONGLY ABOUT POLLUTION STOP DRIVING AROUND AND USE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION LIKE ME!

yes, i'm always impressed when i see some libtard driving around solo in a 4500lb SUV sporting bumper stickers in support of conservancy and the need to save the planet

[trish]

jihad, get along there tsaficianado...jihad, jihad.

[Rogers]

Let's keep things as simple as possible for those who don't understand science. If the Earth was cooling there would be a net increase in the thickness of glaciers around the World; if the Earth was neither cooling nor warming there would be no change in glaciers; and if the Earth was warming there would be a net thinning of glaciers. Have a look at the following two graphs and make up your own minds:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Glacier_Mass_Balance_Map_png
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Glacier_Mass_Balance_png

[guyone]

And fo those of us who do understand science global warming is simply the bolsheviks current propaganda jihad.

(Those maps you linked to are hosted on a known communist web site.)

[Rogers]

And fo those of us who do understand science global warming is simply the bolsheviks current propaganda jihad.

(Those maps you linked to are hosted on a known communist web site.)
Hey, kid, go and read the 22nd. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution before you go and make an even bigger ass of yourself, and see if you can vote for Commander Chimpy again. :lol:
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=22706

If you really think global warming is all a Bolshevik plot, guyone, then you're as big a kook as your buddy, White_Bitch_Candy. The only commie I ever met was a total babe, and she got what was coming to her. :wink:

Global warming is happening, and the Sun don't explain it:
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=22692

[tsafficianado]

it all becomes much clearer now......it's the old 'if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there etc. etc' routine.
the other thousand or so times the Earth's temperature spiked higher was different because this time there are lots of hysterical tree-huggers and liberal press monkeys to make a quasi-political issue of it and media whores like al gorp and leo dicaprice to make pr off of it.
trish, i usually give you credit for having a goodly quantity of brain cells, but do you really believe ten or thirty or even hundred-year charts are adequate to support contentions of an abnormal or aberrant change in the climate of a planet that is a few billion years old? really?

[guyone]

This is all about carbon credits some kind of evil bolshevik plot to bring down this great nation.

Hey Roger ol' pal...the 22nd amendment can be repealed because in the very words of the wiley bolsheviks:

"The US constitution is a living document which can be updated to fit the modern days needs."

And we need four more years of one of the greatest president

GEORGE W. BUSH

[trish]

trish, i usually give you credit for having a goodly quantity of brain cells, but do you really believe ten or thirty or even hundred-year charts are adequate to support contentions of an abnormal or aberrant change in the climate of a planet that is a few billion years old? really?


The possibility of planetary greenhouse warming predates and consequently predicts the data that’s been collected from numerous sources. Had the phenomenon been known first one might accuse the theory of being ad hoc…it isn’t. That warming is taking place nobody disputes. However, other mechanisms may be responsible. So for decades climatologists have been checking, measuring and eliminating other causes. Of course no warming would take place at all without the Sun. But all data and analysis demonstrates there is no variation in the solar flux that can quantitatively account for the warming we’ve experienced since the 1880’s. The additional warming may be due to greenhouse gasses emitted by volcanic action. This has been looked into. Volcanic emissions and solar activity together cannot by themselves quantitatively account for the current trends. How about water vapor in the atmosphere? Same story; the mathematics shows solar flux, volcanic activity and natural sources of water vapor do not account for the rise in global temperatures. How about the carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels? Won’t warm the Earth by itself, but add it to all the other mechanisms and we start to understand the mechanism behind climate change.

Now let me ask you a few questions. Layer after layer after layer of fossil fuel represents carbon that had been captured by living things and sequestered in the sediments of the Earth for ages and ages of unfathomable duration. Even the oil companies tell us we released nearly half that carbon. Think of releasing in a few hundred years all the carbon that took over half a billion years to store. In geologic terms that release is like an explosion. Do you really think there is no possible way that could have an effect on our climate? Do you really think the hypothesis is soooo silly it can be dismissed with a laugh?…in spite of all the evidence to the contrary?…in spite of the consensus of most climatologists on the planet?

