Global Warming- how can you deny it?

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree, i think its unfair to blame man entirely for global warming, but we can do a lot to take care of our planet.

we shouldnt do either extreme, pretend nothing is happening, or run around like chickens with our heads cut off

we can solve any problem, we americans come together to solve

The argument, as I see it, Des, is not whether or not global warming is happening (except,of course, only amongst the entirely ignorant) but whether or not man is responsible in some way for it.




I am not denying any of the information concerning global warming. I am just attempting to clarify the real argument and perhaps encourage a credible debate and sharing of information. Great post, Des!!!!!!!!!!!!

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

Based on observable climate criterion recorded both pre and during the current industrial age I find it difficult to believe that mankind is not largely if not completely responsible for the current global environmental crises, marteen.

I agree, i think its unfair to blame man entirely for global warming, but we can do a lot to take care of our planet.

we shouldnt do either extreme, pretend nothing is happening, or run around like chickens with our heads cut off

we can solve any problem, we americans come together to solve

To excuse the climate changes that we have seen in the last few years as indicative of only similar natural occurances that took thousands of years to materialize is simply astounding to me. Air quality, water quality and overall world temperature quality is deteriorating in measures never before encountered or should be accepted in any stretch of ignorant imagination.

As humans and especially as Americans we have every responsibility to reverse this trend and lead the world in doing the same. Until now, it seems the rest of the world is doing better in the leadership department on this issue.



Psychoblues

[Gaffer]

Global warming is from solar activity. There is presently global warming occurring on Mars. Who's fault is that? The idea that mankind is responsible for changes in the climate is silly egotistical BS.

[Psychoblues]

Your scientific expertise noted, guffer.

Global warming is from solar activity. There is presently global warming occurring on Mars. Who's fault is that? The idea that mankind is responsible for changes in the climate is silly egotistical BS.

Is there a comedy board with which you are more comfortabe?!?!?!??!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!



Psychoblues

[darin]

Global warming is from solar activity. There is presently global warming occurring on Mars. Who's fault is that? The idea that mankind is responsible for changes in the climate is silly egotistical BS.

Absolutely. Folks want to feel in control, so they create the religion of Global Warming where they are the gods and saviors.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

[Des]

Absolutely. Folks want to feel in control, so they create the religion of Global Warming where they are the gods and saviors.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

So, both of you completely discount the greenhouse effect?

[darin]

While I hadn't mentioned Greenhouse gasses....here's info on that subject.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

[red states rule]

Global warming is nothing but a scam


Weather Channel Founder: “Global Warming is the Greatest Scam in History”


The founder of The Weather Channel has written an article about global warming that can be read in it’s entirety here. In this article he is not only skeptical of global warming, he calls it an outright scam and a lie.

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

There it is in a nutshell. Scientists and politicians in bed together. The scientists claim we are destroying the planet, the government gives them huge grant money and everyone is happy. But why would the government want to give grant money to something they know is a scam? Because they consider it an investment. The return on that investment will come in the form of tax revenue. Believe me, the government is poised to make a killing off of one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.

http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2007/...am-in-history/

[Des]

While I hadn't mentioned Greenhouse gasses....here's info on that subject.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Because the atmosphere doesn't behave like a man-made greenhouse, but the effects of carbon and other pollutants are known as the greenhouse effect...it's not a valid scientific idea? The article points out that the name is confusing, but goes ahead and uses it in examples. Everyone who understand the greenhouse effect knows about convection vs. radiation. Heres some exerpts from the article:

""Enhanced greenhouse" means the additional delay in energy loss to space induced by the fraction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released by humans before those gases are removed from the atmosphere by breakdown and/or biological activity. "

The article states that water, water vapor, co2 nitrous oxide, ozone, methane, etc, are all "greenhouse gases"

Then goes on to a paragraph saying that co2 isn't bad, because commercial growers increase the level of co2 in greenhouses...after saying that the atmosphere doesn't work like a greenhouse.

