Global Warming..etc

[spaznoid]

Tuned in to a flick call "Chasing Ice"..WOW what a freak out..To all who are up on this subject watch this.This was with out a doubt a mind bending experience.I had viewed it on netflix.now i have a copy from e****ss f***s i may try to post this...,...
am a new member to this particular board but belong to many others hope this is posted correctly if not my apologies in advance.
peace to all......[/color][/font]

[ViperScale]

That is why there is more ice around Antarctica then they have had in years....

[Headbanger]

Pretty sure the ice is still retreating.

[Headbanger]

Of course weather changes. Climate even changes naturally as well based on terrestrial happenings. So its not too unreasonable to believe that humans can make lasting impacts on climate, especially given all of the things we've been doing to mother Earth over the last couple of centuries.

[Headbanger]

Quite the opposite is true. Most scientists agree that climate is changing, and that we share in the responsibility. The disagreement tends to be in how much we are changing the climate, and to what it means for the future (snowball vs. fireball). The only time a major science group disagreed with climate change was a group claiming to represent petroleum scientists, and it had to change its view because the scientists that group claimed to threatened to walk out because it had made that claim.

The collected meteorological evidence so far shows that current weather patterns are increasingly warmer. We are generating more record highs than record lows. Putting all of the collected data together shows that our climate over the past century or so has been getting warmer.

Historical climatological analysis, while it shows that climate does change naturally, also shows that as best we are able to tell, our current climate is warming faster than any of those previous cycles had warmed, and we have already reached a warmer climate than the Earth has seen for ages.

[Headbanger]

Quite the opposite is true. Most scientists agree that climate is changing, and that we share in the responsibility. The disagreement tends to be in how much we are changing the climate, and to what it means for the future (snowball vs. fireball).

In 2004, a review of published abstracts from 928 peer-reviewed papers addressing "global climate change" found that none of them disputed the IPCC's conclusion that "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities" and that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"[8] A 2013 survey of 3984 abstracts from peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 that expressed an opinion on anthropogenic global warming found that 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity.[9] (see also Scientific opinion on climate change and Surveys of scientists' views on climate change).

The only time a major science group disagreed with climate change was a group claiming to represent petroleum scientists, and it had to change its view because the scientists that group claimed to threatened to walk out because it had made that claim.

As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[11] no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[10][12]

The collected meteorological evidence so far shows that current weather patterns are increasingly warmer. We are generating more record highs than record lows. Putting all of the collected data together shows that our climate over the past century or so has been getting warmer.

Historical climatological analysis, while it shows that climate does change naturally, also shows that as best we are able to tell, our current climate is warming faster than any of those previous cycles had warmed, and we have already reached a warmer climate than the Earth has seen for ages.

for climate data past 204 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

While a 152 and a masters is impressive, it seems unlikely that it is anything to lend you merit considering that academically, the authors of the 900+ peer reviewed articles have higher academic standing, and they likely surpass your IQ.

[NIK]

Well I have an IQ of 153 and I say you're talking out your ass.

Since neither of us has presented a shred of evidence supporting either our arguments or our claims, but my unsupported claim tops your unsupported claim, I obviously win.

I'll understand though if people reading this think that anyone who was really as smart as we claim to be would be able to come up with a better argument than "trust me, I'm on the Internet".

[Headbanger]

Out of some 970 odd peer reviewed papers supporting climate change, there have only been some 20 or so authors that have actually written something to express that they do not agree with IPCC findings and projections. Of those, ALL agree that our climate is changing. They only disagree on the extent of human's influence vs. external influences. I doubt that someone managed to sneak by some 5k peer reviewed articles with no one noticing.

Speaking of dishonest scientists though, here's one of some interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon

In 2011, it was revealed that Soon received over $1,000,000 from petroleum and coal interests since 2001.[30] Documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Foundation gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute. Soon has stated unequivocally that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research." and "would have accepted money from Greenpeace if they had offered it to do my research."[31]

It seems to me that if active opponents of global warming were 5x greater than those who propose it, that Wikipedia wouldn't be able to progress for long without being "corrected."

I don't see what political leanings have to do with it. Their work is hardly "We're left so we're right!" It is collected and testable empirical data. And I really doubt that almost every single climate researcher is corruptible.

[joew771]

The earth goes has gone through numerous warming/cooling periods throughout history. We are in a warming period now. Whether or not humans are on earth, the earth WILL warm up again. We may be contributing to it in some way, that is up for debate (obviously, see above), but whether we are or not doesn't matter, it's going to happen anyway, just as in another 10-20,000 years it will cool back down again, no matter what we do.

For a fairly entertaining read on this subject, check out Michael Crichton's book on it, 'State of Fear'.

Audio book version -

http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/4667507/S...bridged%5D

[100.XY]

my 2 cents
we are still too little, to petit amount of CO2 we are responsible for, so we can not change weather patterns...
what bothers me is the rain forest, if we keep chopping the tropical forest at this rate it is mankind who will perish, extinction of one specie:homo sapiens
earth will still be here recovering after a catastrophe like so many times happened in the past.