Global Warming

[Martin Ronne]

Yes, I do.

No you don't you fucking moron.

How dare I contradict your views!! Right?

Its more like you don't have the knowledge, education or experience to contradict the millions of scientists who agree that global climate change is coming and we had best do what we can to mitigate the damage.

Further, you make it clear you cannot be bothered to really do the work it would take for you to even find this out. You prefer to think that you know ... and most of the rest of the world is just playing a big conspiracy game.

Oh it's not a conspiracy game, it's just an idiot game. Further more, great minds do not think alike. Millions of scientists in agreement lends no credence to the validity of global warming. 30 years ago they where warning us of global cooling, and they were wrong.

[PLAYER57832]

Oh it's not a conspiracy game, it's just an idiot game. Further more, great minds do not think alike. Millions of scientists in agreement lends no credence to the validity of global warming. 30 years ago they where warning us of global cooling, and they were wrong.

You are wrong on both counts. Millions of scientists is a great deal of credibility to anyone who understands how science really works, which includes not just the "idiotic" (as you term them) scientists themselves, but also a great many business leaders, economists, historians and politicians, even in countries without a competetive political system (where the politicians have no incentive to do other than what will benefit THEM).

Those who disagree... ONLY those who refuse to study anything related to global earth/climate science and those who believe science means you start out thinking something is true and then go look for only evidence to support it, ignoring anything which disagrees, no matter how well founded.

Add to this your statement that "scientists first predicted cooling and now predict warming" is just flat out wrong from the outset. Further, global cooling and global warming are not two seperate and unrelated phenomena, which is why scientists tend to refer to "climate change" and not "global warming".

[Martin Ronne]

I'll respond a little later. Had some trouble posting and now it's past midnight.

[Simon Viavant]

Is not!

Shut up!

Yes it is. All it is, like every fucking thing on this planet, is something that has been hyped up to make us all afraid. Fear controls about 99% of the earth's population. We're ALL afraid of something, mostly things which relate back to death.

The other 1% are mentally retarded and don't even know the difference between gravy and diarrhea excrimant or have some mental problems.

"Global Warming", as the pathetic term is, is BS!

Is not!

[KLOBBER]

Yes, I do.

No you don't you fucking moron.

Anger issues much?

[Hornet95]

As far as 'climate change' goes, there's two world views on this, both leading the majority of the population to be apathetic:

First, the secular world view: Climate change happens over thousands or millions of years. It's not happening fast. My lifetime is 100 years or less. My great-grandchildren will be dead in less than 250 years. The Earth will not turn to Venus by the time anyone I know or care about is alive.

Second, the (majority) Christian world view: The Earth was created by God. He still has an active role in the events on the Earth. What little we can do to affect the Earth for good or ill can be countermanded by Him in an instant.

In both cases, there is sufficient science to say that there are a thousand causes of global climate change, some of which are human and some of which are not (see cows' methane gas production and solar cycles). We do not know everything. 250 years ago at the start of the Industrial Revolution, we had little idea that those big smoke stacks would cause global warming. Today, we don't know what effect our anti-carbon emission actions will have 250 years from now. All of this is cause to leave the science of it all to scientists and worry more about paying my taxes and cooking my supper than about global climate change.

[JoshyBoy]

Is not!

Shut up!

Yes it is. All it is, like every fucking thing on this planet, is something that has been hyped up to make us all afraid. Fear controls about 99% of the earth's population. We're ALL afraid of something, mostly things which relate back to death.

The other 1% are mentally retarded and don't even know the difference between gravy and diarrhea excrimant or have some mental problems.

"Global Warming", as the pathetic term is, is BS!

Is not!

Is too!

[the1brother]

You are wrong on both counts. Millions of scientists is a great deal of credibility to anyone who understands how science really works, which includes not just the "idiotic" (as you term them) scientists themselves, but also a great many business leaders, economists, historians and politicians, even in countries without a competetive political system (where the politicians have no incentive to do other than what will benefit THEM).

Millions of scientists? Where did you hear that millions of scientists support global warming? As for the other people, I'm sure business leaders are doing it for their own benefit. And why would they count anyway? Do business leaders have a more advanced knowledge of how the environment works that any of us do? And the same goes for economists and politicians. But as for historians, I've heard just the opposite. Do a search for 'Global Warming: Doomsday Postponed'.

Further, global cooling and global warming are not two seperate and unrelated phenomena, which is why scientists tend to refer to "climate change" and not "global warming".

Could explain this a little better? With "not two seperate" is sounds like you are saying that global cooling and global warming are the same thing. But I do agree that they are not unrelated.

If there is global warming, how come for the last several years we've been having colder temperatures than normal?

[Gregrios]

I've got a question. How is it that with all the concrete evidence for globing warming, there's still a split opinion on the legitimacy of the claims throughout the scientific world? If it were so transparent, wouldn't there be only one side represented by scientists? This tells me either that the evidence for global warming is simply circumstantial or that one side of this arguement has been corrupted by either money, power, or hate. I'm guessing it's an evidence thing.