Do you really think along with guyone it’s a communist plot? What would the commies have to gain? Do you think democrats are itching to regulate everything and will cook up international plots in order to do so? The IPCC scientists are not just babbling dialectic materialism. If you look into their reports you will find sophisticated mathematics and physical theory woven into a careful analysis of all the relevant mechanisms. Often the calculations and predictions are so complex they must be carried out on state of the art high speed parallel computers. I only mention this to counter the charge that climatologists look a few charts through political filters and announce their conclusions. Anyone who is truly interested can learn the math, learn the physics, understand the models and even inspect the code that implements the models.

[Rogers]

Hey Roger ol' pal...the 22nd amendment can be repealed because in the very words of the wiley bolsheviks:

"The US constitution is a living document which can be updated to fit the modern days needs."

And we need four more years of one of the greatest president

GEORGE W. BUSH
Nice try, guyone. I knew that, but you're not trying to tell me that thought was in your mind at the time, seriously? And even if there was a chance of it being repealed, I doubt they'd do it for Commander Chimpy who's only got a year and a half to go. You've more chance of the Constitution being changed to allow Schwarzenegger to become President in the future. That day may come! Nah, I reckon Gore and Obama in 2008, if Gore will run. :wink: But, again, nice try, guyone. :lol:

[Rogers]

Sir David Attenborough: The Truth About Climate Change
The legendary broadcaster and naturalist Sir David Attenborough was long unsure about the causes of the observed climate warming. In his documentary, The Truth About Climate Change, he sheds doubt and explains what convinced him.

Climate models based on purely natural processes such as solar activity and volcanic eruptions fail to explain the observed change in Earth's climate in the latter part of the 20th century. Models factoring in the human impact, that is, the increase of carbon dioxide in the athmosphere, depict the transpired warming accurately, however. (163 seconds)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0

Stars top 10 climate scientist, Professor Peter Cox:
http://www.esi-topics.com/gwarm2006/interviews/PeterCox.html

Hindcast modeling is very good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindcast

[guyone]

Roger teach me about our political system? I just want to repeat the bolshevik talking points. I don't want to think for myself I just want to accept anything the bolshevik leaders tell me. I want to sit on my ass all day not contributing to society just sucking the life out of it claiming that every little desire I may have is my basic human right.

[Quinn]

I just want to repeat . . . talking points. I don't want to think for myself I just want to accept anything . . . leaders tell me. I want to sit on my ass all day not contributing to society just sucking the life out of it. . . .

That's more appropriate. Just messing with you, Guyone.

-Quinn

[trish]

I just want to repeat the bolshevik talking points.

hey, why not? you already know all the reichwing talking points. in fact you're getting quite boring. you never seemed the sort who'd want to contribute to society anyway, just looking for ways to protect your own income. you never seemed like much of a thinker either, your posts are just black and white cartoonish caricatures of thought. you do realize that you're admitting bolsheviks think, that's how they come up with their "talking points". but if you want to be a robot and spout the communist line no one is stopping you. the thing is, you won't learn any bolshevik talking points here because no one here is pushing any...no one here is a bolshevik. you also realize that by dividing the world into two diametrically opposed pieces you sadly diminish your own options. you cut off routes to innovative solutions and you confine yourself to one line of thought like a prisoner in his own mind. you may have had some promise once. you may still have. but it's been sad to see you degenerate so over the months that i've known you. shake it off. wake up. broaden your mind. turn off rush limbaugh. think.

[trish]

For any laypersons who are serious about learning a bit more about climate change, for a few bucks you can grab the August issue of Scientific American off the newstand. The article by Colman, Haywood, Manning and Mote on The Physical Science behind Climate Change is an informative read.

[loki]

The real guestion is whether we have caused it or is it a natural occurrence. Nature and the earths climate is not in stasis.To quote a phrase "i have yet to see a fossilized SUV to account for the climate in the Dino era".

[guyone]

It's a well known fact that the democratic party hands out an SUV to every inner party member.

[qeuqheeg222]

so guyone when are you gonna sit in your garage with the door down and the engine running?just to see if that carbon is that bad?i dare ya..double dare ya....

[guyone]

Show me first.

[qeuqheeg222]

i dont deny the bad effects of carbon...but all y'all who dont seem to think its is so bad wont do the garage test...