FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Bill Moyers - Ending the silence on climate change

Bill Moyers - Ending the silence on climate change

(52:46) Scientist Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, describes his efforts to galvanise communities over what’s arguably the greatest single threat facing humanity.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Scroticus Canis (1673 days ago)
Latest comment: The climate has always been changing ever since the earth got an atmosphere. AGW is the second biggest con trick pulled on humanity, only exceeded by the desert spawned religions of the middle east.
ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment
Latest comment: The climate has always been changing ever since the earth got an atmosphere. AGW is the second biggest con trick pulled on humanity, only exceeded by the desert spawned religions of the middle east.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Casey (1685 days ago)
Even if humans are responsible even if the threat is real I doubt anything can be done about it considering the amount of emissions china alone belches out let alone all the other developing countries. Then there are actually some people who want the gubmint to try and cool the planet up! Considering most scientists will tell you the climate is an incredibly complex system they don't know everything about, but are quite willing to say humans are to blame, and they want to try and change it!! The thought is more scary than climate change. So we are getting much cooler winters and they want to make them colder! It's about money and control, they're wasting our time and money.
ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment
Even if humans are responsible even if the threat is real I doubt anything can be done about it considering the amount of emissions china alone belches out let alone all the other developing countries. Then there are actually some people who want the gubmint to try and cool the planet up! Considering most scientists will tell you the climate is an incredibly complex system they don't know everything about, but are quite willing to say humans are to blame, and they want to try and change it!! The thought is more scary than climate change. So we are getting much cooler winters and they want to make them colder! It's about money and control, they're wasting our time and money.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Boontah (1685 days ago)
We might not be able to do something about it, yet, future generations might, so it is in our responsibility to do everything we can to slow down the process and develope adatations to the situation, that those generations coming have a chance to fix what we and our parents and grandparent did wrong
ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment
We might not be able to do something about it, yet, future generations might, so it is in our responsibility to do everything we can to slow down the process and develope adatations to the situation, that those generations coming have a chance to fix what we and our parents and grandparent did wrong
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1685 days ago)
Credibility alert. This guy keeps stating hurricane Sandy was the result of human-induced climate change but researchers at Colorado State University say it was not caused by human-induced climate change. LINK Regarding the droughts he spoke of, that has been occurring for thousands of years. Scientists say that the Sahara Desert was once a lush forest. Does that mean humans were the cause of the destruction of that forest or is it possible that the drought that caused the forest to become a desert had nothing to do with human CO2 production?
ReplyVote up (175)down (190)
Original comment
Credibility alert. This guy keeps stating hurricane Sandy was the result of human-induced climate change but researchers at Colorado State University say it was not caused by human-induced climate change. LINK Regarding the droughts he spoke of, that has been occurring for thousands of years. Scientists say that the Sahara Desert was once a lush forest. Does that mean humans were the cause of the destruction of that forest or is it possible that the drought that caused the forest to become a desert had nothing to do with human CO2 production?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1685 days ago)
Credibility alert? You nailed it! We pour 400 times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year than all the volcanoes put together and you want to play games in the sand. Fine - we can't attribute Sandy to human CO2 production. We can't attribute the death of an individual to lung cancer even if they smoke 100 a day because they might have died of it anyway. But if our vastly increased CO2 production did not produce weird weather that would be a real mystery - and wadyaknow we've raised the atmosphere's CO2 levels and we get more weird weather. So you are right - we can't say what part anthropogenic climate change had in Sandy. But it doesn't make the slighteest difference. Oh yes - and the Sahara was certainly wetter before the middle of the Holocene. The climate changes naturally. If I leave my car on a hill with the hand-brake off it will roll down. Does that mean that I won't go faster (and crash harder at the bottom) if I put it in gear and accelerate? Credibility alert. But not the one you mean
ReplyVote up (177)down (182)
Original comment
Credibility alert? You nailed it! We pour 400 times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year than all the volcanoes put together and you want to play games in the sand. Fine - we can't attribute Sandy to human CO2 production. We can't attribute the death of an individual to lung cancer even if they smoke 100 a day because they might have died of it anyway. But if our vastly increased CO2 production did not produce weird weather that would be a real mystery - and wadyaknow we've raised the atmosphere's CO2 levels and we get more weird weather. So you are right - we can't say what part anthropogenic climate change had in Sandy. But it doesn't make the slighteest difference. Oh yes - and the Sahara was certainly wetter before the middle of the Holocene. The climate changes naturally. If I leave my car on a hill with the hand-brake off it will roll down. Does that mean that I won't go faster (and crash harder at the bottom) if I put it in gear and accelerate? Credibility alert. But not the one you mean
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1685 days ago)
Like you mentioned, not all CO2 is human made. Hopefully you are aware that the Earth went through an ice age, right? Well, do you know what ended the ice age? Where did all that ice go and did humans cause it? Is it possible that the same reasons are what is still heating the Earth today? Could it be that since there is less ice, less sun gets reflected back into space? Could the melted ice have put more water vapor in the atmosphere accounting for the largest greenhouse gas. Did you know there was a lot of CO2 trapped in that melted ice? Water vapor accounts for 70% of the greenhouse effect but you and your media friends only talk about the CO2 and methane levels. Claiming that since CO2 levels have risen during the same time that temperatures have risen so that must be the main cause. Ice core samples show that the CO2 levels have always been between 180 parts per million (ppm) and 300 ppm during the last 800,000 years. Today it is at 380 ppm. So shouldn't the temperature today be more than it has ever been in the last 800,000 years if your theory is right? Well it isn't. Look at 400,000 years ago and 150,000 years ago and you can see it was warmer than it is today. LINK Please explain your theory.
ReplyVote up (260)down (194)
Original comment
Like you mentioned, not all CO2 is human made. Hopefully you are aware that the Earth went through an ice age, right? Well, do you know what ended the ice age? Where did all that ice go and did humans cause it? Is it possible that the same reasons are what is still heating the Earth today? Could it be that since there is less ice, less sun gets reflected back into space? Could the melted ice have put more water vapor in the atmosphere accounting for the largest greenhouse gas. Did you know there was a lot of CO2 trapped in that melted ice? Water vapor accounts for 70% of the greenhouse effect but you and your media friends only talk about the CO2 and methane levels. Claiming that since CO2 levels have risen during the same time that temperatures have risen so that must be the main cause. Ice core samples show that the CO2 levels have always been between 180 parts per million (ppm) and 300 ppm during the last 800,000 years. Today it is at 380 ppm. So shouldn't the temperature today be more than it has ever been in the last 800,000 years if your theory is right? Well it isn't. Look at 400,000 years ago and 150,000 years ago and you can see it was warmer than it is today. LINK Please explain your theory.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1685 days ago)
Is this an itch you are scratching? Since you appear to know enough to know that your argument is not actually serious what will you tell your children? "It all seemed like a game at the time and I was happy to confuse the issues because it seemed like fun - now it's getting really serious I'm sorry we didn't do enough to reduce the CO2 emissions earlier."? What I don't understand is your motives.
ReplyVote up (131)down (143)
Original comment
Is this an itch you are scratching? Since you appear to know enough to know that your argument is not actually serious what will you tell your children? "It all seemed like a game at the time and I was happy to confuse the issues because it seemed like fun - now it's getting really serious I'm sorry we didn't do enough to reduce the CO2 emissions earlier."? What I don't understand is your motives.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1685 days ago)
This is one of the topics I'm passionate about because the media is putting a lot of misinformation out there and I want to help the public understand how the media could be wrong and to have people start thinking about other possible causes. I could be wrong and I don't know but at least I'm not blindly following what the TV is telling me. Regarding my motives, I just want everyone to research things for themselves instead of assuming what they are told is correct. Question everything. If I didn't question everything, I would still be religious because I was born and raised religious but now I'm an atheist and have been for almost 30 years -- questioning works. Regarding children, I don't have any. I do not want to bring any children into this world. I was upset that my parents created me and I had no say-so in that decision. I will not do that to another person. Regarding reducing CO2 we could easily do that by growing more plants because they use it, keep the carbon, and release the oxygen. If we were to reduce it, do you know what global impacts that could have on the plant life on this planet? We live in harmony with them so you must be careful before you take away a product another life relies on.
ReplyVote up (138)down (133)
Original comment
This is one of the topics I'm passionate about because the media is putting a lot of misinformation out there and I want to help the public understand how the media could be wrong and to have people start thinking about other possible causes. I could be wrong and I don't know but at least I'm not blindly following what the TV is telling me. Regarding my motives, I just want everyone to research things for themselves instead of assuming what they are told is correct. Question everything. If I didn't question everything, I would still be religious because I was born and raised religious but now I'm an atheist and have been for almost 30 years -- questioning works. Regarding children, I don't have any. I do not want to bring any children into this world. I was upset that my parents created me and I had no say-so in that decision. I will not do that to another person. Regarding reducing CO2 we could easily do that by growing more plants because they use it, keep the carbon, and release the oxygen. If we were to reduce it, do you know what global impacts that could have on the plant life on this planet? We live in harmony with them so you must be careful before you take away a product another life relies on.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1685 days ago)
Your post makes no sense at all. Cengland0 makes valid points and asks you a valid question and you reply "you appear to know enough to know that your argument is not actually serious". What does that mean? How about trying to answer the question. What did cause global heating and cooling when humans were not around? What caused CO2 Levels to rise higher and lower than they are today prior to humans? Far better to answer an intelligent question than to evade it with silly accusations of game playing.
ReplyVote up (133)down (142)
Original comment
Your post makes no sense at all. Cengland0 makes valid points and asks you a valid question and you reply "you appear to know enough to know that your argument is not actually serious". What does that mean? How about trying to answer the question. What did cause global heating and cooling when humans were not around? What caused CO2 Levels to rise higher and lower than they are today prior to humans? Far better to answer an intelligent question than to evade it with silly accusations of game playing.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1685 days ago)
dananddiana: I apologise. I'm not trying to evade anything and if I thought his questions were meant seriously I would address them - but I don't think there is much point because he is, indeed, playing a game. It's hard to know how to reply to posts like these. Instead I wanted to address the underlying motives which lead people to post things intending to mislead. I'm sorry if you found my post unfair and I will be happy to address genuine questions genuinely asked - but I will continue to try to get at the underlying motives of those who wish to obscure the issues. Why would one do this given that it is likely to delay action to tackle a crisis which threatens our childrens future. Superficially he may be making valid points and asking valid questions but only superficially. The answers to these questions are well known, widely available and do not need to be reiterated. And my comment that "you appear to know enough to know that your argument is not actually serious" was meant seriously and I'm sorry if it seemed obscure - to translate: I would expect somebody who appears to know as much as he (about the entirely correct fact that water vapour is a major greenhouse gas, and its relevance, for example) to know that his arguments are not serious. Thus either he doesn't know this because he knows less than he pretends and is just passing on deceptions he has got from elsewhere, or he does know this and is being deliberately misleading. I am genuinely surprised that you need to ask "What did cause global heating and cooling when humans were not around? What caused CO2 Levels to rise higher and lower than they are today prior to humans?" because this really isn't a mystery. It is not perfectly understood either, and some parts of it are complex, but the key drivers are known from lots of robust evidence - much of it evidence you can get for yourself, not evidence you have to reply on somebody else for. If you would like me to detail this further I'll be happy to do so but I'm very busy at work at the moment.
ReplyVote up (135)down (116)
Original comment
dananddiana: I apologise. I'm not trying to evade anything and if I thought his questions were meant seriously I would address them - but I don't think there is much point because he is, indeed, playing a game. It's hard to know how to reply to posts like these. Instead I wanted to address the underlying motives which lead people to post things intending to mislead. I'm sorry if you found my post unfair and I will be happy to address genuine questions genuinely asked - but I will continue to try to get at the underlying motives of those who wish to obscure the issues. Why would one do this given that it is likely to delay action to tackle a crisis which threatens our childrens future. Superficially he may be making valid points and asking valid questions but only superficially. The answers to these questions are well known, widely available and do not need to be reiterated. And my comment that "you appear to know enough to know that your argument is not actually serious" was meant seriously and I'm sorry if it seemed obscure - to translate: I would expect somebody who appears to know as much as he (about the entirely correct fact that water vapour is a major greenhouse gas, and its relevance, for example) to know that his arguments are not serious. Thus either he doesn't know this because he knows less than he pretends and is just passing on deceptions he has got from elsewhere, or he does know this and is being deliberately misleading. I am genuinely surprised that you need to ask "What did cause global heating and cooling when humans were not around? What caused CO2 Levels to rise higher and lower than they are today prior to humans?" because this really isn't a mystery. It is not perfectly understood either, and some parts of it are complex, but the key drivers are known from lots of robust evidence - much of it evidence you can get for yourself, not evidence you have to reply on somebody else for. If you would like me to detail this further I'll be happy to do so but I'm very busy at work at the moment.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1685 days ago)
I think you are reading Cengland0 wrong. I just re read his post, I see no game, I see valid statements and valid questions. How on earth can you determine "Underlying motives" and/or "Intentions" By reading a post? Surely all you could possibly come up with would be your own opinion ans suspicions. That being the case....You cannot state categorically that he is "Playing games". Your read on his comments and mine are obviously very different. I read what he wrote and I react to what he wrote. You are reading what you think he means and what you think his intentions are. Therefore...You are responding to your own opinions and not Cengland0's
ReplyVote up (132)down (147)
Original comment
I think you are reading Cengland0 wrong. I just re read his post, I see no game, I see valid statements and valid questions. How on earth can you determine "Underlying motives" and/or "Intentions" By reading a post? Surely all you could possibly come up with would be your own opinion ans suspicions. That being the case....You cannot state categorically that he is "Playing games". Your read on his comments and mine are obviously very different. I read what he wrote and I react to what he wrote. You are reading what you think he means and what you think his intentions are. Therefore...You are responding to your own opinions and not Cengland0's
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1685 days ago)
I would like to agree with you - but why ask questions to which the answers are so well known? It's like asking why Barcelona are such a useless football team. Since the fact that they are one of the best in the world is just a few mouse-clicks away you would surely ask yourself why somebody would say such a thing? We might suggest it's because they are a Real Madrid fan. Thus trying to understand the motives behind posts is simply an extension of the interpretations we put on our everyday conversations. But I would like to be persuaded that you're right.