[Neoteny]

I've got a question. How is it that with all the concrete evidence for globing warming, there's still a split opinion on the legitimacy of the claims throughout the scientific world? If it were so transparent, wouldn't there be only one side represented by scientists? This tells me either that the evidence for global warming is simply circumstantial or that one side of this arguement has been corrupted by either money, power, or hate. I'm guessing it's an evidence thing.

How many scientists do you know that don't agree with global warming?

[captain.crazy]

I've got a question. How is it that with all the concrete evidence for globing warming, there's still a split opinion on the legitimacy of the claims throughout the scientific world? If it were so transparent, wouldn't there be only one side represented by scientists? This tells me either that the evidence for global warming is simply circumstantial or that one side of this arguement has been corrupted by either money, power, or hate. I'm guessing it's an evidence thing.

How many scientists do you know that don't agree with global warming?

None of the scientists agree with Global warming any more... Thats why they changed the name to climate change

[Gregrios]

I've got a question. How is it that with all the concrete evidence for globing warming, there's still a split opinion on the legitimacy of the claims throughout the scientific world? If it were so transparent, wouldn't there be only one side represented by scientists? This tells me either that the evidence for global warming is simply circumstantial or that one side of this arguement has been corrupted by either money, power, or hate. I'm guessing it's an evidence thing.

How many scientists do you know that don't agree with global warming?

I don't "know" any but I've seen enough interviews on the tube to know there's more than a couple that take this stance. Does this mean you can't answer my question?

[owheelj]

1. It's fairly misleading to talk about how many scientists disagree with climate change. Only a small number of scientists have qualifications in the specific areas of study that deal with climate change (specifically climatology) although there is a fairly large amount of evidence in other fields such as geology and biology that also supports climate change. Merely being a "scientist" does not immediately mean somebody is qualified to make an informed judgement on climate change.

2. Most of the disagreement within qualified scientists is about the specific outcomes and causes of climate change, not whether or not our climate is changing and getting warmer. It would have to be considered an observed fact that our climate is warming, and that it's at least partially caused by human activity. I think you'd be very hard pressed to find any climatologists, oceanographers or other qualified scientists who disagree with this. How much is human induced and how much warming will occur are the important questions.

3. The change of the name from "climate change" to "global warming" was apparently made by one of George W Bush's advisor's because they thought it sounded less scary. "Climate change" is also a more accurate term because the level of actual warming is not really significant in terms of what we'd notice (ie. the average rise in temperature so far is not enough for us to actually be able to notice any significant temperature change), however the amount of warming is enough to noticeable change climates in a number of ways - such as storm frequency, weather patterns, precipitation etc. The changes to the climate are much more noticeable and measurable than the changes to the temperature.

For the record, I'm studying climatology (and biology) at university. This doesn't mean I'm right, but hopefully I have a bit of a knowledge base to support what I've just written

[captain.crazy]

1. It's fairly misleading to talk about how many scientists disagree with climate change. Only a small number of scientists have qualifications in the specific areas of study that deal with climate change (specifically climatology) although there is a fairly large amount of evidence in other fields such as geology and biology that also supports climate change. Merely being a "scientist" does not immediately mean somebody is qualified to make an informed judgement on climate change.

yes, agree on all...

2. Most of the disagreement within qualified scientists is about the specific outcomes and causes of climate change, not whether or not our climate is changing and getting warmer. It would have to be considered an observed fact that our climate is warming, and that it's at least partially caused by human activity. I think you'd be very hard pressed to find any climatologists, oceanographers or other qualified scientists who disagree with this. How much is human induced and how much warming will occur are the important questions.

that is a moot point. Of course climate changes, just as it always has. The real issue is why it is changing. the earth has been much hotter than this in the past, and will likely get colder again. The other issue that I take issue with is apparent false pretenses that exist around the global warming political stance.

3. The change of the name from "climate change" to "global warming" was apparently made by one of George W Bush's advisor's because they thought it sounded less scary. "Climate change" is also a more accurate term because the level of actual warming is not really significant in terms of what we'd notice (ie. the average rise in temperature so far is not enough for us to actually be able to notice any significant temperature change), however the amount of warming is enough to noticeable change climates in a number of ways - such as storm frequency, weather patterns, precipitation etc. The changes to the climate are much more noticeable and measurable than the changes to the temperature.

That is pretty much bunk. Global warming has been a term around as far back as the early 90's at least. Climate Change is pretty much a term put into place most recently as it has been evident in the last couple of years that the Earth has cooled a bit.

For the record, I'm studying climatology (and biology) at university. This doesn't mean I'm right, but hopefully I have a bit of a knowledge base to support what I've just written

Good for you! Now go out, do the right thing and study the sun. It is the source of our global warming (irrefutably), I think and fluctuations in our climate temperature is mostly related to sun spot activity. Also, start by verifying the surface temperature fluctuations of other planets in our solar system. That evidence is what changed my mind the most.