"Global warming believers are feeling the heat"

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Man-made global warming...one of the biggest scams in human history. ultimate-k

:lol: Which scam will that be? People act like there is this global conspiracy that people like Gore is pushing money because he heavily invested in green technologies.. But by that very same logic Gore, and the entire green technology is a drop in the bucket compared to the fossil fuel industries which are hellbent on keeping the current situation profitable to them..

Stop listenting to Government properganda

Everyone who fell for the properganda watch this vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

The bigger debate about Global Warming isn't whether it's happening or not (it is), it's whether the main cause is anthropocentric or natural.

The bigger debate about Global Warming isn't whether it's happening or not (it is), it's whether the main cause is anthropocentric or natural.

iHarlequin

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

The bigger debate about Global Warming isn't whether it's happening or not (it is), it's whether the main cause is anthropocentric or natural.

Ace6301

In the 70's it was "global cooling"

In the 90's it was "global warming"

In the 2000's it became "climate change" so that no matter what happens, environmentalists can blame it on plastic bottles.

LazySloth718

Global cooling never gained any serious traction in the scientific community, and climate change was actually coined by conservative strategists because it sounds less scary than global warming. The scientific community adopted it simply because it cuts down on on people saying sh*t like "Global warming? But it was cold today!", and AGW (anthropogenic global warming) still gets plenty of use.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

The bigger debate about Global Warming isn't whether it's happening or not (it is), it's whether the main cause is anthropocentric or natural.

AdamPA1006

Republicans politicized it when they realized it opposed the interests of many of their key backers. Gas and Oil.

People opposing science over politics....smh

The bigger debate about Global Warming isn't whether it's happening or not (it is), it's whether the main cause is anthropocentric or natural.

iHarlequin

It's not really up for debate.

Addendum: The mainstream media is orders of the magnitude more reliable than blogs.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

The bigger debate about Global Warming isn't whether it's happening or not (it is), it's whether the main cause is anthropocentric or natural.

AdamPA1006

[QUOTE="AdamPA1006"]

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html#ixzz2gW9OwNoR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

Most global scientists are backing off all their crazy claims.

MakeMeaSammitch

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="AdamPA1006"]

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html#ixzz2gW9OwNoR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

Most global scientists are backing off all their crazy claims.

Nibroc420

[QUOTE="ultimate-k"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

:lol: Which scam will that be? People act like there is this global conspiracy that people like Gore is pushing money because he heavily invested in green technologies.. But by that very same logic Gore, and the entire green technology is a drop in the bucket compared to the fossil fuel industries which are hellbent on keeping the current situation profitable to them..

Person0

Stop listenting to Government properganda

Everyone who fell for the properganda watch this vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

Yep stay alseep then. Earths climate chagnes all the god dam time! Did man made the ice age then, because the Earths climate changed:roll:. I advice all of you to watch the video, you get more of a sence how the world works as well. 

KC, just read a graph so we can make fun of you

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="ultimate-k"]

 

Stop listenting to Government properganda

 

Everyone who fell for the properganda watch this vid

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

ultimate-k

Yep stay alseep then. Earths climate chagnes all the god dam time! Did man made the ice age then, because the Earths climate changed:roll:. I advice all of you to watch the video, you get more of a sence how the world works as well. 

Person was right though. At the beginning a guy said that the amount of co2 has no effect temperature.

As you can see, around the time that there was a massive increase in the amount of co2 in the air (1900's), there is also a big increase in temperature.

[QUOTE="ultimate-k"]

[QUOTE="Person0"] Lol. So much wrong in just the first few minutes.deeliman

Yep stay alseep then. Earths climate chagnes all the god dam time! Did man made the ice age then, because the Earths climate changed:roll:. I advice all of you to watch the video, you get more of a sence how the world works as well. 

Person was right though. At the beginning a guy said that the amount of co2 has no effect temperature.

As you can see, around the time that there was a massive increase in the amount of co2 in the air (1900's), there is also a big increase in temperature.

"The Earth has been around for 4,500,000,000 years (give or take a few hundred thousand), lets look at the past 200 years, and pretend we know what to expect from climate change!"Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]
"The Earth has been around for 4,500,000,000 years (give or take a few hundred thousand), lets look at the past 200 years, and pretend we know what to expect from climate change!"deeliman

[QUOTE="deeliman"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]
"The Earth has been around for 4,500,000,000 years (give or take a few hundred thousand), lets look at the past 200 years, and pretend we know what to expect from climate change!"Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="deeliman"]

deeliman

It's good to have some idea of where the Earth's climate was(tempature wise), how it changed, what caused it to change, etc.

Simply looking at the last 200 years and saying "It's gotten hotter, and we've also done ________" doesn't make it science.

Heck, Tempatures have been increasing for the past 150-200 years, and 200 years ago, Hasbro wasn't making "Hot Wheels".
Lets make a graph comparing the increase in Hot Wheels production, and the Earth's average tempature, you'll notice both will increase.
That means they're related, right? :roll:

[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] No, I got your point. Just seems a little arrogant to make assumptions with only 0.00000444% of the information.Nibroc420

It's good to have some idea of where the Earth's climate was(tempature wise), how it changed, what caused it to change, etc.