ReplyVote up (112)down (140)
Original comment
I would like to agree with you - but why ask questions to which the answers are so well known? It's like asking why Barcelona are such a useless football team. Since the fact that they are one of the best in the world is just a few mouse-clicks away you would surely ask yourself why somebody would say such a thing? We might suggest it's because they are a Real Madrid fan. Thus trying to understand the motives behind posts is simply an extension of the interpretations we put on our everyday conversations. But I would like to be persuaded that you're right.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1685 days ago)
I have to add something here. You said "Why ask questions to which the answers are so well known" I say to you... At one time we KNEW that the world was flat. At one time we KNEW that illness was caused by either/or/and, God/Miasma. At one time we knew that blood letting healed people. These and thousands of other examples are just WHY we need to ask questions who's answers are "Well known"
ReplyVote up (128)down (131)
Original comment
I have to add something here. You said "Why ask questions to which the answers are so well known" I say to you... At one time we KNEW that the world was flat. At one time we KNEW that illness was caused by either/or/and, God/Miasma. At one time we knew that blood letting healed people. These and thousands of other examples are just WHY we need to ask questions who's answers are "Well known"
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1685 days ago)
We "knew" the Earth was flat because our means of "knowing" were very limited. I agree we must ask questions - and it's because we ask questions that we are confident that our basic picture of the relationship between climate, greenhouse gasses and other factors (orbital changes, solar cycles ...) is correct. The whole system of what we now know about the world rewards those who can show that the picture is wrong - whereas in the past it rewarded those who agreed with even the most questionable "facts". If you can show that our picture of the climate system is wrong there is a Nobel prize waiting for you. And much of what we know is "well known" because we can perform the experiments and gather the evidence ourselves, and exmine the evidence of others closely.
ReplyVote up (109)down (129)
Original comment
We "knew" the Earth was flat because our means of "knowing" were very limited. I agree we must ask questions - and it's because we ask questions that we are confident that our basic picture of the relationship between climate, greenhouse gasses and other factors (orbital changes, solar cycles ...) is correct. The whole system of what we now know about the world rewards those who can show that the picture is wrong - whereas in the past it rewarded those who agreed with even the most questionable "facts". If you can show that our picture of the climate system is wrong there is a Nobel prize waiting for you. And much of what we know is "well known" because we can perform the experiments and gather the evidence ourselves, and exmine the evidence of others closely.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1685 days ago)
And now we only know as much as we know...we do not know what we do not know! The dispute is not provable facts of the climate system, the dispute is the very disputable cause of the current climate. My facts, (And let me tell you I came by them by many many research hours) made me come to the conclusion that there is no possible way that humans are causing any kind of global warming. Your facts...And because I don't know you or where you get your facts, I cannot comment on them. Lead you to believe that humans are causing it. I need no Nobel prize to disagree with you because the "Facts" are very much disputable. There are so many contradictory "Facts", There are so many blatant lies, there are scientists right at the head of the Man made global warming parade that are proven to have lied through their teeth. How much of what they said is supposed to be "Truth" and or "Fact"? Questions are always valid...There is NO stupid question just Stupid answers. I don't remember who first said that but I wholeheartedly agree with them.
ReplyVote up (125)down (118)
Original comment
And now we only know as much as we know...we do not know what we do not know! The dispute is not provable facts of the climate system, the dispute is the very disputable cause of the current climate. My facts, (And let me tell you I came by them by many many research hours) made me come to the conclusion that there is no possible way that humans are causing any kind of global warming. Your facts...And because I don't know you or where you get your facts, I cannot comment on them. Lead you to believe that humans are causing it. I need no Nobel prize to disagree with you because the "Facts" are very much disputable. There are so many contradictory "Facts", There are so many blatant lies, there are scientists right at the head of the Man made global warming parade that are proven to have lied through their teeth. How much of what they said is supposed to be "Truth" and or "Fact"? Questions are always valid...There is NO stupid question just Stupid answers. I don't remember who first said that but I wholeheartedly agree with them.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1685 days ago)
I'm sure that we agree tthere are no "my facts" or "your facts" just facts - and the evidence from which we deduce them, including the evidence derived from the tests we perform on our hypotheses based on our initial evidence. I'm sorry that I really don't have time to add more details but I would be grateful if you could answer the one question I've asked several times on various posts here: Given what we know about the mix of gasses in the atmosphere and the absorbtion of infra-red radiation by each can you explain, with numbers please, your assertion that "there is no possible way that humans are causing any kind of global warming"
ReplyVote up (124)down (151)
Original comment
I'm sure that we agree tthere are no "my facts" or "your facts" just facts - and the evidence from which we deduce them, including the evidence derived from the tests we perform on our hypotheses based on our initial evidence. I'm sorry that I really don't have time to add more details but I would be grateful if you could answer the one question I've asked several times on various posts here: Given what we know about the mix of gasses in the atmosphere and the absorbtion of infra-red radiation by each can you explain, with numbers please, your assertion that "there is no possible way that humans are causing any kind of global warming"
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1685 days ago)
I'll let dananddiana answer this too but wanted to give you my view. First, I'm not saying that it's impossible that humans are causing some of the increase we are seeing. What I am saying is that humans are not the only cause and historically the planet has gone through these events many times so it's questionable to assume humans are suddenly the cause of this one when we are positive we were not to blame for the previous ones because we weren't here then. When you look at the hockey stick graph most alarmists use, they scare the public into thinking the temperature is unusually high but they hand picked a small portion of the earth's history to mask what really happened before the industrial revolution so that makes me question their motives.
ReplyVote up (112)down (134)
Original comment
I'll let dananddiana answer this too but wanted to give you my view. First, I'm not saying that it's impossible that humans are causing some of the increase we are seeing. What I am saying is that humans are not the only cause and historically the planet has gone through these events many times so it's questionable to assume humans are suddenly the cause of this one when we are positive we were not to blame for the previous ones because we weren't here then. When you look at the hockey stick graph most alarmists use, they scare the public into thinking the temperature is unusually high but they hand picked a small portion of the earth's history to mask what really happened before the industrial revolution so that makes me question their motives.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1685 days ago)
I like your football analogy so let's go with it. If someone asked you who the best football team was, what would you do? Defining what the word "best" means is a good start. Is that just the team that has the most wins? Or, is it the team that has the largest viewership so they earn the most. Is it the team that has the fewest injuries per season? Once you define the parameters of what you're looking for, then you can gather historical information to look for a clear winner. In this case, it would be easy because the information is not as complex as something like our weather system. If you just thew out something saying that Madrid was the best team (and if I cared), I would challenge you to back that up with why you think that is true. Is it because they won more this year and you're ignoring all previous years or is it because you just like the team for some other non statistical reason? I'd make you explain it to me.
ReplyVote up (118)down (154)
Original comment
I like your football analogy so let's go with it. If someone asked you who the best football team was, what would you do? Defining what the word "best" means is a good start. Is that just the team that has the most wins? Or, is it the team that has the largest viewership so they earn the most. Is it the team that has the fewest injuries per season? Once you define the parameters of what you're looking for, then you can gather historical information to look for a clear winner. In this case, it would be easy because the information is not as complex as something like our weather system. If you just thew out something saying that Madrid was the best team (and if I cared), I would challenge you to back that up with why you think that is true. Is it because they won more this year and you're ignoring all previous years or is it because you just like the team for some other non statistical reason? I'd make you explain it to me.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1685 days ago)
@cengland0 - Why does any of this matter? The question is now: What do we about a dangerously warming planet? Wake up, the conversation has moved on.
ReplyVote up (170)down (206)
Original comment
@cengland0 - Why does any of this matter? The question is now: What do we about a dangerously warming planet? Wake up, the conversation has moved on.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1685 days ago)
Honestly.... Stop polluting the planet. Just because that is a good thing for everyone and everything. But what can we do about global warming (Climate change). NOTHING. It is a natural phenomenon that we did NOT cause and will NOT be able to do anything about. It will run it's natural course and hopefully we will still be around at the end of it. CO2 Rises AFTER the temperature rises and drops AFTER the temperature drops....The time frame is aprox 10 years between them. Cold first....then CO2 drop....Heat first then C02 rise. The data is very clear except when an environmentalist exteamist (Al Gore is one example) takes that information and overlays it as ONE time frame. Then it looks like the temp is driven by the C02 levels instead of the other way around. Earths climate is driven by the sun, always has been and always will be. And your "Feed back loop" Theory is illogical. If that were the case...It would have happened in the past...Why did it not happen the last time the planet went through a heating phase or a freezing one? And "Wind farms" You have got to be kidding me. They will never ever suffice. They are nothing but expensive inadequate projects that will eventually be dumped after costing the public billions.
ReplyVote up (187)down (190)
Original comment
Honestly.... Stop polluting the planet. Just because that is a good thing for everyone and everything. But what can we do about global warming (Climate change). NOTHING. It is a natural phenomenon that we did NOT cause and will NOT be able to do anything about. It will run it's natural course and hopefully we will still be around at the end of it. CO2 Rises AFTER the temperature rises and drops AFTER the temperature drops....The time frame is aprox 10 years between them. Cold first....then CO2 drop....Heat first then C02 rise. The data is very clear except when an environmentalist exteamist (Al Gore is one example) takes that information and overlays it as ONE time frame. Then it looks like the temp is driven by the C02 levels instead of the other way around. Earths climate is driven by the sun, always has been and always will be. And your "Feed back loop" Theory is illogical. If that were the case...It would have happened in the past...Why did it not happen the last time the planet went through a heating phase or a freezing one? And "Wind farms" You have got to be kidding me. They will never ever suffice. They are nothing but expensive inadequate projects that will eventually be dumped after costing the public billions.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1685 days ago)
Thank you very much for your recent replies. Sometimes I feel like it's me alone against the rest of the world in this discussion so I'm glad to have some support.
ReplyVote up (140)down (129)
Original comment
Thank you very much for your recent replies. Sometimes I feel like it's me alone against the rest of the world in this discussion so I'm glad to have some support.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1685 days ago)
You are Wekum :-) I have days when I just cannot be bothered to post anything. So many opinions and statements that either make no sense or are not backed by anything other than uninformed opinion. Other days....Like today, I get so angry at nonsensical and rude posts that I have to say something :-) It would really be nice if most people would actually learn about the climate, how it works, what drives it etc for themselves instead of just repeating what they have heard or read. The amount of times that people contradict themselves without even realizing is amazing. This "Climate loop" theory is unbelievable, common sense tells you that if this were the case, it would have happened before and we would not be here to tell about it. Still people will go on believing that it will happen. I just don't understand peoples logic anymore.
ReplyVote up (120)down (133)
Original comment
You are Wekum :-) I have days when I just cannot be bothered to post anything. So many opinions and statements that either make no sense or are not backed by anything other than uninformed opinion. Other days....Like today, I get so angry at nonsensical and rude posts that I have to say something :-) It would really be nice if most people would actually learn about the climate, how it works, what drives it etc for themselves instead of just repeating what they have heard or read. The amount of times that people contradict themselves without even realizing is amazing. This "Climate loop" theory is unbelievable, common sense tells you that if this were the case, it would have happened before and we would not be here to tell about it. Still people will go on believing that it will happen. I just don't understand peoples logic anymore.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1685 days ago)
Actually the timing of the temperature and CO2 rise isn't clear cut. We would expect it to go both ways - a rise in CO2 will drive a rise in temperature/energy by trapping more heat in the atmosphere and transferrring it to the oceans. Thus the temperature rise will lag the CO2 rise where CO2 is the driver - which is what we are seeing at the moment. But we would also expect that a rise in temperature caused by a wobble in the Earth's axis will cause a release of CO2 through plant and soil organic matter decay - and thus the CO2 rise will come second, which is more-or-less what we see in the past. As for our ability to alter the climate, we know that the Earth is a lot warmer than space because our atmosphere contains greenhouse gasses. Thus we would expect that a significant rise in those gasses due to human activity will raise the Earths temperature. The Earth is about 280 degrees centigarde warmer than space so it's reasonable that a rise from 300 to 380 ppm CO2 in the air will cause a rise of a few degrees. Since the difference between deep ice-age temperatures and our tempertaures today is also only a few degree (a 2 degree fall will return glaciers to Scotland, if I remember correctly) it's clear that we can, indeed, alter the climate in ways which will have serious implications for our civilisation - not because we can't adapt but because it is happenning fast.
