Time Magazine Compares Iwo Jima to Global Warming

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by JeffXD

There is a big difference in cleaning up our act a little bit when it comes to emissions and things released into water sources and engaging in an active campaign to combat global warming. The planet has been steadily warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. I would really like to know which Chicken Little decided on the proper temperature that the planet should be. In the past 4.6 Billion years, Earth has been ALOT hotter than it is now and it has been ALOT colder than it is now. Due to solar activity, the wobble of the Earth upon its axis coupled with the position of the planet in its orbit, volcanic activity, etc, etc, etc... the temperature of Earth is going to fluctuate, sometimes significantly. Whats more, there is a recent data set from a NASA satellite that has new global temperature numbers that indicate the global warming crowd has over-estimated things just a wee bit. I don't have the link to data in front of me, but I will get it. The wonderful "Hockey Stick" graph that is supposed to represent a rise in temperature that Al Gore loves to use as proof has recently been shown to be fatally flawed. The originally researchers failed to follow basic rules in the analysis they did and thier stats were off a wee bit too. I see no point in spending money on Manhattan Project or Apollo Program style programs on something that has yet to be determined if there is even a problem to be solved. Its all a bunch of political feel good mumbo jumbo.

Should we strive to clean up the air and water? Of course. Its a bad thing for everyone when the air is brown and nasty. Its a bad thing when aquatic creatures die because of crap in the water. Those are a societal problems we have because people have stopped caring. But I don't think for one minute that it requires billions of dollars to fix under the guise of a notion that the planet is dying and/or humanity is going to die. That is fear-mongouring at its best. For the record, I am pretty irritated tht Bush has jumped on the global warming band wagon this week. He no more than any other politican has the knowledge to take position on this issue other than to gain some politcal currency. I see his recent proclamation as nothing more than that.

EDIT: Climate facts to warm to | The Australian

Do you realize that there are many places on this planet where the water is not safe to drink?

Yes, the people who are warning about global warming ARE a crowd. They in fact represent the vast majority of scientific opinion on the matter.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

They in fact represent the vast majority of scientific opinion on the matter.

Source?

Frank

[DanTheEldest]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Source?

Frank

The UN said so.

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Source?

Frank

I have posted this information in other threads. Look in any newspaper, Frank. Almost all of the major scientific organizations that deal with climate change are in agreement, including NASA.

[DanTheEldest]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I have posted this information in other threads. Look in any newspaper, Frank. Almost all of the major scientific organizations that deal with climate change are in agreement, including NASA.

Oh, good grief....here we go again.

I'm done with this thread as it's just going to be another GW repeat that's been beaten to death, and my head hurts from banging it against the desk.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I have posted this information in other threads. Look in any newspaper, Frank. Almost all of the major scientific organizations that deal with climate change are in agreement, including NASA.

So you are refusing to provide a source?

Remember, there is a difference between agreeing with climate change and agreeing that climate change is caused by man.

Frank

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

So you are refusing to provide a source?

Remember, there is a difference between agreeing with climate change and agreeing that climate change is caused by man.

Frank

There is consensus that it is at least partly caused by man.

If you're truly interested in the topic, check out these sites:

RealClimate

Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist


I am done talking about this as well.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not trying to prove anything true or false, just suggesting that the vast majority of scientists and experts do not necessarily agree with the mainstream theory.

Frank

[JeffXD]

The IPCC claims are in danger of being totally disproven. This particular article Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theoryis now about a year old, and I there is more and more evidence that global warming is not occuring. I am wondering if the link I provided that shows the data coming from the NASA satellite was even read. Doesnt seem so.

"Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"
Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

I aint making this stuff up. Just because NASA hasn't held a news conference that they were wrong doesnt mean they weren't.

How about this on the "scientific consensus"
"Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
DailyTech - Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not trying to prove anything true or false, just suggesting that the vast majority of scientists and experts do not necessarily agree with the mainstream theory.

Frank

Those scientists are not a majority and their scientific credentials are in question.