Simply looking at the last 200 years and saying "It's gotten hotter, and we've also done ________" doesn't make it science.

Heck, Tempatures have been increasing for the past 150-200 years, and 200 years ago, Hasbro wasn't making "Hot Wheels".
Lets make a graph comparing the increase in Hot Wheels production, and the Earth's average tempature, you'll notice both will increase.
That means they're related, right? :roll:

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="deeliman"] That's because the rest of the info is pretty irrelevant when we're talking about man made climate change. And even if you look back at the Jurassic period about 500 million years ago, you can see that there was even more co2 then now, and the temperature was higher than it is now, and that during the ice ages the co2 levels were low, and it was obviously colder than it is now.deeliman

It's good to have some idea of where the Earth's climate was(tempature wise), how it changed, what caused it to change, etc.

Simply looking at the last 200 years and saying "It's gotten hotter, and we've also done ________" doesn't make it science.

Heck, Tempatures have been increasing for the past 150-200 years, and 200 years ago, Hasbro wasn't making "Hot Wheels".
Lets make a graph comparing the increase in Hot Wheels production, and the Earth's average tempature, you'll notice both will increase.
That means they're related, right? :roll:

[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

 

It's good to have some idea of where the Earth's climate was(tempature wise), how it changed, what caused it to change, etc.

Simply looking at the last 200 years and saying "It's gotten hotter, and we've also done ________" doesn't make it science.

Heck, Tempatures have been increasing for the past 150-200 years, and 200 years ago, Hasbro wasn't making "Hot Wheels".
Lets make a graph comparing the increase in Hot Wheels production, and the Earth's average tempature, you'll notice both will increase.
That means they're related, right? :roll:

Nibroc420

I wish I could make a living writing bullshit.Person0

Nibroc, the man with absolutely no scientific back ground telling the entire scientific community their combined efforts and literature are incorrect. HoolaHoopMan

Please prove I have no scientific background. Your claim requires evidence.Nibroc420

Its not up to me to prove anything, you just pu$$y foot around it everytime I ask you.  

Its pretty clear you're an uneducated goon though, just thought you'd be honest and tell me you've never taken a college course in your lifetime though. So I'll ask again:  Where did you go to school, and if so for what? 

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]Please prove I have no scientific background. Your claim requires evidence.HoolaHoopMan

Its not up to me to prove anything, you just pu$$y foot around it everytime I ask you.  

Its pretty clear you're an uneducated goon though, just thought you'd be honest and tell me you've never taken a college course in your lifetime though. So I'll ask again:  Where did you go to school, and if so for what? 

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Nibroc, the man with absolutely no scientific back ground telling the entire scientific community their combined efforts and literature are incorrect. Nibroc420

Just thought you should know that before you continue trollolololing.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]Please prove I have no scientific background. Your claim requires evidence.Nibroc420

Its not up to me to prove anything, you just pu$$y foot around it everytime I ask you.  

Its pretty clear you're an uneducated goon though, just thought you'd be honest and tell me you've never taken a college course in your lifetime though. So I'll ask again:  Where did you go to school, and if so for what? 

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]Please prove I have no scientific background. Your claim requires evidence.Nibroc420

Its not up to me to prove anything, you just pu$$y foot around it everytime I ask you.  

Its pretty clear you're an uneducated goon though, just thought you'd be honest and tell me you've never taken a college course in your lifetime though. So I'll ask again:  Where did you go to school, and if so for what? 

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

Its not up to me to prove anything, you just pu$$y foot around it everytime I ask you.  

Its pretty clear you're an uneducated goon though, just thought you'd be honest and tell me you've never taken a college course in your lifetime though. So I'll ask again:  Where did you go to school, and if so for what? 

chaplainDMK

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] The burden of proof is always on the claimant. You're making a claim, prove it, or stop ranting about nothing.Nibroc420

GS is going psycho, everyone is double, triple and quadruple posting if you didn't notice. :(

The Himalayan glaciers debacle was a cluster**** but it was completely pointless. It was quoted from WWF 2005 report that basically more or less made up a good portion of that and misquoted a few other reports from the 90s (the 2350 date was given as an estimate as to when the total earth glacial coverage would decrease from 500.000 km2 to 100.000 km2). It was mentioned mid report and probably skipped over repeatedly, and it was never mentioned in the policymakers summary.
If the IPCC was trying to pass these figures over as true it would have mentioned them there since the main findings are presented there - and glacial decrease of that magnitude would certainly be one of the main findings. All it really showed was that IPCC's peer review process is crap.If IPCC was truly trying to blow up the apparent impact of climate change it would give these figures in the final summary/assessment, which it didn't.

And I'd really like to see a link claiming that IPCC has overstated the impact in it's projections. In general they wildly understate and their claims are conservative.

And I'd really like to see a link claiming that IPCC has overstated the impact in it's projections. In general they wildly understate and their claims are conservative.

chaplainDMK

Perhaps you should actually read the thread then, since those links have been provided.