ReplyVote up (174)down (187)
Original comment
Actually the timing of the temperature and CO2 rise isn't clear cut. We would expect it to go both ways - a rise in CO2 will drive a rise in temperature/energy by trapping more heat in the atmosphere and transferrring it to the oceans. Thus the temperature rise will lag the CO2 rise where CO2 is the driver - which is what we are seeing at the moment. But we would also expect that a rise in temperature caused by a wobble in the Earth's axis will cause a release of CO2 through plant and soil organic matter decay - and thus the CO2 rise will come second, which is more-or-less what we see in the past. As for our ability to alter the climate, we know that the Earth is a lot warmer than space because our atmosphere contains greenhouse gasses. Thus we would expect that a significant rise in those gasses due to human activity will raise the Earths temperature. The Earth is about 280 degrees centigarde warmer than space so it's reasonable that a rise from 300 to 380 ppm CO2 in the air will cause a rise of a few degrees. Since the difference between deep ice-age temperatures and our tempertaures today is also only a few degree (a 2 degree fall will return glaciers to Scotland, if I remember correctly) it's clear that we can, indeed, alter the climate in ways which will have serious implications for our civilisation - not because we can't adapt but because it is happenning fast.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1685 days ago)
I think you are out of touch with what Nasa has to say about the temperatures in space. Our atmosphere actually protects us from the sun more than you're realizing. According to Nasa LINK , the international space station would be 120 degrees C (250 degrees F) on the sun facing side and -157C (-250F) on the dark side. They deploy specially designed thermal control systems to keep the astronauts comfortable. The magnetism of the earth also helps keep solar radiation from hitting the earth. The temperature outside right now in direct sunlight is 78F so the earth at my house is currently 172F cooler than it would be if I were not protected by the atmosphere and magnetism of the earth.
ReplyVote up (187)down (190)
Original comment
I think you are out of touch with what Nasa has to say about the temperatures in space. Our atmosphere actually protects us from the sun more than you're realizing. According to Nasa LINK , the international space station would be 120 degrees C (250 degrees F) on the sun facing side and -157C (-250F) on the dark side. They deploy specially designed thermal control systems to keep the astronauts comfortable. The magnetism of the earth also helps keep solar radiation from hitting the earth. The temperature outside right now in direct sunlight is 78F so the earth at my house is currently 172F cooler than it would be if I were not protected by the atmosphere and magnetism of the earth.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1685 days ago)
bryn, wtf are you wittering on about, btw Dr Anthony Leiserowitz isn't a proper scientist, so anyting he says is completely out of the back of his arse, google him, ba(90) international relations (I MEAN WTF)
ReplyVote up (157)down (175)
Original comment
bryn, wtf are you wittering on about, btw Dr Anthony Leiserowitz isn't a proper scientist, so anyting he says is completely out of the back of his arse, google him, ba(90) international relations (I MEAN WTF)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1685 days ago)
Very helpful. Do you disagree with my description of the relationship between global temperatures and greenhouse gasses? If so can you explain? I am not apealing to anybody's authority, I'm describing a system. If you have an alternative description which explains the evidence please give it to us.
ReplyVote up (167)down (178)
Original comment
Very helpful. Do you disagree with my description of the relationship between global temperatures and greenhouse gasses? If so can you explain? I am not apealing to anybody's authority, I'm describing a system. If you have an alternative description which explains the evidence please give it to us.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1685 days ago)
that big yellow thing in the sky. have you noticed it. could be a factor ? . We havent been getting warmer for at least 15 years, despite the co2 concentration rising. CONJECTURE DISPROVED ( it's called the scientific method ). the only people that still believe in it are the watermelons fanatics and sociologists/pr like the twit in the video (and you obviously) who dont follow the scientific method.Every else is starting to consider other ignored factors. that is how science works. belief counts for bugger all.
ReplyVote up (199)down (181)
Original comment
that big yellow thing in the sky. have you noticed it. could be a factor ? . We havent been getting warmer for at least 15 years, despite the co2 concentration rising. CONJECTURE DISPROVED ( it's called the scientific method ). the only people that still believe in it are the watermelons fanatics and sociologists/pr like the twit in the video (and you obviously) who dont follow the scientific method.Every else is starting to consider other ignored factors. that is how science works. belief counts for bugger all.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1685 days ago)
I agree with your statements but your choice of language is not very helpful unless your intent is to anger and/or insult.
ReplyVote up (124)down (140)
Original comment
I agree with your statements but your choice of language is not very helpful unless your intent is to anger and/or insult.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1685 days ago)
Thank you Dana: I disagree with your statements but I agree with this sentiment.
ReplyVote up (150)down (126)
Original comment
Thank you Dana: I disagree with your statements but I agree with this sentiment.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1685 days ago)
I agree that belief isn't important - except belief in evidence and understanding. Despite your assertion the Earth has, most certainly, been getting warmer for the last 15 years. Where did you get the idea this isn't so? I'm happy to be persuaded - but you have to provide evidence - and a description of what's going on is often helpful too. It's called the scientific method.
ReplyVote up (162)down (266)
Original comment
I agree that belief isn't important - except belief in evidence and understanding. Despite your assertion the Earth has, most certainly, been getting warmer for the last 15 years. Where did you get the idea this isn't so? I'm happy to be persuaded - but you have to provide evidence - and a description of what's going on is often helpful too. It's called the scientific method.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1685 days ago)
cancell
ReplyVote up (168)down (180)
Original comment
cancell
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1685 days ago)
To create a link, just type in url including the LINK part and it will automatically create a "link" for you. If it contains strange characters in the URL such as an ampersand or plus sign, you may need to convert it to a tinyurl and post that instead. Go to tinyurl.com for more information on how to do that.
ReplyVote up (175)down (163)
Original comment
To create a link, just type in url including the LINK part and it will automatically create a "link" for you. If it contains strange characters in the URL such as an ampersand or plus sign, you may need to convert it to a tinyurl and post that instead. Go to tinyurl.com for more information on how to do that.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1685 days ago)
Thanks, Seems that the link has suddenly appeared anyway.... I need to get my children to give me computer lessons. My 13 year old knows more than I do and I have been using comps for 15 years :-(
ReplyVote up (159)down (156)
Original comment
Thanks, Seems that the link has suddenly appeared anyway.... I need to get my children to give me computer lessons. My 13 year old knows more than I do and I have been using comps for 15 years :-(
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1685 days ago)
Your link does appear but it doesn't work. You get an error "404 Error File Not Found". I typed h t t p without spaces and it created a link. So I meant that you need to include the h t t p portion (without spaces) and your link will appear. I suspect it had special characters and that's why it's not working on boreme. You might need to repost it with the tinyurl version of the link.
ReplyVote up (184)down (166)
Original comment
Your link does appear but it doesn't work. You get an error "404 Error File Not Found". I typed h t t p without spaces and it created a link. So I meant that you need to include the h t t p portion (without spaces) and your link will appear. I suspect it had special characters and that's why it's not working on boreme. You might need to repost it with the tinyurl version of the link.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1685 days ago)
Does this work? LINK
ReplyVote up (185)down (147)
Original comment
Does this work? LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1684 days ago)
ReplyVote up (161)down (151)
Original comment
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1684 days ago)
The information on this link about sea ice is short term ...also states that the low ice level is only 5th lowest. If multi year ice melt was caused by global warming we should be seeing the lowest ice level now surely? Are you agreeing with my viewpoint or trying to give me contradictory information? The link seems to confirm my stance. There are long term maps that show the Multi year ice levels lower than recent maps, Therefore we already know that the ice can regain lost mass. I don't have time right now to check out everything on the link....But you have to bear in mind...IPCC is the contributor of most of this info. Some NASA scientists are starting to stand up and go public with the false information being fed to the public by the IPCC. The leaked emails a while back showed us just how much we can believe anything that IPCC says. That is why I always say...Investigate for yourself, do not make judgements based on only one or a few sources before making your own judgement.
ReplyVote up (166)down (174)
Original comment
The information on this link about sea ice is short term ...also states that the low ice level is only 5th lowest. If multi year ice melt was caused by global warming we should be seeing the lowest ice level now surely? Are you agreeing with my viewpoint or trying to give me contradictory information? The link seems to confirm my stance. There are long term maps that show the Multi year ice levels lower than recent maps, Therefore we already know that the ice can regain lost mass. I don't have time right now to check out everything on the link....But you have to bear in mind...IPCC is the contributor of most of this info. Some NASA scientists are starting to stand up and go public with the false information being fed to the public by the IPCC. The leaked emails a while back showed us just how much we can believe anything that IPCC says. That is why I always say...Investigate for yourself, do not make judgements based on only one or a few sources before making your own judgement.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1684 days ago)
LINK and LINK and LINK . Government approved information. SO... you and cengland are saying that the NASA and the governments of the world are lying to the entire world or... they're down right stupid (which i doubt). Why would they lie?
ReplyVote up (145)down (148)
Original comment
LINK and LINK and LINK . Government approved information. SO... you and cengland are saying that the NASA and the governments of the world are lying to the entire world or... they're down right stupid (which i doubt). Why would they lie?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1684 days ago)
1.. I did NOT say anyone was "stupid" and 2..I did NOT say "the governments of the worlds are "Lying to the entire world". YOU said these things. Please do NOT attribute your interpretation to what I HAVE said as MY statement! What I said was ... IPCC scientists have lied repeatedly to everyone. They are also the major contributor to NASA and other government panels on the subject of climate change. When your information comes from a source known to fabricate information, everything you put out on the subject becomes questionable. IPCC is the "Major" source for many governments information on climate change. Personally I look for legitimate information ..Data,,Charts...history etc that has come from other sources than IPCC.
ReplyVote up (228)down (171)
Original comment
1.. I did NOT say anyone was "stupid" and 2..I did NOT say "the governments of the worlds are "Lying to the entire world". YOU said these things. Please do NOT attribute your interpretation to what I HAVE said as MY statement! What I said was ... IPCC scientists have lied repeatedly to everyone. They are also the major contributor to NASA and other government panels on the subject of climate change. When your information comes from a source known to fabricate information, everything you put out on the subject becomes questionable. IPCC is the "Major" source for many governments information on climate change. Personally I look for legitimate information ..Data,,Charts...history etc that has come from other sources than IPCC.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1684 days ago)
here's something easy to understand. Watch the video's on this guy's channel. he's not from the IPCC... or is he?? LINK
ReplyVote up (162)down (164)
Original comment
here's something easy to understand. Watch the video's on this guy's channel. he's not from the IPCC... or is he?? LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1684 days ago)
ok, so there's this IPCC that tells lies to scientists all across the globe including NASA. These scientists don't bother fact checking they just run with whatever this IPCC tells them. Now, these other non IPCC scientists either do this because they're in on the SCAM or because they're stupid scientists. Maybe there's a third option I don't know. Just because you didn't say it it doesn't mean you didn't imply it. Since i doubt that these other non IPCC scientsits are Stupid, they're probably in on the GIANT IPCC LIE or... maybe there's the third option which i can't think of. Now you tell me: are these NASA scientists stupid, are they willingly Lying (and why) or is there a third option?? don't get angry, just pick one and explain yourself, if you don't mind.
ReplyVote up (152)down (167)
Original comment
ok, so there's this IPCC that tells lies to scientists all across the globe including NASA. These scientists don't bother fact checking they just run with whatever this IPCC tells them. Now, these other non IPCC scientists either do this because they're in on the SCAM or because they're stupid scientists. Maybe there's a third option I don't know. Just because you didn't say it it doesn't mean you didn't imply it. Since i doubt that these other non IPCC scientsits are Stupid, they're probably in on the GIANT IPCC LIE or... maybe there's the third option which i can't think of. Now you tell me: are these NASA scientists stupid, are they willingly Lying (and why) or is there a third option?? don't get angry, just pick one and explain yourself, if you don't mind.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1684 days ago)
You really don't get out much do you. LOL There is so much information out there about IPCC and their lies etc. I honestly am not going to get into a debate about it, It would take far too long. You can either check for yourself, or just plain don't believe me. That is your prerogative. You can very easily examine long term data, maps, global climate etc. Then compare them to short term information given by IPCC. It will become glaringly obvious that the IPCC charts and information are not giving us anywhere near the full truth. I would suggest that you watch "The great global warming swindle" and "Not Evil, just wrong" as a start. From there you will have many other sources to check. One being the link I posted yesterday. One suggestion..... When reading something that someone posted... Don't try and read any "Implications" into the post. When I write something to people who will not be able to see me or my mannerisms etc I write literally. I would not "Imply" I would State. You are not the first person who has decided to try and "Read" something in my post that I didn't say, Probably wont be the last. It is quite frustrating when people do that.
ReplyVote up (247)down (171)
Original comment
You really don't get out much do you. LOL There is so much information out there about IPCC and their lies etc. I honestly am not going to get into a debate about it, It would take far too long. You can either check for yourself, or just plain don't believe me. That is your prerogative. You can very easily examine long term data, maps, global climate etc. Then compare them to short term information given by IPCC. It will become glaringly obvious that the IPCC charts and information are not giving us anywhere near the full truth. I would suggest that you watch "The great global warming swindle" and "Not Evil, just wrong" as a start. From there you will have many other sources to check. One being the link I posted yesterday. One suggestion..... When reading something that someone posted... Don't try and read any "Implications" into the post. When I write something to people who will not be able to see me or my mannerisms etc I write literally. I would not "Imply" I would State. You are not the first person who has decided to try and "Read" something in my post that I didn't say, Probably wont be the last. It is quite frustrating when people do that.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1684 days ago)
all that you state (whether you like to acknowledge it or not) is that the IPCC is Lying to every other scientist out there, and that all these other scientists are too dumb to know any better OR they're in on it. a Global conspiracy put in place by the lizard people... who run the world (i am aware of the exaggeration, but this is how you come off). I have a friend that is into Reiki and she tells me to "look into it" too. Should i look into Reiki Diana? watch this guy's channel and this video LINK
ReplyVote up (170)down (159)
Original comment
all that you state (whether you like to acknowledge it or not) is that the IPCC is Lying to every other scientist out there, and that all these other scientists are too dumb to know any better OR they're in on it. a Global conspiracy put in place by the lizard people... who run the world (i am aware of the exaggeration, but this is how you come off). I have a friend that is into Reiki and she tells me to "look into it" too. Should i look into Reiki Diana? watch this guy's channel and this video LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1684 days ago)
I tried...I was polite. ...I give up! You go ahead and think and believe anything you want to. I don't care. I would rather spend my time having intelligent discussions with people who can actually read and respond to what is written without adding their own imaginative slant on to what I say. Have a great day!