The article doesn't even take into consideration positive feedback effects of even small amount of global warming, citing that they are "natural", without addressing the issue here...which is the main concern! Even a 2 degree change is very significant and contributes greatly to the positive feedback effects (like the arctic permafrost zone melting and releasing huge amounts of methane), which are largely irreversible and "natural", although man flipped the switch.

Seems to me the website doesn't understand the basic ideas of global climate change enough to even address them. I wonder what the real "junk science" is.

[Des]

Global warming is nothing but a scam


Weather Channel Founder: “Global Warming is the Greatest Scam in History”


The founder of The Weather Channel has written an article about global warming that can be read in it’s entirety here. In this article he is not only skeptical of global warming, he calls it an outright scam and a lie.

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

There it is in a nutshell. Scientists and politicians in bed together. The scientists claim we are destroying the planet, the government gives them huge grant money and everyone is happy. But why would the government want to give grant money to something they know is a scam? Because they consider it an investment. The return on that investment will come in the form of tax revenue. Believe me, the government is poised to make a killing off of one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.

http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2007/...am-in-history/

Did you even read the article in the op?

[darin]

Because the atmosphere doesn't behave like a man-made greenhouse, but the effects of carbon and other pollutants are known as the greenhouse effect...it's not a valid scientific idea? The article points out that the name is confusing, but goes ahead and uses it in examples. Everyone who understand the greenhouse effect knows about convection vs. radiation. Heres some exerpts from the article:

""Enhanced greenhouse" means the additional delay in energy loss to space induced by the fraction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released by humans before those gases are removed from the atmosphere by breakdown and/or biological activity. "

The article states that water, water vapor, co2 nitrous oxide, ozone, methane, etc, are all "greenhouse gases"

Then goes on to a paragraph saying that co2 isn't bad, because commercial growers increase the level of co2 in greenhouses...after saying that the atmosphere doesn't work like a greenhouse.

The article doesn't even take into consideration positive feedback effects of even small amount of global warming, citing that they are "natural", without addressing the issue here...which is the main concern! Even a 2 degree change is very significant and contributes greatly to the positive feedback effects (like the arctic permafrost zone melting and releasing huge amounts of methane), which are largely irreversible and "natural", although man flipped the switch.

Seems to me the website doesn't understand the basic ideas of global climate change enough to even address them. I wonder what the real "junk science" is.

I'm sorry, but the writers of that site are VASTLY smarter than you...or likely anyone here.

[LiberalNation]

Global Warming- how can you deny it?

Denied, there just did it. Also known as sticking your head in the sand or going

Either way I don't really care about this issue, think it's going to have a big impact in my lifetime whichever side turns out to be right. Global climate change normally take hundreds of years unless you have somthing super like a giant astrreiod impact or volcanic erruption.

[stephanie]

it's hard to argue with a person who is a member of the global warming cult..

they know it all cause Al Bore told them so..

but we know what they say will fix the problem...LOT OF GREENBACKS..

[Des]

I'm sorry, but the writers of that site are VASTLY smarter than you...or likely anyone here.

What is that suppose to mean...that my points are valid and you cannot find any reasonable information to address them, so you say the source used is "vastly smarter" than my argument...or that you are too busy to type out an actual response to challenge them?

The article does not address most of the main ideas about global warming. It just doesn't. A small difference in the temperature of the atmosphere is a huge difference to the enviroment, and it did not even address that, either.

If you're going to give me an article, give me something that discounts the ideas of increased evaporation (if the writers are intelligent enough to know that water is a main cause of "greenhouse effect", they will know that this effect of global warming is a concern), and the widespread positive feedback effects caused by a slight increase in the earths temperatures.

[Des]

it's hard to argue with a person who is a member of the global warming cult..

they know it all cause Al Bore told them so..

but we know what they say will fix the problem...LOT OF GREENBACKS..

I'm sorry, but I don't "follow" Al Gore or any of his bull. He's interested in making money, that's all. That does not mean the basic ideas he's profited off of in one way or another are not real, have not been developed by real scientests somewhere else, and don't have any meaning.