I personally do not believe in global warming. I think its just the beginning of the ice age. I dont have any facts its just what i have all ways believed. Any thoughts? What do you think about global warming?
well it doesnt really matter that you dont believe in it, global warming is past the stage of being a maybe. global warming is very real, and part of it is casued by humans. The arguements now are how much of it was caused by humans, not weather or not global warming is real. there wont be an ice age at our current rate. We will soon be like venus if we dont find a way to clean the atmosphere. Whats going to happen is as more green house gas is released, the earth will warm up more, and the increased warmth will cause more gas to be release, causing a chain reaction. if an ice age happens, it will be after the inferno. IMO china will be our doom. China and india. Why? Because they are taking all of our money and becomming industrialized, but they are not learning from our mistakes, so they are going to push global warming into overdrive with indusry
You need to educate yourself on the facts not the worship and faith manual...the what if it is real aurguement doesn't work anymore.
well fuck, no wonder global warming isnt going away, the fat christian white old cat people convinced you it was a lie
"You need to educate yourself on the facts" "Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. Global warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[2][3] This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[" An increase in global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, and a probable expansion of subtropical deserts.[10] Warming is expected to be strongest in the Arctic and would be associated with continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice. Other likely effects of the warming include more frequent occurrence of extreme weather events including heatwaves, droughts and heavy rainfall events, species extinctions due to shifting temperature regimes, and changes in agricultural yields. Warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe, though the nature of these regional changes is uncertain.[11] In a 4 C world, the limits for human adaptation are likely to be exceeded in many parts of the world, while the limits for adaptation for natural systems would largely be exceeded throughout the world. Hence, the ecosystem services upon which human livelihoods depend would not be preserved. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - collection of IPCC reports NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies - Global change research NOAA State of the Climate Report - U.S. and global monthly state of the climate reports United States Global Change Research Program - Global climate change research in the United States Climate Change at the National Academies - repository for reports Nature Reports Climate Change - free-access web resource Met Office: Climate change - UK National Weather Service Global Science and Technology Sources on the Internet - extensive commented list of internet resources Educational Global Climate Modelling (EdGCM) - research-quality climate change simulator DISCOVER - satellite-based ocean and climate data since 1979 from NASA Global Warming Art - collection of figures and images
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News Now that NASA is getting their funds cut, they hopped off the global warming bandwagon.
you need to use info from much earlier than 1979.. the earth has been heating and cooling for thousands of years
LOL and cfl light bulb last longer than the old bulbs too... and they don't have mercury in them either. The ipcc gave the fraudulent #'s to everybody including the United nations.
Did you actually read the research paper or did you just read the article about the research paper? The actual paper doesn't say that GW isn't happening. It is talking about our inability to properly measure certain variables concerning the atmosphere, which stems from the fact our satellites are unable to cope with the lag relay along with the issues of cloud formation breaking up the information feed of radiation. Roy Spencer, the author of the research paper, has made some dubious claims in the past that make me skeptical of how objective he can look at the issue. He even signed an "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming" which states: And while this may not directly deal with climate change, I think it sheds light on what he views as science. He has also stated: It's also worth noting that the author of this article, James Taylor, is a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute. In addition to receiving substantial funding from oil and gas companies like ExxonMobil, The Heartland Institute also questioned the link between second-hand smoke and cancer. They seem to be much more interested in politics than actual science. Cliff Harris and Randy Mann have never published any peer-reviewed papers in the field of climate science so I'm skeptical of what findings they report. However I can't say if their graph is accurate or not. Though from browsing their website I was able to find that Mr. Harris describes himself as a devout Christian and believes the Bible is loaded with clues on predicting the weather and that this planet is a breathing entity, made by God, to clean itself, adjust itself.
I really don’t know if it’s a lie or real - It seems most reputable scientists believe in it. Anyway i am 100% behind change in industry - better to use "clean energy" than making our own planet toxic with the crap we use now- what is the point of debating while we make our water undrinkable, destroy our farmland, make our air and food toxic - look at Amazing Pictures, Pollution in China | ChinaHush why do that to our world just so we can get crap for cheap
I find two things odd about this graph, other than those already stated by tongues. First, it says there have been "75 major temperature swings in the last 4500 years!" yet the graph only shows 10. Second, there are no y-axis values...which is why this graph is intentionally deceiving. For example, look at the year 1607 AD. The chart says the average temp is VERY COLD, at 56.3 degrees F and exactly 0.7 degrees below the "normal" temp of 57. Yet the graph is drawn wayyyy down to the bottom of the figure. Then, in the 2000's, the temp raises 1.3 degrees from 57 to 58.3 F, and the graph only goes up a fraction of the magnitude of the 0.7 degree drop in 1607 AD. If these two temperature swings were drawn proportionally, the rise in temp in the 2000's should be twice as big as the drop in the 1600's. In other words, when the temp drops a little, the authors draw the graph much far down to give you the perception of huge cold swings, but when the temp gets hotter the graph goes up only slightly. This alone should make the reader think twice about using it as some sort of "evidence" against global warming. I love how the authors of this chart use it to vilify those damned deceptive global warming scientists only to turn around and do the same thing to promote their own agenda. Fail.
I just want to make sure nobody overlooks this- it really is like the evolution vs intelligent design debate all over again. Conservative christians trying to tell scientists that science isn't real.
there are thousands upon thousands of scientists, and climatologists who don't believe that man has caused temps to get warmer. I doubt every one of them is a conservative christian. where do you get the conservative christian aspect of all of this? it's a proven fact that the climate warms and cools with or without carbon emissions... i don't understand what this has to do with religion?
If there's no question, then why did everybody start calling it climate change in the media? Maybe it's because these crazy climate predictions that happen every 10 years... are always wrong??? Neither does the article, it just says that global warming alarmists are being alarmists. Again. It's almost as if they have an incentive to exaggerate... The satellite data is public information though... his research is public, he's a lead scientist at NASA... these are some "dubious claims" that you're making. Wow more ad hominems. Shocking. Yes, but the problem is when people say the solution is to give the government more money. The only reason we haven't switched to clean energy is because it's not cost effective yet. If you pass laws to force the transition quicker than economics allows you will only be reducing the people's standard of living, all based on bogus computer models that are never right. Rather than try to defend the graph, let's look at his original statement that you're attacking. "you need to use info from much earlier than 1979.. the earth has been heating and cooling for thousands of years." Do you agree? Check out the limited time frame included in the typical AGW proponent's graph vs the much larger time frame real scientists use: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI]The Hockey Stick vs. Ice Core Data - YouTube[/ame] Look at the well known milankovich cycle. The Earth has been changing climate for billions of years, but we're so quick to assume a human correlation as causation? I think there might be some egotistical element in being an AGW proponent. The big difference is climate change is being legislated in a way that would impact global markets. If the science is real then show me the "smoking gun" for AGW, something that will make crippling world economies worth it. And scientific consensus doesn't convince me, I've read history.
I wasn't attacking his statement, I was attacking the bullshit graph which gets shown time and time again as if it's some sort of evidence against global warming. Excellent use of a strawman though. You of all people know better than that. EDIT: The OP's topic is about global warming, not AGW. Why are you making correlation/causation arguments? EDIT 2: Furthermore, the issue isn't whether the earth goes through cycles of warm and cold. This is a well known fact that has no bearing on the issue whatsoever. It's whether or not the earth has ever warmed at the currently observed rates, that is about 0.5 to 1 degree C in less than a century.