posted
For every belief you have and support about global warming, I can find one that debunks global warming.
Just debating the issue. Do we really know? You cant tell me 100% it is true. I cant tell you 100% that it is not true.
This does not mean ANYTHING. No I am not a "radical rightwinger". Just my Independant opinion. Isnt this country great that we can have freedom of speech without being called names because we dont believe as someone else. Well... almost, Sorry I dont believe as you do about this. There are many things that you and I believe exactly the same way. I just wish you would not classify me with a particular "group" of people and call me something that I am not. You dont even know me.
Posts: 1178 | From: Mobile, AL | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
andrew, i can assure you that you cannot find 2 against for every 100 peer reviewed scientific papers that show the evidence for human influenced global warming....
of course all of the scientists are involved in a monstrous conspiracy to destroy our economy, because they don't need $$$.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
here's the foremost American scientific organization: publishers of Science..
Climate experts urge immediate action to offset impact of global warming
Governments and consumers in the United States and worldwide should take immediate steps to reduce the threat of global warming and to prepare for a future in which coastal flooding, reduced crop yields and elevated rates of climate-related illness are all but certain, top U.S. scientists said Tuesday.
At a meeting organized by AAAS and its journal, Science, the climate researchers argued that while some policy experts and sectors of the public dispute the risk, there is in fact no cause for doubt: The world is significantly warmer today than it was a century ago--and it's getting warmer. Without action now, they warned, the impact could be devastating.
usually? when you find "debunkers"? they are not in peer reviewed journals.. they are in places like Fox "News" and other opinion columns...
there is a simple fact that cannot be denied...
we are converting the oil underneath the ground into gas in our atmosphere, and we cannot continue to do so at this rate indefinitely without developing a strategy to neutralise it.. even IF that's not the main cause of what is happening? we can't afford to risk the ADDED risk it presents us with...
you can say you don't believe it all you want...
yes there are many people who point to other causes, but nobody is denying that our ice is disappearing from the planet... and in spite of all the past rapid changes in the earth's climate? we don't see evidence for a situation like the one that is developing now.
if you think you can actually argue with papers like this one: Winograd et al. (1997) date the ending of the warm period at about the same time as the SPECMAP time scale, so that they require the duration of the Eemian warm period to have been about twice as long as in the SPECMAP scheme of events ( i.e. lasting 22 kyr rather than about 10 kyr). We need to consider the possibility that warm intervals as seen in pollen records have a longer duration than periods of high sea level and low ice volume in the marine record: Kukla et al., 1997, for instance, suggest that the Eemian (as seen in the pollen records) started at about 130 kyr, but ended much later than the end of MIS 5e, and that the duration of land interglacials thus is indeed longer than the period of low ice volume. Such a difference in duration is also apparent in the comparison of terrestrial and land records by Tzedakis et al., 1997 (their fig. 2).
If one accepts the contradictory picture obtained from comparing the Devil's Hole record and some of the terrestrial pollen records with other parts of the world, it seems that for thousands of years warm 'interglacial' type conditions in the mid-latitudes on land could have been occurring at the same time as much colder ocean temperatures and expanded Arctic ice sheets. The Eemian, it appears, could have been a strange beast quite unlike our present interglacial phase (which began rapidly and fairly simultaneously all around the world). This confusion over the nature and duration of the Eemian adds to the difficulty in making simple, general comparisons with our present interglacial, and in interpreting the significance of some of the events seen in the marine and ice core records.
these people are using many cross-referencing techniques to come to their conclusions...
Gore's video is pretty dumbed down... nobody working in or at the level of proficiency demonstrated in that paper i linked for you is saying anything other than that we desperately NEED to change course now, and that it's not the loss of our economy we are facing, but our whole environment...
did you know that the disappearance of the large mammals, like mastadons, from North America is also linked to a human migration to North America?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who knows the truth? We all have the right to our opinion. I do not call someone names for not believing as I do. I used to do that, but it is a wasted emotion. hmmmmmmmmmmm....
If all the icecaps in the world were to melt, sea level would rise about 60-75 meters (200-250 feet). This could not result from modern human activities, and from any realistic cause would take thousands of years to occur.
he has no "backup" for it..he just say s it as if he knows what he's talking about and offers no scientific evidence whatsoever...
the fact is? they are melting, and they are melting (it's measurable right now) much faster than he says.
the fact is that every gallon of gas releases more than 19lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere...
let's put it into an easier to manage format:
it's about (min) 750lbs of CO2 per barrel of oil.. this is dependent on the oil, (where it comes from) and how it's used.
we (US)use about 20,000,000 bbls a day...
the world uses about 80,000,000 bbls a day...
the world is producing from oil alone about 60,000,000,000 pounds of CO2 PER DAY... to give you an idea of what that is?
the net annual growth of US timber according to the USDA, which already has mortality subtracted out, totaled 612 million m3 (21.6 billion ft3) in 1991... on average? dried lumber ( that's useable so it's not completeley dry, but we can use that) is about 36 pounds per cubic foot...
so in one year, the US produced about 777 billion pounds of wood... 777divided by 60 is 12.95 days.... in other words? we produce about the same CO2 worldwide by weight every 13 days as we do all the wood in the US in a year... and we produce alot of wood...
how can you say you don't think that would have an effect...
considering that doesn't take in coal and natural gas? i'd say that people who don't beleive it are trying really hard to pretend...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