ReplyVote up (150)down (140)
Original comment
I tried...I was polite. ...I give up! You go ahead and think and believe anything you want to. I don't care. I would rather spend my time having intelligent discussions with people who can actually read and respond to what is written without adding their own imaginative slant on to what I say. Have a great day!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1684 days ago)
i'm pretty sure that you knew from the beginning that you will never convince me that there is no climate change as i knew from the beginning that i will never convince you that there is climate change. It's one of those Faith things; i happen to think i'm right and you think you're right as well. From the point of view of someone who doesn't care about this topic we would come off as a Christian Arguing with a Muslim about who's holy book is the right one; the problem is that we both think that we're the Atheist on this matter. It's funny how Wars start this way... Anyway, a great day to you too.
ReplyVote up (144)down (159)
Original comment
i'm pretty sure that you knew from the beginning that you will never convince me that there is no climate change as i knew from the beginning that i will never convince you that there is climate change. It's one of those Faith things; i happen to think i'm right and you think you're right as well. From the point of view of someone who doesn't care about this topic we would come off as a Christian Arguing with a Muslim about who's holy book is the right one; the problem is that we both think that we're the Atheist on this matter. It's funny how Wars start this way... Anyway, a great day to you too.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1684 days ago)
dont worry guest123456789 is just being a watermelon. they are not renowned for questioning the party line.
ReplyVote up (147)down (171)
Original comment
dont worry guest123456789 is just being a watermelon. they are not renowned for questioning the party line.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1684 days ago)
I have to laugh at his faith analogy. I happen to be an Atheist. Also, His opinion that "wars start this way". I always thought that discussions on subjects with varying opinions helped to diffuse arguments and expand knowledge not start wars etc....Or is that just me? LOL
ReplyVote up (163)down (169)
Original comment
I have to laugh at his faith analogy. I happen to be an Atheist. Also, His opinion that "wars start this way". I always thought that discussions on subjects with varying opinions helped to diffuse arguments and expand knowledge not start wars etc....Or is that just me? LOL
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1684 days ago)
they do, but only if people reach a compromise or agree to disagree and carry on. If both sides insist on their ideology you get war. And Mad isn't helping you at all. He also thinks that the lizard people run the world :) i'll have to insist on this LINK and on this LINK . Cheers!
ReplyVote up (185)down (152)
Original comment
they do, but only if people reach a compromise or agree to disagree and carry on. If both sides insist on their ideology you get war. And Mad isn't helping you at all. He also thinks that the lizard people run the world :) i'll have to insist on this LINK and on this LINK . Cheers!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1684 days ago)
I'm also an athiest, (and an believer in darwin, but i dont shove it down peoples' throats). He is a watermelon, he has bought the whole belief system, to him they are one and the same. He probably hasn't worked out that a person who believes in one aspect of his belief system doesn't necessarily have to believe in the rest.
ReplyVote up (145)down (149)
Original comment
I'm also an athiest, (and an believer in darwin, but i dont shove it down peoples' throats). He is a watermelon, he has bought the whole belief system, to him they are one and the same. He probably hasn't worked out that a person who believes in one aspect of his belief system doesn't necessarily have to believe in the rest.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1684 days ago)
You hit the nail on the head with that one. You can believe in the same thing as another person without believing everything that same person does. You can also come to the same belief from very different perspectives and resources. It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who KNOWS what you "MEAN", and "INFER" better than YOU do. Notice how he said that he knows what I had stated whether I acknowledged it or not. Never mind that the "Statement" was his "Interpretation" of what I actually said. I had a boyfriend who was like that once....I Left the idiot to argue with himself :-)
ReplyVote up (131)down (142)
Original comment
You hit the nail on the head with that one. You can believe in the same thing as another person without believing everything that same person does. You can also come to the same belief from very different perspectives and resources. It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who KNOWS what you "MEAN", and "INFER" better than YOU do. Notice how he said that he knows what I had stated whether I acknowledged it or not. Never mind that the "Statement" was his "Interpretation" of what I actually said. I had a boyfriend who was like that once....I Left the idiot to argue with himself :-)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1684 days ago)
It also means that anyone who disagrees with him automatically gets labelled with other derogatory appellations (right wing, christian science, intelligent design, big oil funded, global conspiracy believer etc etc), all the better for bolstering his ego
ReplyVote up (263)down (151)
Original comment
It also means that anyone who disagrees with him automatically gets labelled with other derogatory appellations (right wing, christian science, intelligent design, big oil funded, global conspiracy believer etc etc), all the better for bolstering his ego
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1683 days ago)
Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree LINK List of worldwide scientific organizations The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action. LINK . It's ALL THERE!! this is not a choice, it's the scientific consensus!! Your argument seems to be that 97 percent of all the scientists in the WORLD are stupid or they are willing lying to the population in order to... NOTHING!! IT doesn't make any sense!! i told Diana the following ""Now you tell me: are these NASA scientists stupid, are they willingly Lying (and why) or is there a third option??""" none of you addressed the question. You just like being the 3% that don't agree, makes you feel special AND you are, but not in the good way :)
ReplyVote up (204)down (122)
Original comment
Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree LINK List of worldwide scientific organizations The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action. LINK . It's ALL THERE!! this is not a choice, it's the scientific consensus!! Your argument seems to be that 97 percent of all the scientists in the WORLD are stupid or they are willing lying to the population in order to... NOTHING!! IT doesn't make any sense!! i told Diana the following ""Now you tell me: are these NASA scientists stupid, are they willingly Lying (and why) or is there a third option??""" none of you addressed the question. You just like being the 3% that don't agree, makes you feel special AND you are, but not in the good way :)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1683 days ago)
Oh dear, not that 75 of 77 again. You must be walterego posting under a pseudonym agai. There can't be two people in the world who still believe the 97% consensus crap.
ReplyVote up (121)down (142)
Original comment
Oh dear, not that 75 of 77 again. You must be walterego posting under a pseudonym agai. There can't be two people in the world who still believe the 97% consensus crap.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1683 days ago)
Mad, are we going back to the flat earth "theory" is that it?? or is it the lizard people who run the world?? maybe it's the banking cartels who want to tax the poor little oil and coal industry with a carbon cap and trade tax even though THERE IS NO MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE?? you keep on thinking that the most of the scientific community on planet earth is retarded or has some sort of hidden evil agenda, as for the rest of us idiots, we'll keep on thinking that the climate change deniers LINK belong in the same group with the holocaust deniers, and the lizard people promoters. Coo coo for cocopufs. Keep on fighting for your flat earth theory, the round earth theory is a lie from the IPCC and everyone is in on it because of the lizard people tells them to! you can't surely believe that there's a consensus on the Round earth theory, do you?? you're MAD if you do. here's a link to educate yourself LINK
ReplyVote up (138)down (120)
Original comment
Mad, are we going back to the flat earth "theory" is that it?? or is it the lizard people who run the world?? maybe it's the banking cartels who want to tax the poor little oil and coal industry with a carbon cap and trade tax even though THERE IS NO MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE?? you keep on thinking that the most of the scientific community on planet earth is retarded or has some sort of hidden evil agenda, as for the rest of us idiots, we'll keep on thinking that the climate change deniers LINK belong in the same group with the holocaust deniers, and the lizard people promoters. Coo coo for cocopufs. Keep on fighting for your flat earth theory, the round earth theory is a lie from the IPCC and everyone is in on it because of the lizard people tells them to! you can't surely believe that there's a consensus on the Round earth theory, do you?? you're MAD if you do. here's a link to educate yourself LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1683 days ago)
yes (unfortunately) i know what you think, didn't you read the post above btw have read trenbarths and hansens original papers so dont really need to click
ReplyVote up (117)down (196)
Original comment
yes (unfortunately) i know what you think, didn't you read the post above btw have read trenbarths and hansens original papers so dont really need to click
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1682 days ago)
you know diddly squat. click it LINK
ReplyVote up (193)down (127)
Original comment
you know diddly squat. click it LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: 4 X 4 (1682 days ago)
guest 123456789 You have a real problem. mad and dananddiana are right about you, stop being abusive, seek help.
ReplyVote up (211)down (127)
Original comment
guest 123456789 You have a real problem. mad and dananddiana are right about you, stop being abusive, seek help.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1679 days ago)
abusive is calling you a "stupid c u n t" for no good reason. learn the difference between a heated debate and being abusive.
ReplyVote up (134)down (118)
Original comment
abusive is calling you a "stupid c u n t" for no good reason. learn the difference between a heated debate and being abusive.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1683 days ago)
WOW!! LINK the IPCC is either doing a really good job or the coal and oil
ReplyVote up (124)down (127)
Original comment
WOW!! LINK the IPCC is either doing a really good job or the coal and oil
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1683 days ago)
....and gas industry are really doing a really poor job at proving that there is no man made climate change. (some sort of IT glitch there)
ReplyVote up (157)down (120)
Original comment
....and gas industry are really doing a really poor job at proving that there is no man made climate change. (some sort of IT glitch there)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1683 days ago)
I really don't want to talk to you any more but you just hit a hot button of mine. That survey is flawed. It should say that 97% of client scientists that had journals reviewed by others with the same views all agree on the same views. If you read the details of who was cherry picked for that survey, it only includes those scientists that already agreed with global warming. I have, on several other occasions, provided links to 700 scientists (more than the number in that survey) that submitted their names and credentials to a senate committee explaining why they are experts and that they do not agree. LINK Nobody has ever been able to give me a list of the scientists in your survey along with their credentials. That is all. Have a wonderful life.
ReplyVote up (134)down (184)
Original comment
I really don't want to talk to you any more but you just hit a hot button of mine. That survey is flawed. It should say that 97% of client scientists that had journals reviewed by others with the same views all agree on the same views. If you read the details of who was cherry picked for that survey, it only includes those scientists that already agreed with global warming. I have, on several other occasions, provided links to 700 scientists (more than the number in that survey) that submitted their names and credentials to a senate committee explaining why they are experts and that they do not agree. LINK Nobody has ever been able to give me a list of the scientists in your survey along with their credentials. That is all. Have a wonderful life.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1683 days ago)
if you're honestly interested in climate change, here's an easy tutorial LINK
ReplyVote up (135)down (122)
Original comment
if you're honestly interested in climate change, here's an easy tutorial LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1683 days ago)
now i see... thanks for the document: """a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.”""" now i know what it's all about.... there are some people out there that don't want cap and trade. it only makes sense to have this debate. As far as i'm concerned, this debate is a political debate and not a scientific one. 650 scientists out of 1 000 000 agree with you and MAD and Diana. Thanks for the wishes but You'll see more of me from now on.
ReplyVote up (138)down (125)
Original comment
now i see... thanks for the document: """a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.”""" now i know what it's all about.... there are some people out there that don't want cap and trade. it only makes sense to have this debate. As far as i'm concerned, this debate is a political debate and not a scientific one. 650 scientists out of 1 000 000 agree with you and MAD and Diana. Thanks for the wishes but You'll see more of me from now on.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1683 days ago)
You lost this argument before. You need to understand the difference between a list and a survey.
ReplyVote up (125)down (211)
Original comment
You lost this argument before. You need to understand the difference between a list and a survey.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1683 days ago)
I disagree that I lost the argument. I just gave up because you were being stubborn and we were both involved in an infinite loop discussion and it was futile to try to convince you.
ReplyVote up (178)down (128)
Original comment
I disagree that I lost the argument. I just gave up because you were being stubborn and we were both involved in an infinite loop discussion and it was futile to try to convince you.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1683 days ago)
Of course you disagree, it would be weird if you didn't.
ReplyVote up (120)down (136)
Original comment
Of course you disagree, it would be weird if you didn't.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1683 days ago)
everybody on this site is an atheist including me. you 2 just also happen to be dicks. Keep on believing that the IPCC is lying to all the scientists out there and they just go along with it, because they're in on the scam or because they're stupid. What a stupid thing to believe...And you 2 should look into what logical deduction means, because what i've just said is the only logical deduction that can be made out of what you 2 are saying.
ReplyVote up (132)down (123)
Original comment
everybody on this site is an atheist including me. you 2 just also happen to be dicks. Keep on believing that the IPCC is lying to all the scientists out there and they just go along with it, because they're in on the scam or because they're stupid. What a stupid thing to believe...And you 2 should look into what logical deduction means, because what i've just said is the only logical deduction that can be made out of what you 2 are saying.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1684 days ago)
...and it's frustrating when people imply things instead of stating them, so that they can deny it later when they're called out on it, with the simple sentence "i did not Say that, stop putting words into my mouth". you should consider a career in politics.
ReplyVote up (117)down (112)
Original comment
...and it's frustrating when people imply things instead of stating them, so that they can deny it later when they're called out on it, with the simple sentence "i did not Say that, stop putting words into my mouth". you should consider a career in politics.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1684 days ago)
and this is you and cengland: LINK
ReplyVote up (136)down (166)
Original comment
and this is you and cengland: LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1684 days ago)
Yes and it works great. Thanks.
ReplyVote up (111)down (102)
Original comment
Yes and it works great. Thanks.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1685 days ago)
Just one place that will give Un-doctored info...but anyone can find many many more. One place that should not be looked at for Un-doctored info is any place that uses IPCC info or charts that have been published for general consumptio. Cannot post anymore today gotta go :-)..... LINK Evidence that Man-Made Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Does Not Cause Global Warming.htm.... SHOOT. I dunno how to add a link, It diddn't let me add the HTML....Guess I am not very comp savvy :-(...Anyone want to help me?
