New York Times: Fears Turn to Doubts About "Global Warming."

It's about time this farce was exposed. I'm glad people are finally beginning to see things clearly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/earth/25climate.html

What do you think about this?

I think that two days ago it was cold where I live and now its in the 90's.

(article hasnt loaded yet)

ok so basically people are now ignoring scientists and listening to skeptics. I want to know what research these skeptics have done.

Did you even read the article? It's saying that the public is increasingly skeptical of global warming; it's still the consensus of the scientific community that it's real and manmade (as the article also says). People are disagreeing with modern science? Well, the people must be right.

The scientific community still believes in global warming. Just because so called "skeptics" have changed public opinion to a degree, it doesn't mean that global warming isn't true.

Did you even read the article? It's saying that the public is increasingly skeptical of global warming; it's still the consensus of the scientific community that it's real and manmade (as the article also says). People are disagreeing with modern science? Well, the people must be right.

Theokhoth

What's happening? People are not listening to the scientific experts. They want to keep living their extravagant lifestyles instead of being responsible about taking care of the world. Sorry, but anyone who doesn't think global warming is real is being completely ignorant at this point.

What's happening? People are not listening to the scientific experts. They want to keep living their extravagant lifestyles instead of being responsible about taking care of the world. Sorry, but anyone who doesn't think global warming is real is being completely ignorant at this point.

starwarsgeek112

[QUOTE="starwarsgeek112"]

What's happening? People are not listening to the scientific experts. They want to keep living their extravagant lifestyles instead of being responsible about taking care of the world. Sorry, but anyone who doesn't think global warming is real is being completely ignorant at this point.

Serraph105

This recent Onion video seems very relevant here. :P

I don't think global warming is something the general public should even have an opinion on, seeing as we're not scientists and can't possibly back up our assertions with any meaningful evidence. Ninja-Hippo

When has a lack of meaningful evidence stopped a member of the general public from holding an opinion? :P

1. I've been saying this for a while now.
2. I'm not against finding better sources of energy, but thinking we are the cause for the Earth's cycles of heat and cold is preposterous.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]I don't think global warming is something the general public should even have an opinion on, seeing as we're not scientists and can't possibly back up our assertions with any meaningful evidence. GabuEx

When has a lack of meaningful evidence stopped a member of the general public from holding an opinion? :P

Hahah.

That made me laugh:P

I don't think global warming is something the general public should even have an opinion on, seeing as we're not scientists and can't possibly back up our assertions with any meaningful evidence. Ninja-Hippo

So, you're essentially against democracy, or even fair representation (though I'm sure you'd be all for it if public opinion was reversed on this issue). Typical.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]I don't think global warming is something the general public should even have an opinion on, seeing as we're not scientists and can't possibly back up our assertions with any meaningful evidence. Elephant_Couple

So, you're essentially against democracy, or even fair representation (though I'm sure you'd be all for it if public opinion was reversed on this issue). Typical.

I'm certainly against the subjection of scientific knowledge to democracy.

Asked about his views on global warming on a recent evening, Brian George, a 30-year-old builder from southeast London, mused, "It was extremely cold in January, wasn't it?"

Suck it, science.

2. I'm not against finding better sources of energy, but thinking we are the cause for the Earth's cycles of heat and cold is preposterous.

foxhound_fox

1. I've been saying this for a while now.
2. I'm not against finding better sources of energy, but thinking we are the cause for the Earth's cycles of heat and cold is preposterous.

foxhound_fox

I saw a documentary last year called "The Global Warming Swindle" - it's on the internet somewhere. It was about various scientists and climate experts who provided their findings which "proved" that GW was happening, but that it was not driven by human development/carbon emissions. It was really interesting, especially when you consider how high-profile and well respected these scientists were. There's one point where a solar expert says "You want to know why it's so hot? There's a God-damn fireball in the sky!!" :lol: and went on to say how the sun plays a bigger role than Co2. It's worth watching.

People preach about driving down carbon emissions, and yet water vapour plays a massive role, and most Co2 emissions come from the ocean and vegetation anyway. Human emissions are minima when put into context. People seem to have forgotten that this sort of thing has happened before the industrial revolution.

It's far from preposterous. I don't see how anyone could think that deforestation, and the compounds we put into the atmoshpere would have no effect. Either they're not aware of what scale human industrial behavior has reached or.. they think its irrelevant.. both of which seem preposterous to me.

EMOEVOLUTION

2) Unless ya know, the actual data and evidence support it (Hint: It does).

HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]I don't think global warming is something the general public should even have an opinion on, seeing as we're not scientists and can't possibly back up our assertions with any meaningful evidence. Elephant_Couple

So, you're essentially against democracy, or even fair representation (though I'm sure you'd be all for it if public opinion was reversed on this issue). Typical.

There is no democracy in science, it is a tyranny of evidence. If science was a democracy we would still believe in a flat earth and geocentrism.

Okay everyone knows that carbon dixiode is the main reason to blame for global warming, now image permafrost melting and methane releasing to the atmosphere. Methane is 20x more powerful, everyone needs to realize that we need to stop living our lives of having the best and luxury lifestyle's. We need to keep what we have now and to live more sustainable. I didn't really care about any of this until I watched this.

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]I don't think global warming is something the general public should even have an opinion on, seeing as we're not scientists and can't possibly back up our assertions with any meaningful evidence. Ingenemployee

So, you're essentially against democracy, or even fair representation (though I'm sure you'd be all for it if public opinion was reversed on this issue). Typical.

There is no democracy in science, it is a tyranny of evidence. If science was a democracy we would still believe in a flat earth and geocentrism.

To me gobal warming is not about science, other than the data collected that indicates it might be occurring. To me, global warming is completely about politics, because that's the end game for the people driving the green agenda...a new economic order.

When you're going to use the science behind global warming claims as a justification to kill millions of jobs, discourage innovation, raise taxes, and thus drive the economy into the ground (by passing cap and trade, or agreeing to global environmental regulations when our biggest competitors are refusing to do the same), it becomes a policy issue that is subject to the democratic rule of law, just like everything else.

[QUOTE="Ingenemployee"]

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

So, you're essentially against democracy, or even fair representation (though I'm sure you'd be all for it if public opinion was reversed on this issue). Typical.

Elephant_Couple

There is no democracy in science, it is a tyranny of evidence. If science was a democracy we would still believe in a flat earth and geocentrism.

To me gobal warming is not about science, other than the data collected that indicates it might be occurring. To me, global warming is completely about politics, because that's the end game for the people driving the green agenda...a new economic order.

When you're going to use the science behind global warming claims as a justification to kill millions of jobs, discourage innovation, raise taxes, and thus drive the economy into the ground (by passing cap and trade, or agreeing to global environmental regulations when our biggest competitors are refusing to do the same), it becomes a policy issue that is subject to the democratic rule of law, just like everything else.

Do you really want to know what all this "cutting down on carbon" tripe is? A means for companies to make money off of expensive carbon diminishing devices and technologies. Did you also know that a Hummer H2 costs less in damage to the atmosphere over its first 150,000 miles than a Toyota Prius?

foxhound_fox

These carbon diminishing technologies cost more produce than conventional means

How could they be making more money off it?

Whatever you believe about Global Warming, it certainly wouldn't hurt to cut down on emmisions, and what if the scietific community are right? I'm not saying they are are aren't, I'm keeping my personal belief out of this? We have everything to lose if we don't do something.

It does? Prove it

foxhound_fox

Prove it? I don't need to. 97% of climatologists agree that climate change is affected by man in some measurable form. I'm not a climatologist, but I do trust real one's that spend their entire life researching and studying Earth's climate that say WE are part of the problem (97% in the world).

That holds weight in the world, not some regular Joe who has some reservations (YOU). Like I said, it's backed up by verifiable evidence and statistics.

The public disagrees with scientists? Well then....That must also mean 911 was caused by the government, and the moon landing was fake!

THE PEOPLE KNOW ALL!

I saw a documentary last year called "The Global Warming Swindle" - it's on the internet somewhere. It was about various scientists and climate experts who provided their findings which "proved" that GW was happening, but that it was not driven by human development/carbon emissions. It was really interesting, especially when you consider how high-profile and well respected these scientists were. There's one point where a solar expert says "You want to know why it's so hot? There's a God-damn fireball in the sky!!" :lol: and went on to say how the sun plays a bigger role than Co2. It's worth watching.

People preach about driving down carbon emissions, and yet water vapour plays a massive role, and most Co2 emissions come from the ocean and vegetation anyway. Human emissions are minima when put into context. People seem to have forgotten that this sort of thing has happened before the industrial revolution.

KlepticGrooves

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"] It's far from preposterous. I don't see how anyone could think that deforestation, and the compounds we put into the atmoshpere would have no effect. Either they're not aware of what scale human industrial behavior has reached or.. they think its irrelevant.. both of which seem preposterous to me.

foxhound_fox

2) Unless ya know, the actual data and evidence support it (Hint: It does).

