global warming?

[wetwrks]

It'd be more "correct" to call it global climate change..

That is like saying "There is weather outside".

There is always weather outside and the climate is always changing. A quick study of the history of the earth has a great many global freezes and warmings. And per these same scientists...many of these happened BEFORE man. Ooooo.......how can it be that man wasn't responsible for those?

Ya know...I would be more than willing to allow all those who hold to this global warming thing to go kill them selves off for the betterment of the planet. Please...go to it. Do it for the earth. I promise I'll even shed a tear for you.

[wetwrks]

the science we use also provides groundwork for things like... oh, i don't know, automags?

Ah, but once again we delve into theory and fact. Once is capable of being reproduced over and over again and the other...isn't or at least hasn't been.

The other part of all this that gets me is the other day President Obama was on tv about Iran and their nuclear program. He stated that they deserve to be allowed to work on nuclear energy. WHAT? Why is it that they DESERVE to be allowed to do this but we arn't allowed to expand our nuclear energy production. We arn't allowed to expand our oil production because it might harm the environment or some fuzzy little critter yet nothing is said about what the arab nations are doing when they expand their production. If it is that dangerous you can't tell me they arn't harming something there. I hear about reduced emissions here yet nothing is being done about it in China much less Mexico. If our emissions are effecting the whole earth then their emissions are affecting us here in the US.

[BiNumber3]

Yea, the earth has gone through numerous large scale temperature changes, but for the most part, they take several millenia between each whereas the changes we see now, can likely be put into a much smaller time frame, but alas I can't prove this without doing research, and even if I did, chances are it wouldnt sway anyone's ideas.

I didn't mean to say that we have definitely caused a change, but I personally find it hard to believe that we haven't caused change, just like many of you believe that we didn't or can't cause change.

Really, all I think we should do here, is look at the "facts" from both sides, and decide for ourselves what to believe, but if possible, don't go off and say things merely because we don't believe it's possible one way or another. I'd be perfectly fine with being wrong, but as of yet, the info I've seen and researched (only researched it for a couple classes:P) have mostly leaned to one side.
And really, I haven't seen many compelling arguments against what I've seen, and I'd love if someone could show me, because I Am biased by the knowledge I believe in, so that may or may not affect what articles I find, what scientific research papers I find, etc.

(please don't take this the wrong way, I don't care to confront people or whatnot, and am truly just seeking knowledge, it's how I was taught to live)

[wetwrks]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/20/warming-on-11-year-hiatus/

http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/12/global-warming-temperature

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/scientists_warn_humans_arent_heating_the_planet/

http://www.nofreewind.com/2009/06/global-temperaturs-are-flat-for-12.html

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/06/global_warming_the_science_is.html

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ala...-1225704688703

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html

[drg]

There is no good reason not to minimize our impact on the planet.

[BiNumber3]

Main reason why I prefer global climate change over global warming as far as wording

I would explain temperatures staying relatively steady globaly due to this:
As temperature in one area rises, temperature in another drops, evidence can be seen in weather, dry areas are more dry whereas wet areas are more humid. Overall, the effects cancel out as far as a global average.

On a counter thought, why have the oceans risen far more in the past century than they ever have before (keeping time/level in perspective)

http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/curr/Science/core/earth/sciber9/Stand_4/html/2d.htm

http://whyfiles.org/091beach/5.html

As for temperatures of say Mars in comparison to Earth, Mars has an ice cap that hasn't melted noticeably despite lacking much of an atmosphere, yet Earths glaciers (inland and polar icecaps) have been shown to have lost much of their mass over the past 50 years despite our oceans and atmosphere providing a temperature buffer that Mars doesnt have.

I havent read through all of your articles yet, but hopefully I can get through some of em when I have time today but wanted to post this to provide another perspective

Nother note, increased water in the atmosphere means increased cloud cover, which then decreases the overall amount of energy that can pass through our atmosphere, at least in the visible range. This probably doesnt fully explain the "global cooling" all the sites are talking about, but it might be a part of it

[BobTheCow]

Because I'm too lazy to actually click links and make an intelligent post:

It is caused by Taco bell and the affluence of bean burritos...

That is all.

Hold on... when did bean burritos become so wealthy? I feel like I'm missing out on some important life information here. http://www.google.com/search?q=defin...ient=firefox-a

[vf-xx]

Hold on... when did bean burritos become so wealthy? I feel like I'm missing out on some important life information here. http://www.google.com/search?q=defin...ient=firefox-a

It's a wealth of content. Namely their wealth of ability to allow us to produce methane gas.

They should come with warnings: Do not consume near heavy machinery.

[busby]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../the-cru-hack/
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/2...-keep-warming/

http://www.populartechnology.net/200...limateorg.html http://www.ecofriendlymag.com/sustai...e-mccarthyism/

[drg]

http://www.populartechnology.net/200...limateorg.html http://www.ecofriendlymag.com/sustai...e-mccarthyism/

Sure, attack the source rather than the unassailable message. That's usually what you're reduced to when your position has no merit.

There is no shortage of news outlets that have picked up the story, and the truly significant finding is that there is indeed no conspiracy, as skeptics insist.

The dangerous thing is people who by and large lack the education and/or intellect to understand the science, who desperately want to believe their own narrow worldviews, will accept the completely false spin being put on this by conservatives. But hey conservatism is dangerous to the world, what else is new?

The bottom line is, there doesn't even have to be consensus to make action the smart course. There isn't consensus on tobacco being bad for you, or seat belts saving lives, or helmets as safety devices, etc.

[going_home]

Sure, attack the source rather than the unassailable message. That's usually what you're reduced to when your position has no merit.

There is no shortage of news outlets that have picked up the story, and the truly significant finding is that there is indeed no conspiracy, as skeptics insist.

The dangerous thing is people who by and large lack the education and/or intellect to understand the science, who desperately want to believe their own narrow worldviews, will accept the completely false spin being put on this by conservatives. But hey conservatism is dangerous to the world, what else is new?

The bottom line is, there doesn't even have to be consensus to make action the smart course. There isn't consensus on tobacco being bad for you, or seat belts saving lives, or helmets as safety devices, etc.

The fact is there is no proof whatsoever of man made global warming/climate change. None.





There is however proof in Canada and the UK of whats about to happen to the American people.

[wetwrks]

Sure, attack the source rather than the unassailable message. That's usually what you're reduced to when your position has no merit.

news outlets that have picked up the story, and the truly significant finding is that there is indeed no conspiracy, as skeptics insist.

If the scientific data is sound there would be no need to block the release of the data.