ReplyVote up (122)down (141)
Original comment
Just one place that will give Un-doctored info...but anyone can find many many more. One place that should not be looked at for Un-doctored info is any place that uses IPCC info or charts that have been published for general consumptio. Cannot post anymore today gotta go :-)..... LINK Evidence that Man-Made Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Does Not Cause Global Warming.htm.... SHOOT. I dunno how to add a link, It diddn't let me add the HTML....Guess I am not very comp savvy :-(...Anyone want to help me?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1685 days ago)
Sorry...Should have said....Charts that have been published by IPCC for general consumption And NOW, the link shows up on my previous post??? LOL
ReplyVote up (125)down (216)
Original comment
Sorry...Should have said....Charts that have been published by IPCC for general consumption And NOW, the link shows up on my previous post??? LOL
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1685 days ago)
Why does everyone ignore the fact that the C02 has been higher in the past before the industrial age? Humans do NOT contribute enough C02 to change the planets climate. Mother nature has added more C02 in the past than we ever have. This is a reality that no one on the "Climate change/Global warming" bandwagon has ever been able to answer effectively....Because they cannot! And I do not know where your information about the correlation between C02 and temperature comes from but my information is not ambiguous, It is very clear cut. Another fact that is regularly ignored is the fact that our planets heating and cooling cycles are readily connected to the active and inactive cycles of the sun. This has always been true and will always be true. That fact is just swept under the proverbial carpet so that Climate change/global warming believers can blame our miniscule C02 input as the culprit.
ReplyVote up (98)down (199)
Original comment
Why does everyone ignore the fact that the C02 has been higher in the past before the industrial age? Humans do NOT contribute enough C02 to change the planets climate. Mother nature has added more C02 in the past than we ever have. This is a reality that no one on the "Climate change/Global warming" bandwagon has ever been able to answer effectively....Because they cannot! And I do not know where your information about the correlation between C02 and temperature comes from but my information is not ambiguous, It is very clear cut. Another fact that is regularly ignored is the fact that our planets heating and cooling cycles are readily connected to the active and inactive cycles of the sun. This has always been true and will always be true. That fact is just swept under the proverbial carpet so that Climate change/global warming believers can blame our miniscule C02 input as the culprit.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1685 days ago)
My argument is that a rise from 300 to 380 ppm CO2 can reasonably explain the trapping of a significant amount of extra energy in the earths atmosphere, given that the first 300 ppm trap enough to keep us warm, in part through the positive feedback of water-vapour. Your reply seems to be "no it doesn't" but I wonder if you could explain why? What's your argument? Why would a rise from 300 to 380 ppm Not change the climate?
ReplyVote up (101)down (141)
Original comment
My argument is that a rise from 300 to 380 ppm CO2 can reasonably explain the trapping of a significant amount of extra energy in the earths atmosphere, given that the first 300 ppm trap enough to keep us warm, in part through the positive feedback of water-vapour. Your reply seems to be "no it doesn't" but I wonder if you could explain why? What's your argument? Why would a rise from 300 to 380 ppm Not change the climate?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1685 days ago)
I did not say that there is no rise in C02! I did not say that the climate is not changing! What I DID say, is that the miniscule amount of C02 that HUMANS add to the atmosphere is NOT causing it. I also asked what caused the significantly higher rise in C02 pre industrial revolution?
ReplyVote up (109)down (121)
Original comment
I did not say that there is no rise in C02! I did not say that the climate is not changing! What I DID say, is that the miniscule amount of C02 that HUMANS add to the atmosphere is NOT causing it. I also asked what caused the significantly higher rise in C02 pre industrial revolution?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1685 days ago)
Because CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas when determine the temperature of the earth. I know water vapor accounts for over 70% but CO2 is only 9 - 26%, Methane is 4-9%, and ozone is 3-7%. I don't know the percentage of contribution for Nitrous Oxide. Anyway, you can see that CO2 is small in comparison to the addition of the others so why would you only be concerned about CO2? Perhaps we should create huge dehumidifiers to suck all the water vapor out of the atmosphere. These could be solar powered and that would cool the planet. Oh wait a second, how would our plants survive without that water. Hmm.. Yes, let's scrub the atmosphere so it doesn't contain CO2. Darn, that's right, plants need that too. So you want to play god now and magically change levels of particular molecules in our air but make sure you don't impact anything else. Think that's possible? What if you got the formula wrong and we went to another ice age. What would be worse, that ice age or the warming? Think about that for a second.
ReplyVote up (121)down (144)
Original comment
Because CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas when determine the temperature of the earth. I know water vapor accounts for over 70% but CO2 is only 9 - 26%, Methane is 4-9%, and ozone is 3-7%. I don't know the percentage of contribution for Nitrous Oxide. Anyway, you can see that CO2 is small in comparison to the addition of the others so why would you only be concerned about CO2? Perhaps we should create huge dehumidifiers to suck all the water vapor out of the atmosphere. These could be solar powered and that would cool the planet. Oh wait a second, how would our plants survive without that water. Hmm.. Yes, let's scrub the atmosphere so it doesn't contain CO2. Darn, that's right, plants need that too. So you want to play god now and magically change levels of particular molecules in our air but make sure you don't impact anything else. Think that's possible? What if you got the formula wrong and we went to another ice age. What would be worse, that ice age or the warming? Think about that for a second.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1685 days ago)
We must adapt because this will not be the last warming cycle. After this, expect the planet to cool and then warm again. We must adapt to the natural cycles of the Earth or we will not survive. Trying to stop an entire planet's ecosystem from taking it's natural course is beyond our technology so the lifeforms must adapt. Some species may not survive and some will continue. Let's hope that our species is one that will go on.
ReplyVote up (96)down (114)
Original comment
We must adapt because this will not be the last warming cycle. After this, expect the planet to cool and then warm again. We must adapt to the natural cycles of the Earth or we will not survive. Trying to stop an entire planet's ecosystem from taking it's natural course is beyond our technology so the lifeforms must adapt. Some species may not survive and some will continue. Let's hope that our species is one that will go on.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1685 days ago)
The planet will not cool any time soon, because once those pesky feedback loops kick in, we are pretty much doomed. You know about those feedback loops - reflective ice melting as you mentioned, CO2 released from the permafrost as it melts causing further warming, methane released from the oceans as they warm up making the Earth's blanket even thicker, etc. But human beings are incredibly resourceful. Look at the huge scale of the Alberta Tar Sands project. Just imagine if instead there were huge solar farms of similar scale in Texas and Nevada. We come back to the same problem - what is preventing us doing anything is corporatism - the culture of very powerful people putting personal wealth before anything else.
ReplyVote up (100)down (103)
Original comment
The planet will not cool any time soon, because once those pesky feedback loops kick in, we are pretty much doomed. You know about those feedback loops - reflective ice melting as you mentioned, CO2 released from the permafrost as it melts causing further warming, methane released from the oceans as they warm up making the Earth's blanket even thicker, etc. But human beings are incredibly resourceful. Look at the huge scale of the Alberta Tar Sands project. Just imagine if instead there were huge solar farms of similar scale in Texas and Nevada. We come back to the same problem - what is preventing us doing anything is corporatism - the culture of very powerful people putting personal wealth before anything else.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1685 days ago)
If you added huge solar farms in Alberta, that would not reduce the CO2 from our atmosphere and will not reduce our temperatures. If you took a moment to look at the chart I put a link to, you would notice that the historic temperatures do decrease after but it's not during a typical human generation. It takes thousands of years to go back down to the approx -8 degree temperature that seems to be the floor for the whole 800,000 year period. You must be prepared to endure the extra temperatures for thousands of years to come.
ReplyVote up (107)down (123)
Original comment
If you added huge solar farms in Alberta, that would not reduce the CO2 from our atmosphere and will not reduce our temperatures. If you took a moment to look at the chart I put a link to, you would notice that the historic temperatures do decrease after but it's not during a typical human generation. It takes thousands of years to go back down to the approx -8 degree temperature that seems to be the floor for the whole 800,000 year period. You must be prepared to endure the extra temperatures for thousands of years to come.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1685 days ago)
It's not about adding solar farms so much as replacing fossil fuels with clean fuels. Running the planet on 100% clean, cheap and abundant energy will give us a fighting chance. We know how to stabilise the climate, we even have the resources, we certainly have the creativity, but we simply don't have the politics. Maybe you can suggest a way to get corporations to give-a-f*ck and wield their huge power for the benefit of mankind?
ReplyVote up (101)down (108)
Original comment
It's not about adding solar farms so much as replacing fossil fuels with clean fuels. Running the planet on 100% clean, cheap and abundant energy will give us a fighting chance. We know how to stabilise the climate, we even have the resources, we certainly have the creativity, but we simply don't have the politics. Maybe you can suggest a way to get corporations to give-a-f*ck and wield their huge power for the benefit of mankind?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1685 days ago)
Glad you are so confidant that humans can change the climate..... We certainly need ways to run cleaner energy but you are fooling yourself if you think it will have any impact on our climate.
ReplyVote up (103)down (131)
Original comment
Glad you are so confidant that humans can change the climate..... We certainly need ways to run cleaner energy but you are fooling yourself if you think it will have any impact on our climate.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1685 days ago)
I'm not at all confident, in fact I think it is almost impossible. If within a decade or two, we could run the planet on 100% clean and cheap energy, then we could use as much energy as we need to solve our two biggest problems - the warming planet and population growth. Greening deserts will begin to reduce greenhouse gases (the thickness of the blanket around our planet) and raising the living standards of the developing world will reduce the birth rate (below 2 children per woman will eventually result in a decreasing population). It is a huge task that needs global cooperation on a scale we haven't seen before. It is theoretically possible, but in a world run by corporations, I can't see it happening.
ReplyVote up (109)down (118)
Original comment
I'm not at all confident, in fact I think it is almost impossible. If within a decade or two, we could run the planet on 100% clean and cheap energy, then we could use as much energy as we need to solve our two biggest problems - the warming planet and population growth. Greening deserts will begin to reduce greenhouse gases (the thickness of the blanket around our planet) and raising the living standards of the developing world will reduce the birth rate (below 2 children per woman will eventually result in a decreasing population). It is a huge task that needs global cooperation on a scale we haven't seen before. It is theoretically possible, but in a world run by corporations, I can't see it happening.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1685 days ago)
Apples and Oranges..... We can do as much as we are able to reduce the population and reduce pollution. The "Clean energy" that is now being introduced is anything but "Cheap". and non of this will do anything to reduce global warming because...It didn't cause it in the first place. Do you realize the actual percentage of C02 that humans have added to the atmosphere? Do you realize how insignificant it is? If you did, you would also know that it has nothing to do with the global increase and removing ALL the C02 that humans have added would do NOTHING to decrease global warming. We should just concentrate our time and efforts on changing the things we can and helping to un-pollute our planet without having delusions about changing anything to do with the climate.
ReplyVote up (90)down (118)
Original comment
Apples and Oranges..... We can do as much as we are able to reduce the population and reduce pollution. The "Clean energy" that is now being introduced is anything but "Cheap". and non of this will do anything to reduce global warming because...It didn't cause it in the first place. Do you realize the actual percentage of C02 that humans have added to the atmosphere? Do you realize how insignificant it is? If you did, you would also know that it has nothing to do with the global increase and removing ALL the C02 that humans have added would do NOTHING to decrease global warming. We should just concentrate our time and efforts on changing the things we can and helping to un-pollute our planet without having delusions about changing anything to do with the climate.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1685 days ago)
I'm not a climate expert, but this is how I understand it. CO2 is about 0.04% of the air, of which about 40% is from burning of fossil fuels. Total greenhouse gases is about 4%. These numbers seem small but the other gases (mainly nitrogen and oxygen) do not trap heat, and are therefore irrelevant in this conversation. The overall balance of greenhouse gases over the past 10,000 years has remained relatively stable - animals and volcanos spewing out greenhouse gases, plants and oceans absorbing greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are essential because they are like a blanket that keeps us warm in very cold space, making life on Earth possible. Burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests is tipping that balance. When something is balanced, like a seesaw, you don't need to add much to one side to start it tipping. Unfortunately for us, a small rise in average global temperatures 2, 4, 6 degrees C will have catastrophic effects. Where in this description am I wrong?
ReplyVote up (119)down (177)
Original comment
I'm not a climate expert, but this is how I understand it. CO2 is about 0.04% of the air, of which about 40% is from burning of fossil fuels. Total greenhouse gases is about 4%. These numbers seem small but the other gases (mainly nitrogen and oxygen) do not trap heat, and are therefore irrelevant in this conversation. The overall balance of greenhouse gases over the past 10,000 years has remained relatively stable - animals and volcanos spewing out greenhouse gases, plants and oceans absorbing greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are essential because they are like a blanket that keeps us warm in very cold space, making life on Earth possible. Burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests is tipping that balance. When something is balanced, like a seesaw, you don't need to add much to one side to start it tipping. Unfortunately for us, a small rise in average global temperatures 2, 4, 6 degrees C will have catastrophic effects. Where in this description am I wrong?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1685 days ago)
This is the key question: Dana and Cengland0 - can you explain, with numbers, why the picture which I and Walter have given of the role and proportional effect of greenhouse gasses is wrong? Dana - to address your post immediately above, can you gives us numbers on the amount of additional energy which the known rise in CO2 concentrations and the related water-vapour feedback will cause? If your contention is that it is insignificant can you actually give us an insignificant number and describe how it is worked out? If you can't can you explain why you are so confident? Is it just that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is so small (which it is)?