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]

And I'd really like to see a link claiming that IPCC has overstated the impact in it's projections. In general they wildly understate and their claims are conservative.

Nibroc420

Perhaps you should actually read the thread then, since those links have been provided.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]Please prove I have no scientific background. Your claim requires evidence.Nibroc420

Its not up to me to prove anything, you just pu$$y foot around it everytime I ask you.  

Its pretty clear you're an uneducated goon though, just thought you'd be honest and tell me you've never taken a college course in your lifetime though. So I'll ask again:  Where did you go to school, and if so for what? 

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

Its not up to me to prove anything, you just pu$$y foot around it everytime I ask you.  

Its pretty clear you're an uneducated goon though, just thought you'd be honest and tell me you've never taken a college course in your lifetime though. So I'll ask again:  Where did you go to school, and if so for what? 

HoolaHoopMan

1) HoolaHoop has made the assertion that I'm uneducated, I'm curious where he's getting that information from. 2) I'd simply like him to provide evidence for his assertions. 3) Because, again, the burden of proof is on the claimant.Nibroc420

1) Looking at your posting history.  More specifically this thread. 

2) Again, this thread. 

3) I've asked you before in the past how you can possibly consider yourself an authority on climate science.  You've even gone so far as to tell me "I have no idea what goes on with regards to the climate science community."

So its no surprise that when you sound off as a denier its only legitimate to ask what your educational back ground is.  (I already know its none). 

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] 1) HoolaHoop has made the assertion that I'm uneducated, I'm curious where he's getting that information from. 2) I'd simply like him to provide evidence for his assertions. 3) Because, again, the burden of proof is on the claimant.HoolaHoopMan

1) Looking at your posting history.  More specifically this thread. 

2) Again, this thread. 

3) I've asked you before in the past how you can possibly consider yourself an authority on climate science.  You've even gone so far as to tell me "I have no idea what goes on with regards to the climate science community."

So its no surprise that when you sound off as a denier its only legitimate to ask what your educational back ground is.  (I already know its none). 

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] 1) HoolaHoop has made the assertion that I'm uneducated, I'm curious where he's getting that information from. 2) I'd simply like him to provide evidence for his assertions. 3) Because, again, the burden of proof is on the claimant.Nibroc420

1) Looking at your posting history.  More specifically this thread. 

2) Again, this thread. 

3) I've asked you before in the past how you can possibly consider yourself an authority on climate science.  You've even gone so far as to tell me "I have no idea what goes on with regards to the climate science community."

So its no surprise that when you sound off as a denier its only legitimate to ask what your educational back ground is.  (I already know its none). 

Haha you knew what I meant, anthropogenic global warming.  Keep dodging the issue though.  Its a simple question, why not answer it? 

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

1) Looking at your posting history.  More specifically this thread. 

2) Again, this thread. 

3) I've asked you before in the past how you can possibly consider yourself an authority on climate science.  You've even gone so far as to tell me "I have no idea what goes on with regards to the climate science community."

So its no surprise that when you sound off as a denier its only legitimate to ask what your educational back ground is.  (I already know its none). 

HoolaHoopMan

Haha you knew what I meant, anthropogenic global warming.  Keep dodging the issue though.  Its a simple question, why not answer it? 

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] 1) HoolaHoop has made the assertion that I'm uneducated, I'm curious where he's getting that information from. 2) I'd simply like him to provide evidence for his assertions. 3) Because, again, the burden of proof is on the claimant.Nibroc420

1) Looking at your posting history.  More specifically this thread. 

2) Again, this thread. 

3) I've asked you before in the past how you can possibly consider yourself an authority on climate science.  You've even gone so far as to tell me "I have no idea what goes on with regards to the climate science community."

So its no surprise that when you sound off as a denier its only legitimate to ask what your educational back ground is.  (I already know its none). 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus

the observation of venus has shown some convincing evidence of the greenhouse effect.

here's an article that was in Icarus

A one-dimensional climate model is used to study the response of an Earth-like atmosphere to large increases in solar flux. For fully saturated, cloud-free conditions, the critical solar flux at which a runaway greenhouse occurs, that is, the oceans evaporate entirely, is found to be 1.4 times the present flux at Earth's orbit (S0). This value is close to the flux expected at Venus' orbit early in solar system history. It is nearly independent of the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere, but is sensitive to the H2O absorption coefficient in the 8- to 12-m window region. Clouds should tend to depress the surface temperature on a warm, moist planet; thus, Venus may originally have had oceans if its initial water endowment was close to that of Earth. It lost them early in its history, however, because of rapid photodissociation of water vapor followed by escape of hydrogen to space. The critical solar flux above which water is rapidly lost could be as low as 1.1S0. The surface temperature of a runaway greenhouse atmosphere containing a full ocean's worth of water would have been in excess of 1500°Kabove the solidus for silicate rocks. The presence of such a steam atmosphere during accretion may have significantly influenced the early thermal evolution of both Earth and Venus.