HoolaHoopMan

The second hottest year on record was 2009, and 2010 seems set to break the record for hottest year in recorded history. 2000-2010 was the hottest decade on record.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]I don't think global warming is something the general public should even have an opinion on, seeing as we're not scientists and can't possibly back up our assertions with any meaningful evidence. Elephant_Couple

So, you're essentially against democracy, or even fair representation (though I'm sure you'd be all for it if public opinion was reversed on this issue). Typical.

Science isn't politics.

People just have a hard time admitting they are the problem of anything.

Carbon dioxide is an absolute farce. CFC's and other ozone damaging substances are real... but all I've ever specially talked about was the Al Gore line of thinking that too much CO2 is destroying the planet and we have to do absolutely everything in our power to stop it. I don't deny that humans have done some bad things to the planet... but good old Mother Earth has been through much worse than humans and survived... and I don't doubt she'll out live us all.

foxhound_fox

CO2 isn't an ozone destroying substance like CFC though, it's a green house gas.

Secondly, the fear of rapid global climate change isn't if Earth will survive along with life, it's almost certain that it will. It's whether or not we are going to be going with it into the future. Rapid climate change would be devastating to human society and life as we know it.

I always thought the argument was not about wether it is real or not (it is) but wether it is manmade or not.

I guess not.

The last hottest year was in 1998 IIRC, and it has been getting colder ever since?

foxhound_fox

Just not true at all.

[QUOTE="Ingenemployee"]

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

So, you're essentially against democracy, or even fair representation (though I'm sure you'd be all for it if public opinion was reversed on this issue). Typical.

Elephant_Couple

There is no democracy in science, it is a tyranny of evidence. If science was a democracy we would still believe in a flat earth and geocentrism.

To me gobal warming is not about science, other than the data collected that indicates it might be occurring. To me, global warming is completely about politics, because that's the end game for the people driving the green agenda...a new economic order.

When you're going to use the science behind global warming claims as a justification to kill millions of jobs, discourage innovation, raise taxes, and thus drive the economy into the ground (by passing cap and trade, or agreeing to global environmental regulations when our biggest competitors are refusing to do the same), it becomes a policy issue that is subject to the democratic rule of law, just like everything else.

Ever find it funny how a lot of those "skeptics" are funded by oil companies? Hmm, I wonder what's going on.

I admit I don't have a lot of knowledge regarding climate change (or global warming or whatever). I'd really like to take an actual science course on the subject though, as coming from a position of ignorance it can be difficult to separate good science from false info (especially on the internet).

Still, I'm going to lean towards the side that has the scientist's consensus. People who have spent their lives studying these things tend to know what they're talking about.

Trends.

I saw a documentary last year called "The Global Warming Swindle" - it's on the internet somewhere. It was about various scientists and climate experts who provided their findings which "proved" that GW was happening, but that it was not driven by human development/carbon emissions. It was really interesting, especially when you consider how high-profile and well respected these scientists were. There's one point where a solar expert says "You want to know why it's so hot? There's a God-damn fireball in the sky!!" :lol: and went on to say how the sun plays a bigger role than Co2. It's worth watching.

People preach about driving down carbon emissions, and yet water vapour plays a massive role, and most Co2 emissions come from the ocean and vegetation anyway. Human emissions are minima when put into context. People seem to have forgotten that this sort of thing has happened before the industrial revolution.

KlepticGrooves

Ok this might just be me misunderstanding your post because I'm on allergy medicine but how can plants be a major cause of CO2 emissions when they absorb CO2 and emit O2? :?Rockman999

Plants "breathe" in a sense the same as humans do - they take in carbon dioxide during the day to facilitate photosynthesis, but then at night when no photosythesis occurrs, they do give off excess carbon dioxide. Their emissions are far outweighed by the amount of carbon dioxide they take in during the day, however. The claim that plants are responsible for CO2 pollution (which I've seen more and more of) is just false.

I'm not going to waste more precious moments of my life arguing endlessly about this subject, so I'll just post this and be done:

Trends.

BigBoss154

Huh? Not only is that chart not relevent (no one is disputing that the Earth's climate naturally changes, the question is whether humanity is causing the current changes, and if so to what degree), but it is so out-of-context and imprecise that it actually contradicts itself. The Earth consistently warms during the period of greatest volcanic activity shown (1741-1991; only dropping after the Pinatubo erruption), and no volcanic activity precedes the apparent drop between 1998 and 2009. :?