ReplyVote up (118)down (112)
Original comment
This is the key question: Dana and Cengland0 - can you explain, with numbers, why the picture which I and Walter have given of the role and proportional effect of greenhouse gasses is wrong? Dana - to address your post immediately above, can you gives us numbers on the amount of additional energy which the known rise in CO2 concentrations and the related water-vapour feedback will cause? If your contention is that it is insignificant can you actually give us an insignificant number and describe how it is worked out? If you can't can you explain why you are so confident? Is it just that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is so small (which it is)?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1685 days ago)
Greenhouse gases do cause temperature increases and I doubt anyone is denying that. What we want you to understand is that if humans never existed, the earth would still have these natural temperature increases and history proves this. Why should the temperature suddenly stabilize now that it's colonized by humans instead of it continuing to change like it has in the past 800,000 years we have a record for.
ReplyVote up (121)down (108)
Original comment
Greenhouse gases do cause temperature increases and I doubt anyone is denying that. What we want you to understand is that if humans never existed, the earth would still have these natural temperature increases and history proves this. Why should the temperature suddenly stabilize now that it's colonized by humans instead of it continuing to change like it has in the past 800,000 years we have a record for.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1685 days ago)
Dana is arguing that any temperature rise caused by man is insignificant. that sounds like a denial to me. I agree, of course, that the Earth has had natural climate changes and it is still having them. Now, in return, can you explain to me why changing one of the factors which controls our climate, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, will Not change the climate? And if you wish to argue that the change produced by a shift from 300 to 380 ppm will not be significant can you back this up with a calculation which shows why? My (very basic) calculation is that we are kept in the 0-30 centigrade range most of the time by the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere which traps enough heat to cause water to evaporate from the oceans and create a positive feedback to raise the temperature from the -270 degrees of space to the current range. Increase the amount of CO2 to 380 ppm and the temperature will also rise a small amount in proportion to the 270-300 degrees which CO2 and water vapour (and a few other minor gasses) currently maintains. You argue elsewhere that the space station is very hot on one side and cold on the other as though this expölains why the world is warm. But the fact that the Earth is not cold on one side and hot on the other actually shows how the blanket of gasses keeps the temperature regulated (and, as you rightly say, protects us from radiation we don't want).
ReplyVote up (111)down (89)
Original comment
Dana is arguing that any temperature rise caused by man is insignificant. that sounds like a denial to me. I agree, of course, that the Earth has had natural climate changes and it is still having them. Now, in return, can you explain to me why changing one of the factors which controls our climate, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, will Not change the climate? And if you wish to argue that the change produced by a shift from 300 to 380 ppm will not be significant can you back this up with a calculation which shows why? My (very basic) calculation is that we are kept in the 0-30 centigrade range most of the time by the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere which traps enough heat to cause water to evaporate from the oceans and create a positive feedback to raise the temperature from the -270 degrees of space to the current range. Increase the amount of CO2 to 380 ppm and the temperature will also rise a small amount in proportion to the 270-300 degrees which CO2 and water vapour (and a few other minor gasses) currently maintains. You argue elsewhere that the space station is very hot on one side and cold on the other as though this expölains why the world is warm. But the fact that the Earth is not cold on one side and hot on the other actually shows how the blanket of gasses keeps the temperature regulated (and, as you rightly say, protects us from radiation we don't want).
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1685 days ago)
Please.... It is Diana, not Dana, And.... Stop trying to read into what I am saying. If I was denying something I would state that. What it "Sounds" like, is your individual interpretation on what I said instead of a LITERAL interpretation. When I am face to face with someone, they can see if I am serious, jovial or being animistic. When writing something down all visual clues are lost so we must be as literal as we can be or state that we are not being literal. There is nothing to interpret as "sounds like" or "Implies" etc. This is what you did with Cengland) earlier, you are assuming things that are not there.
ReplyVote up (109)down (99)
Original comment
Please.... It is Diana, not Dana, And.... Stop trying to read into what I am saying. If I was denying something I would state that. What it "Sounds" like, is your individual interpretation on what I said instead of a LITERAL interpretation. When I am face to face with someone, they can see if I am serious, jovial or being animistic. When writing something down all visual clues are lost so we must be as literal as we can be or state that we are not being literal. There is nothing to interpret as "sounds like" or "Implies" etc. This is what you did with Cengland) earlier, you are assuming things that are not there.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1685 days ago)
Apologies for mistaking your name Diana. But I don't understand your case. You've repeatedly said that the actions of man are too small to have had an effect on the climate. Given that there are numbers for this, based on well-established science which yoiu can repeat yourself I'd be grateful if you could give us some figures to support your case. I've started with a very simple, order-of magnitude calculation and I'd like to see how you can invalidate it.
ReplyVote up (102)down (99)
Original comment
Apologies for mistaking your name Diana. But I don't understand your case. You've repeatedly said that the actions of man are too small to have had an effect on the climate. Given that there are numbers for this, based on well-established science which yoiu can repeat yourself I'd be grateful if you could give us some figures to support your case. I've started with a very simple, order-of magnitude calculation and I'd like to see how you can invalidate it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1685 days ago)
BTW... I really appreciate your manners and polite argument. It is a change from the usual belligerency posted by people who disagree with a subject
ReplyVote up (88)down (104)
Original comment
BTW... I really appreciate your manners and polite argument. It is a change from the usual belligerency posted by people who disagree with a subject
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1685 days ago)
Thank you Diana. One of the greatest problems we face, in wrestling with such difficult issues, is reaching credible consensus so that we can act together where action is needed. We live in such wounded, divided societies, and these web forums make this painfully clear. I think the degree to which we show ourselves genuinely willing to seek truth, even where it challenges our own preconceptions, is a measure of the degree to which we take serious problems seriously - a test of growing up. I am genuinely prepared to be persuaded by argumentand evidence and I see no advantage in rude opposition. Quite apart from common decency I think we need all the sensible, reasonable argument we can get if we are going to take meaningfull action about our deepest problems. And in the end politeness lets our arguments get through much more effectively than angry shouting.
ReplyVote up (96)down (103)
Original comment
Thank you Diana. One of the greatest problems we face, in wrestling with such difficult issues, is reaching credible consensus so that we can act together where action is needed. We live in such wounded, divided societies, and these web forums make this painfully clear. I think the degree to which we show ourselves genuinely willing to seek truth, even where it challenges our own preconceptions, is a measure of the degree to which we take serious problems seriously - a test of growing up. I am genuinely prepared to be persuaded by argumentand evidence and I see no advantage in rude opposition. Quite apart from common decency I think we need all the sensible, reasonable argument we can get if we are going to take meaningfull action about our deepest problems. And in the end politeness lets our arguments get through much more effectively than angry shouting.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1685 days ago)
I would first need to know where your calculations are coming from and if they are accurate before I could attempt to either agree with you or dispute you :-)
ReplyVote up (92)down (178)
Original comment
I would first need to know where your calculations are coming from and if they are accurate before I could attempt to either agree with you or dispute you :-)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1685 days ago)
Well the background temperature of the universe is 3 Kelvin or -270 centigrade. It's not easy to validate this yourself but it's a temperature which is being constantly re-measured so you could visit your local radio-telescope and ask to see their data. No seriously. And the surface/air/ocean temperatures are measurements you can make directly (with your own thermometer). Thus the degree to which the world is kept warm by it's atmosphere and oceans is fairly easy for you to establish in a way that you can be (independently) sure is correct. The amount which each atmospheric gas absorbs infra-red radiation for the sun and the partial pressures of these gasses at different altitudes are also published (I don't have good links to hand - sorry, it's not my field - but it's first-year undergraduate stuff and thus widely available). Again, you could perfectly-well measure this yourself though you would need the help of a chemist and an aircraft (to get the samples). The contribution of each gas to global-warming (without the presence of man) can therefore be calculated because we have bubbles of air trapped in ice from thousands and tens of thousands of years ago - and these are measurements which you, personally, can scrutinise. We know the amount of extra CO2 added to the air by human activity from the records of fossil-fuel use and (independently) from carbon-isotope records which are conveniently available from many sources (tree rings, for example, or my favorite - historical malt whicky!). You won't be able to measure the C12/C14 ratio yourself but you can pay a lab to do it and scrutinise their numbers and methods to be sure they get it right. Thus we have all the ingredients for the calculation which tells us both how much the natural CO2 warms the earth and how much the addition of the extra, man-made CO2 will change this. We need also to add the reinforcing effect of water vapour (which is a powerful greenhouse gas but which, if it is not kept in the atmosphere as a gas due to the warming caused by CO2 would quickly return to the oceanss whereas CO2 hangs around for a long time). This all tells us that we have gone from about 300 to about 380 ppm CO2 due to human activities and that the effect of this will be warming of the order of 1-4 degrees centigrade (with greater warming at lower probibilities). So, although this is a very back-of-the-envelope calculation it's what you need to invalidate if you want to convince me that the effect of man on the climate is insignificant.
ReplyVote up (138)down (115)
Original comment
Well the background temperature of the universe is 3 Kelvin or -270 centigrade. It's not easy to validate this yourself but it's a temperature which is being constantly re-measured so you could visit your local radio-telescope and ask to see their data. No seriously. And the surface/air/ocean temperatures are measurements you can make directly (with your own thermometer). Thus the degree to which the world is kept warm by it's atmosphere and oceans is fairly easy for you to establish in a way that you can be (independently) sure is correct. The amount which each atmospheric gas absorbs infra-red radiation for the sun and the partial pressures of these gasses at different altitudes are also published (I don't have good links to hand - sorry, it's not my field - but it's first-year undergraduate stuff and thus widely available). Again, you could perfectly-well measure this yourself though you would need the help of a chemist and an aircraft (to get the samples). The contribution of each gas to global-warming (without the presence of man) can therefore be calculated because we have bubbles of air trapped in ice from thousands and tens of thousands of years ago - and these are measurements which you, personally, can scrutinise. We know the amount of extra CO2 added to the air by human activity from the records of fossil-fuel use and (independently) from carbon-isotope records which are conveniently available from many sources (tree rings, for example, or my favorite - historical malt whicky!). You won't be able to measure the C12/C14 ratio yourself but you can pay a lab to do it and scrutinise their numbers and methods to be sure they get it right. Thus we have all the ingredients for the calculation which tells us both how much the natural CO2 warms the earth and how much the addition of the extra, man-made CO2 will change this. We need also to add the reinforcing effect of water vapour (which is a powerful greenhouse gas but which, if it is not kept in the atmosphere as a gas due to the warming caused by CO2 would quickly return to the oceanss whereas CO2 hangs around for a long time). This all tells us that we have gone from about 300 to about 380 ppm CO2 due to human activities and that the effect of this will be warming of the order of 1-4 degrees centigrade (with greater warming at lower probibilities). So, although this is a very back-of-the-envelope calculation it's what you need to invalidate if you want to convince me that the effect of man on the climate is insignificant.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1685 days ago)
Well, you have certainly given me numbers to work with....and I will. However.... Assuming that your information is completely accurate.. How do you explain the higher levels of C02 in the atmosphere prior to the industrial revolution. and the fact that there was no "Meltdown" because of it. Why was the temperature not higher when we were producing the most C02? How also do you explain the fact that the global temperature has not risen as predicted by IPCC but is actually on a natural down curve. (When examining charts that go back thousands of years instead of just decades), we can see not only are we cooling down, but that it fits in with the prehistoric cycles of the planet. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the cycles is not natural, is going to cause disaster or needs to be "Fixed". in fact, the mini Ice and Heat ages that have occurred while humans have been around are well documented and they came and went as the natural events that they were. We are no hotter now, and we have not heated up any faster (Again, long term charts dispute the short term IPCC ones) than in the past. I also question the calculations as far as.... C02, has been proven to raise atmospheric temperature.... What other greenhouse gas causes temperature rise? Has anyone studied the change in these other gasses... can you prove that the current temperature has anything to do with recent C02 output. and not other factors. So really, The way I see it. We may have proven that Humans are producing C02. We may have proven that there is a higher amount of man mad C02 in the atmosphere. What we haven't proven is that the particular man mad C02 has caused any climate change. How can you determine that the man made C02 has increased our short term temperatures when the long term charts show that we are following a natural cycle? How can we determine that man made C02 is causing temperature rise when during the industrial revolution we poured untold amounts of C02 into the atmosphere and did not have a meltdown... And I am repeating myself so I will shut up now :-)
ReplyVote up (335)down (81)
Original comment
Well, you have certainly given me numbers to work with....and I will. However.... Assuming that your information is completely accurate.. How do you explain the higher levels of C02 in the atmosphere prior to the industrial revolution. and the fact that there was no "Meltdown" because of it. Why was the temperature not higher when we were producing the most C02? How also do you explain the fact that the global temperature has not risen as predicted by IPCC but is actually on a natural down curve. (When examining charts that go back thousands of years instead of just decades), we can see not only are we cooling down, but that it fits in with the prehistoric cycles of the planet. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the cycles is not natural, is going to cause disaster or needs to be "Fixed". in fact, the mini Ice and Heat ages that have occurred while humans have been around are well documented and they came and went as the natural events that they were. We are no hotter now, and we have not heated up any faster (Again, long term charts dispute the short term IPCC ones) than in the past. I also question the calculations as far as.... C02, has been proven to raise atmospheric temperature.... What other greenhouse gas causes temperature rise? Has anyone studied the change in these other gasses... can you prove that the current temperature has anything to do with recent C02 output. and not other factors. So really, The way I see it. We may have proven that Humans are producing C02. We may have proven that there is a higher amount of man mad C02 in the atmosphere. What we haven't proven is that the particular man mad C02 has caused any climate change. How can you determine that the man made C02 has increased our short term temperatures when the long term charts show that we are following a natural cycle? How can we determine that man made C02 is causing temperature rise when during the industrial revolution we poured untold amounts of C02 into the atmosphere and did not have a meltdown... And I am repeating myself so I will shut up now :-)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1684 days ago)
useful info LINK and LINK and LINK . Government approved information.
ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment
useful info LINK and LINK and LINK . Government approved information.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1684 days ago)
Bryn, -270C (-454F) is not the temperature of space when you are as close to the sun as we are. I mentioned that the ISS gets to 250F while in the sun so you are trying to compare deep space temperatures with the earth's temperatures and that makes no sense to do that. If you want to determine the effect our atmosphere has on temperatures, compare the temperature immediately outside our atmosphere, in the sunlight, to temperatures on the surface of the Earth in the sunlight. Or, if you prefer, you can compare Earth's temperatures with that of the moon because the moon does not have an atmosphere (it is so thin that it's technically called an exosphere). The moon gets from -153C (-243.4F) at night and 107C (224.6F) in the day. So, in summary, you can clearly see that our atmosphere does not cause Earth's temperatures to rise but the atmosphere acts more as a shield from the harsh sun and keeps us cool.
ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment
Bryn, -270C (-454F) is not the temperature of space when you are as close to the sun as we are. I mentioned that the ISS gets to 250F while in the sun so you are trying to compare deep space temperatures with the earth's temperatures and that makes no sense to do that. If you want to determine the effect our atmosphere has on temperatures, compare the temperature immediately outside our atmosphere, in the sunlight, to temperatures on the surface of the Earth in the sunlight. Or, if you prefer, you can compare Earth's temperatures with that of the moon because the moon does not have an atmosphere (it is so thin that it's technically called an exosphere). The moon gets from -153C (-243.4F) at night and 107C (224.6F) in the day. So, in summary, you can clearly see that our atmosphere does not cause Earth's temperatures to rise but the atmosphere acts more as a shield from the harsh sun and keeps us cool.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1684 days ago)
Um - no. The atmosphere does indeed shield us from the UV and the magnetosphere from higher-energy charged particles but the atmosphere then traps the heat and keeps us warm at night. If it didn't why would the Earth not cool down rapidly when the sun goes down each evening - after all, if the sun isn't shining there is nothing to keep us warm, unless there is an atmosphere which traps the heat. And yes, space is at -270 centigrade, or thereabouts.
ReplyVote up (140)down (79)
Original comment
Um - no. The atmosphere does indeed shield us from the UV and the magnetosphere from higher-energy charged particles but the atmosphere then traps the heat and keeps us warm at night. If it didn't why would the Earth not cool down rapidly when the sun goes down each evening - after all, if the sun isn't shining there is nothing to keep us warm, unless there is an atmosphere which traps the heat. And yes, space is at -270 centigrade, or thereabouts.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1684 days ago)
Wind circulates heat from hot places to cool places (from the day side to the night side). Our rotation also helps with this. On Mars, the atmosphere is thinner (about 1% of ours) so the temperature difference between the hot and cold sides create faster winds due to larger pressure differences. Venus is about 100 times thicker than ours and does a better job of transporting heat from one place to another at relatively low wind velocities so even though the nights are long (about two months), it has a small temperature range from equator to pole and from day to night. Temperatures rarely vary more than 50F at the surface. Regarding the greenhouse effect, that does help heat up the surface but once the heat radiated by the surface is equal to the sunlight being absorbed by it, the surface stops heating up and the temperatures remain stable. But then once the sun goes down, there is no sunlight striking the surface and that side begins to cool as it radiates heat into space. Regarding your comment about the atmosphere shielding us from UV, I think you are mistaken. There is UV-A that still makes it through. UV-B and UV-C gets shielded. 98.7% of UV light that makes it through our atmosphere is UV-A. Infrared (IR) is what gets blocked the most and any gas can do this. It's just gas like nitrogen and oxygen (the bulk of our air) does a better job of blocking IR. Telescopes that detect IR are usually put high on top of mountains where there is less atmosphere.
ReplyVote up (87)down (101)
Original comment
Wind circulates heat from hot places to cool places (from the day side to the night side). Our rotation also helps with this. On Mars, the atmosphere is thinner (about 1% of ours) so the temperature difference between the hot and cold sides create faster winds due to larger pressure differences. Venus is about 100 times thicker than ours and does a better job of transporting heat from one place to another at relatively low wind velocities so even though the nights are long (about two months), it has a small temperature range from equator to pole and from day to night. Temperatures rarely vary more than 50F at the surface. Regarding the greenhouse effect, that does help heat up the surface but once the heat radiated by the surface is equal to the sunlight being absorbed by it, the surface stops heating up and the temperatures remain stable. But then once the sun goes down, there is no sunlight striking the surface and that side begins to cool as it radiates heat into space. Regarding your comment about the atmosphere shielding us from UV, I think you are mistaken. There is UV-A that still makes it through. UV-B and UV-C gets shielded. 98.7% of UV light that makes it through our atmosphere is UV-A. Infrared (IR) is what gets blocked the most and any gas can do this. It's just gas like nitrogen and oxygen (the bulk of our air) does a better job of blocking IR. Telescopes that detect IR are usually put high on top of mountains where there is less atmosphere.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1684 days ago)
Wow! Just Wow.
ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment
Wow! Just Wow.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1684 days ago)
Glad I was able to teach you something with such a "wow factor."
ReplyVote up (75)down (101)
Original comment
Glad I was able to teach you something with such a "wow factor."
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1684 days ago)
LINK and LINK and LINK . Government approved information, as you requested in the case of this discussion LINK where you got owned!!
ReplyVote up (101)down (81)
Original comment
LINK and LINK and LINK . Government approved information, as you requested in the case of this discussion LINK where you got owned!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1685 days ago)
bryn, you only have to look at the failure of the global tempatures over the last 15 years to rise theory disproved. sorry THATS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment
bryn, you only have to look at the failure of the global tempatures over the last 15 years to rise theory disproved. sorry THATS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1685 days ago)
Mad: That assertion again. And your evidence is ...?
ReplyVote up (101)down (78)
Original comment
Mad: That assertion again. And your evidence is ...?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1685 days ago)
from karl popper "logically, no number of positive outcomes at the experimental level can comfirm a scientific theory, but a single counter example is decisive" therefore if a theory states that during a period of statisically significant rise in co2 "an increase of the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere will result in a rise in global temperature" then a period of statistically significant stationary/dropping temperatures (excludes errors in observation / random variations as being a cause of stationary /dropping temperatures) is a logically decisive counter example. Therefore theory disproved. is that clear enough ?, (unlees you want to call karl popper wrong too)
ReplyVote up (98)down (107)
Original comment
from karl popper "logically, no number of positive outcomes at the experimental level can comfirm a scientific theory, but a single counter example is decisive" therefore if a theory states that during a period of statisically significant rise in co2 "an increase of the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere will result in a rise in global temperature" then a period of statistically significant stationary/dropping temperatures (excludes errors in observation / random variations as being a cause of stationary /dropping temperatures) is a logically decisive counter example. Therefore theory disproved. is that clear enough ?, (unlees you want to call karl popper wrong too)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1685 days ago)
This view of science has been questioned by far better minds than mine (including Popper's own) - but I would just point out here that this view is very simplistic. Science often does not work as Popper is implying here and it is simplistic to think that it does. In a way Popper was describing a kind of purified science which hardly truly exists, but is a useful idea because it helps us understand more of the complex way in which we really establish evidence and ideas. Popper was rather a long time ago and the fields he ploughed have been reploughed many times since. Two points related to the climate change issues: You still haven't provided the evidence I asked for to back up your assertion that global temperatures are not rising. Secondly, since the global climate system is complex but we understand how CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, you need to explain why our existing picture of the greenhouse effects of CO2 would imply that a simple rise in CO2 would lead to a simple and continuous rise in temperatures, given all the other effects in the system. If a counter-example is to be decisive it must actually be a counter-example. You have neither given us the counter-example (by giving us your evidence of a lack of temperature rise) nor shown us why this would be a counter-example (by explaining why the existing hypothesis implies simple, rising temperatures). So evidence and a description of the system please.
ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment
This view of science has been questioned by far better minds than mine (including Popper's own) - but I would just point out here that this view is very simplistic. Science often does not work as Popper is implying here and it is simplistic to think that it does. In a way Popper was describing a kind of purified science which hardly truly exists, but is a useful idea because it helps us understand more of the complex way in which we really establish evidence and ideas. Popper was rather a long time ago and the fields he ploughed have been reploughed many times since. Two points related to the climate change issues: You still haven't provided the evidence I asked for to back up your assertion that global temperatures are not rising. Secondly, since the global climate system is complex but we understand how CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, you need to explain why our existing picture of the greenhouse effects of CO2 would imply that a simple rise in CO2 would lead to a simple and continuous rise in temperatures, given all the other effects in the system. If a counter-example is to be decisive it must actually be a counter-example. You have neither given us the counter-example (by giving us your evidence of a lack of temperature rise) nor shown us why this would be a counter-example (by explaining why the existing hypothesis implies simple, rising temperatures). So evidence and a description of the system please.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1685 days ago)
oh bryn, you are are a genuine science denier. Thats why the 15 year period (originally) gatepost moved by ben santer to 17 years (but fast approaching) It must be really difficult for you to come to terms with but the cagw theory is dead. It looks like they didn't understand how o2 acts like a greenhouse gas, they were wrong .And wtf are you talking about karl popper born 1902 died in 1994, I know somebody who knew him you dumb twit.
ReplyVote up (100)down (91)
Original comment
oh bryn, you are are a genuine science denier. Thats why the 15 year period (originally) gatepost moved by ben santer to 17 years (but fast approaching) It must be really difficult for you to come to terms with but the cagw theory is dead. It looks like they didn't understand how o2 acts like a greenhouse gas, they were wrong .And wtf are you talking about karl popper born 1902 died in 1994, I know somebody who knew him you dumb twit.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1685 days ago)
You seem to have mistaken insults for arguments.
ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment
You seem to have mistaken insults for arguments.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1685 days ago)
bryn but since you ask ,data sets that are flat or negative / statistically insignificant periods to present in years and months (2nd figure is important 1st is nail in coffin)) 1) giss 12 years 2 months /over 17 years 2) hadcrut3 ) 15 years 11 months / over 19 years 3) hadcrut4 ) 12 years 4 months / over 18 years 4) hadsst2 16 years 1 month/ ? 5) rss 16 years 4 months / over 23 years 6) uah ?/ over 19 years. all these are produced by pro cagw scientist.
ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment
bryn but since you ask ,data sets that are flat or negative / statistically insignificant periods to present in years and months (2nd figure is important 1st is nail in coffin)) 1) giss 12 years 2 months /over 17 years 2) hadcrut3 ) 15 years 11 months / over 19 years 3) hadcrut4 ) 12 years 4 months / over 18 years 4) hadsst2 16 years 1 month/ ? 5) rss 16 years 4 months / over 23 years 6) uah ?/ over 19 years. all these are produced by pro cagw scientist.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1684 days ago)
sorry bryn, thats because you are obviously projecting your political position on to the science, in exactly the same as those on the religious right project their religious belief on to science (intelligent design), you have to go with the observations, and the observations are saying "theory wrong, go back and start again". Its called a reality check. As a matter of fact i personally hate it when science and politics mix, you get abominations like eugenics and lysenkoism and they killed millions of people.
Original comment
sorry bryn, thats because you are obviously projecting your political position on to the science, in exactly the same as those on the religious right project their religious belief on to science (intelligent design), you have to go with the observations, and the observations are saying "theory wrong, go back and start again". Its called a reality check. As a matter of fact i personally hate it when science and politics mix, you get abominations like eugenics and lysenkoism and they killed millions of people.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1684 days ago)
I suspect, Mad, that you don't understand much of the science but that you are keen to seem knowledgeable as a substitute. You are not, however, allowed your own facts whatever your opinions of yourself and others. And of my political views you know nothing at all and you could not deduce them from any of the foregoing, whatever you may think.
ReplyVote up (101)down (78)
Original comment
I suspect, Mad, that you don't understand much of the science but that you are keen to seem knowledgeable as a substitute. You are not, however, allowed your own facts whatever your opinions of yourself and others. And of my political views you know nothing at all and you could not deduce them from any of the foregoing, whatever you may think.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1684 days ago)
bryn, your political leanings are not hard to deduce, as for my understanding, do you think a degree in physics helps ?, seeing as all climate science is based on physics, i've always thought it comes in handy.
Original comment
bryn, your political leanings are not hard to deduce, as for my understanding, do you think a degree in physics helps ?, seeing as all climate science is based on physics, i've always thought it comes in handy.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1684 days ago)
Ah yes! Physicists - bless them. LINK
ReplyVote up (101)down (80)
Original comment
Ah yes! Physicists - bless them. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1684 days ago)
oh dear bryn, short of someting to say,oh dear.
ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment
oh dear bryn, short of someting to say,oh dear.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1682 days ago)
bryn oh dear,but you didnt mention your subject, or are you ashamed of it ?. btw how are the agw climate models doing ?. oh thats right every single one looking like a proven complete and utter failure at the 95% confidence level, and yet you still blindly accept the theory as being true. Well sorry that to me is not the behavour of someone who has an enquiring mind, its the behavoir of a dumb fool. and joe public thinks your a bit of an idiot too, because they are starting to wonder where the warming went.
ReplyVote up (88)down (101)
Original comment
bryn oh dear,but you didnt mention your subject, or are you ashamed of it ?. btw how are the agw climate models doing ?. oh thats right every single one looking like a proven complete and utter failure at the 95% confidence level, and yet you still blindly accept the theory as being true. Well sorry that to me is not the behavour of someone who has an enquiring mind, its the behavoir of a dumb fool. and joe public thinks your a bit of an idiot too, because they are starting to wonder where the warming went.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1680 days ago)
Mad: I am not interested in you. Nor am I interested in who you think I am or in what I may be qualified. I would, however, like you to address the question I posed.
ReplyVote up (101)down (80)
Original comment
Mad: I am not interested in you. Nor am I interested in who you think I am or in what I may be qualified. I would, however, like you to address the question I posed.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1680 days ago)
bryn i did. See above rss, giss hadcrut3 and hadcrut4 tempature anomoly data sets all show no significant warming for a period of at least 12 years. all of these data sets are official data sets . all the setts are starting to show cooling. during this period co2 has been shown to be rising.Al lof the co2 derived modelled showed exponentially increasing tempatures. one of the co2 derived models showed this stationary period. CONJECTURE DISPROVED
ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment
bryn i did. See above rss, giss hadcrut3 and hadcrut4 tempature anomoly data sets all show no significant warming for a period of at least 12 years. all of these data sets are official data sets . all the setts are starting to show cooling. during this period co2 has been shown to be rising.Al lof the co2 derived modelled showed exponentially increasing tempatures. one of the co2 derived models showed this stationary period. CONJECTURE DISPROVED
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1680 days ago)
I was going to say that I don't much care whether the temperature is going up or down but that isn't true. I would very much like to see the temperatures stay stationary or go down, despite the rising CO2 levels, because I am keen that my children should not inherit a world going seriously wrong (from a human perspective) because of anthropogenic global warming. Thus, whether the temperature goes up or down what concerns me most is to have a good understanding of why this is occurring so that we can make good policy decisions about how to manage our situation. Thus one specific question - a serious question - might be how we would reconcile rising CO2 levels with stable temperatures. There are several possible answers. I would like to know what yours might be. I don't understand your answer. If "Al lof the co2 derived modelled showed exponentially increasing tempatures." how can it be that "one of the co2 derived models showed this stationary period". Or did you mean "None"? So, to return to the wider question - can you describe what you would expect to happen to global temperatures with a CO2 level rising from 300 to 380ppm and explain why? For me it is like seeing a car rolling down a bumpy hill towards a group of elderly people. I expect that there is a serious risk they may be injured or killed but I do not yet know how bad it may be. I don't expect the car to acceloarate at the same rate throughout (because of the bumps) - and it is still conceivable that the car will slew sideways and come to a halt (equivalent to a negative CO2/climate feedback I guess). But if I'm not going to make an effort ot deflect the car or move the peole I need a good reason why. You are saying that it doesn't matter and that there is no risk because we don't observe a simple acceleration - but you aren't prepared to say why. In terms of policy (whether we try to stop the car or move the people) it isn't convincing.
ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment
I was going to say that I don't much care whether the temperature is going up or down but that isn't true. I would very much like to see the temperatures stay stationary or go down, despite the rising CO2 levels, because I am keen that my children should not inherit a world going seriously wrong (from a human perspective) because of anthropogenic global warming. Thus, whether the temperature goes up or down what concerns me most is to have a good understanding of why this is occurring so that we can make good policy decisions about how to manage our situation. Thus one specific question - a serious question - might be how we would reconcile rising CO2 levels with stable temperatures. There are several possible answers. I would like to know what yours might be. I don't understand your answer. If "Al lof the co2 derived modelled showed exponentially increasing tempatures." how can it be that "one of the co2 derived models showed this stationary period". Or did you mean "None"? So, to return to the wider question - can you describe what you would expect to happen to global temperatures with a CO2 level rising from 300 to 380ppm and explain why? For me it is like seeing a car rolling down a bumpy hill towards a group of elderly people. I expect that there is a serious risk they may be injured or killed but I do not yet know how bad it may be. I don't expect the car to acceloarate at the same rate throughout (because of the bumps) - and it is still conceivable that the car will slew sideways and come to a halt (equivalent to a negative CO2/climate feedback I guess). But if I'm not going to make an effort ot deflect the car or move the peole I need a good reason why. You are saying that it doesn't matter and that there is no risk because we don't observe a simple acceleration - but you aren't prepared to say why. In terms of policy (whether we try to stop the car or move the people) it isn't convincing.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1680 days ago)
Bryn have you looked at the global temperatures recently, they have stabilized and are starting to drop. I should add the only model that showed the temperatures stabilizing is hansens scenario c (rapid curtailment of co2 emissions by yr 2000 ) however as co2 emissions are still increasing (at an increasing rate) its not applicable ( It did however still manage overestimated increase since 1988 to present by over 30%), In short bryn every climate model based on co2 greenhouse model being a major driver of climate temperatures is a complete failure. The co2 greenhouse effect (if it exists) is obviously a minor effect, so you can stop worrying your little head about it
ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment
Bryn have you looked at the global temperatures recently, they have stabilized and are starting to drop. I should add the only model that showed the temperatures stabilizing is hansens scenario c (rapid curtailment of co2 emissions by yr 2000 ) however as co2 emissions are still increasing (at an increasing rate) its not applicable ( It did however still manage overestimated increase since 1988 to present by over 30%), In short bryn every climate model based on co2 greenhouse model being a major driver of climate temperatures is a complete failure. The co2 greenhouse effect (if it exists) is obviously a minor effect, so you can stop worrying your little head about it
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bryn (1679 days ago)
Why are you so unwilling to answer the question? I suspect it is because the answer would be too difficult to square with your desire that "The co2 greenhouse effect (if it exists) is obviously a minor effect". Now, since you have a degree in physics you will, no doubt, consider yourself well placed to explain why this would be so - after all, the calculations of the expected effect of an increase in CO2 from 300 to 380ppm are available - so if they are significantly wrong you can (with your degree in physics) give us a good lead on why. But you don't seem to feel it's necessary to actually engage with the science - just repeating observations seem to be enough for you. But it doesn't explain anything - as you know. Perhaps you might explain to us (since some of us do not have degrees in physics) why a complex system such as the Earths climate, wiith massive and unstable (and stochastic) sub-systems of energy interrception and exchange (such as oceanic circulation) would behave in a simple way despite the known and unknown unknowns (to borrow Rumsfeld's felicitous phrase) about the way the system behaves? But my guess is that you won't because you aren't actually able to do so and because the answer might conflict with what you wish it to be. And here my side of the dialogue ends. A pity that you aren't up to addressing seriously such a serious matter.
ReplyVote up (81)down (101)
Original comment
Why are you so unwilling to answer the question? I suspect it is because the answer would be too difficult to square with your desire that "The co2 greenhouse effect (if it exists) is obviously a minor effect". Now, since you have a degree in physics you will, no doubt, consider yourself well placed to explain why this would be so - after all, the calculations of the expected effect of an increase in CO2 from 300 to 380ppm are available - so if they are significantly wrong you can (with your degree in physics) give us a good lead on why. But you don't seem to feel it's necessary to actually engage with the science - just repeating observations seem to be enough for you. But it doesn't explain anything - as you know. Perhaps you might explain to us (since some of us do not have degrees in physics) why a complex system such as the Earths climate, wiith massive and unstable (and stochastic) sub-systems of energy interrception and exchange (such as oceanic circulation) would behave in a simple way despite the known and unknown unknowns (to borrow Rumsfeld's felicitous phrase) about the way the system behaves? But my guess is that you won't because you aren't actually able to do so and because the answer might conflict with what you wish it to be. And here my side of the dialogue ends. A pity that you aren't up to addressing seriously such a serious matter.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1679 days ago)
bryn,Wow nice to see you acknowledge that the climate has to put it "massive and unstable ( and stochaistic ) sub-systems of energy interception and exchange" i mean NO SHIT SHERLOCK !,cos engineers and physicists have never encountered such systems !. What an fantastic insight!!!!. Can you do us a favour, give the hadley and goddard centre a bell and let them know, cos the politicians in charge seem to be fixated wth a simple co2 temperature model and seem to be unable to consider anything else. Begs the question of why these "climate scientists" make predictions of future climate conditions with such confidence and why idiots belive them. well done bryn i see you are coming around to my way of thinking !
ReplyVote up (79)down (100)
Original comment
bryn,Wow nice to see you acknowledge that the climate has to put it "massive and unstable ( and stochaistic ) sub-systems of energy interception and exchange" i mean NO SHIT SHERLOCK !,cos engineers and physicists have never encountered such systems !. What an fantastic insight!!!!. Can you do us a favour, give the hadley and goddard centre a bell and let them know, cos the politicians in charge seem to be fixated wth a simple co2 temperature model and seem to be unable to consider anything else. Begs the question of why these "climate scientists" make predictions of future climate conditions with such confidence and why idiots belive them. well done bryn i see you are coming around to my way of thinking !
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1679 days ago)
you're a tool for the "anti Cap and Trade" Lobby financed by the US oil and gas industry. This discourse makes sense for them, they will lose in the end but the more the debate continues the more profits they make. Now there are people who get paid by "think tanks" to go on internet forums and puke out this "there is no global warming" vomit and then there are Tools who actually believe that there is no Global warming. Judging by your choice of words... i say you're a tool. Of course, you must disagree and think that i am the one who's being a tool: fair enough. We'll let the readers decide.
Original comment
you're a tool for the "anti Cap and Trade" Lobby financed by the US oil and gas industry. This discourse makes sense for them, they will lose in the end but the more the debate continues the more profits they make. Now there are people who get paid by "think tanks" to go on internet forums and puke out this "there is no global warming" vomit and then there are Tools who actually believe that there is no Global warming. Judging by your choice of words... i say you're a tool. Of course, you must disagree and think that i am the one who's being a tool: fair enough. We'll let the readers decide.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1679 days ago)
what a ad hom attack what do you expect from a watermelon twit
ReplyVote up (101)down (56)
Original comment
what a ad hom attack what do you expect from a watermelon twit
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1679 days ago)
it seems that you are obsessed by the word "watermelon" and by the reptile people theory and how they control the IPCC that provides 99.8% LINK of the world scientists with false information, and they just go along with it... because that's what scientists do, just like priests and the Vatican. You call it an Ad Hom attack, but you're doing the same thing with Bryn.
Original comment
it seems that you are obsessed by the word "watermelon" and by the reptile people theory and how they control the IPCC that provides 99.8% LINK of the world scientists with false information, and they just go along with it... because that's what scientists do, just like priests and the Vatican. You call it an Ad Hom attack, but you're doing the same thing with Bryn.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1679 days ago)
well maybe bryn ( and you and walterego) should actually go away and look at the global temperature data sets, and stop spewing cagw at everybody( the theory is very close to being disproved.Also you seem over reliant on dodgy survays to prove your point. No real science in history has ever relied on surveys, only pseudosciences do that. the real test of any theory is observation. If the observations turn against the theory, real scientists change or drop their theory.Unfortunately scientists are human and emotional, they are known to remain wedded to certain ideas long after their sell by date. Thats why max plank quipped "science progresses one funeral at a time". climate science is at a stage where it needs new blood and ideas, the old theories are showing the strain.
ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment
well maybe bryn ( and you and walterego) should actually go away and look at the global temperature data sets, and stop spewing cagw at everybody( the theory is very close to being disproved.Also you seem over reliant on dodgy survays to prove your point. No real science in history has ever relied on surveys, only pseudosciences do that. the real test of any theory is observation. If the observations turn against the theory, real scientists change or drop their theory.Unfortunately scientists are human and emotional, they are known to remain wedded to certain ideas long after their sell by date. Thats why max plank quipped "science progresses one funeral at a time". climate science is at a stage where it needs new blood and ideas, the old theories are showing the strain.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1679 days ago)
this list in particular: LINK You do realize that you're promoting the idea of a Global Conspiracy that is trying to promote Cap and Trade Policies ? (as if that is a bad thing, but that's a different issue)
ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment
this list in particular: LINK You do realize that you're promoting the idea of a Global Conspiracy that is trying to promote Cap and Trade Policies ? (as if that is a bad thing, but that's a different issue)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1679 days ago)
so let me get this straight: You're saying that NASA is Lying? and you're also saying that this survey LINK is wrong because there's new info out there that proves that climate change is not man made and that the only reason for which the majority of the people on planet earth still believe that climate change is man made is because they're emotional?? ok, i'll give you that if you link me to a credible source that backs up your claim (and i'm not talking about one of those right wing American climate change deniers sites ). i already gave all of you my links but i'll give them again at the end of the comment. It's time for you to link us to a pertinent source (maybe a study, article from nature, international government institution, Chinese center for climate change, etc, IDK, you provide the links) here are my links again: LINK , LINK , LINK , LINK , LINK , LINK , and LINK and many many many others, as you can see, most of them are official government sites or official government documents. Your Turn!!
ReplyVote up (88)down (101)
Original comment
so let me get this straight: You're saying that NASA is Lying? and you're also saying that this survey LINK is wrong because there's new info out there that proves that climate change is not man made and that the only reason for which the majority of the people on planet earth still believe that climate change is man made is because they're emotional?? ok, i'll give you that if you link me to a credible source that backs up your claim (and i'm not talking about one of those right wing American climate change deniers sites ). i already gave all of you my links but i'll give them again at the end of the comment. It's time for you to link us to a pertinent source (maybe a study, article from nature, international government institution, Chinese center for climate change, etc, IDK, you provide the links) here are my links again: LINK , LINK , LINK , LINK , LINK , LINK , and LINK and many many many others, as you can see, most of them are official government sites or official government documents. Your Turn!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1679 days ago)
well the First link was to a pro cagw site (which i have already seen ) so i ignored the rest. As ive said before I LOOK AT THE DATA not propaganda videos. do you understand observations over opinions.
Original comment
well the First link was to a pro cagw site (which i have already seen ) so i ignored the rest. As ive said before I LOOK AT THE DATA not propaganda videos. do you understand observations over opinions.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL