Major report on Climate Change exposes Republican lies on Global Warming

[pilferk]

Hypothetically, if the U.N. report found that global warming doesnt exist/isnt hastened by human activity, would you believe the opposite?? After all, that seems to be the foundation of your skepticism.

No, their credibilty is garbage either way.

That's largely the point.  In this case, their "credibility" doesn't really have anything to do with the findings in question....they weren't the ones conducting the study.  They paid for it, but if you know anything of the methodology of selection in these types of studies, you'd know that, again, the credibility of the UN has nothing to do with it.

[sandman]

just curious, what did al gore do with the earnings from the movie release? did he profit from it at all?

[D]

I read the entire article and that is what I am talking about.

They are predicting for the year 2100 and I just ask how they could possibly have any idea what the world is gonna be in 2100?

Their findings are vague hence the 3 to 35 inches. That is ridiculous and sounds made up.


How precise are their findings with that kind of margin of error?


So what if the world heats up 4 degrees by the year 2100? is that really that big of a deal? Once again, the earth cooled down for 19 years starting in the 60's, it is simply heating up again and soon it will go into a cool down period. (that is what the earth does)


I think Global Warming may exist on some level, I am only stating it isn't this big outrageous overblown deal we are being led to believe.


The earth heating up .3 to .6 degrees in 157 years is hardly a crisis.

Sea Level rising 18 Centimeters *we arent talkin inches, We are talkin Centimeters* in 157 years is not time for major panic.

[The Dog]

I read the entire article and that is what I am talking about.

They are predicting for the year 2100 and I just ask how they could possibly have any idea what the world is gonna be in 2100?

Their findings are vague hence the 3 to 35 inches. That is ridiculous and sounds made up.

Are you sure you read the entire article?  Either you didn't or your reading comprehension is terrible.  The 2001 report said 3 to 35 inches, the findings from the new report were not released.  How you can call findings that aren't released "vague" is beyond me.

Secondly, why are you so baffled by being able to predict future weather?  You comment on Al Gore's movie, but after reading your posts in this tread I doubt you even saw it.  He does a pretty good job of showing you the trends of CO2 emissions and hotter weather. 

Lastly, your ramblings about a political conspiracy and evil scientists is just laughable. 

[SLCPUNK]

just curious, what did al gore do with the earnings from the movie release? did he profit from it at all?

He gave 100 percent of his profits to a bipartisan educational fund for global warming, while paramount pitched in a measly 5 percent.

Nice try though.

[Doc Emmett Brown]

Scientist last i checked make money right?

If they dont find any evidence guess what? they are unemployed..... SO OF COURSE They are gonna paint the grimmest picture regardless to stay employed.

D, remember a couple of years, I sent you a PM about going to Alaska for the summer?  anyway, I didnt get paid much ($5000 for the 12 weeks), but I want to tell you what I did up in Barrow, AK.  I did not go for the $$ obviously, but just a chance to get away from LA.

The fact is that global C02 levels have risen far above the natural cycle of Earth.  What we *infer* from it, is up for grabs. Some people like to focus on the correlation between temperature and CO2....a lot of inferences have been made about this and this has resulted in many doomsday predictions.  So I dont have a problem with your scepticism really. 

But I wish there was a more organized effort to explain the consequences of CO2 increase, one in particular is how the Earth compensates for changes in the balance (Le Chatelier's principle from chemistry).  The two things I want to talk about is the tundra (in Alaska and elsewhere), and the oceans.  Both of these masses absorb our CO2 releases into the atmosphere  (so any inferences about atmospheric heating must take them into account).  The problem with relying on the ocean is that it lowers the pH and most of the life in it cannot handle the acidity.  They just die, whereas things like algae can survive.  I hope you like eating algae      The tundra has also been a carbon sink, and one of the things I did up in AK was to use spectroscopy (shine different wavelengths of light) onto the layers of ice and try to see what chemicals were present.  This is all very cool, but the problem is the tundra is starting to melt.  (Funny thing is that some of the Alaskan natives, the Inupiat, like this, because it makes their life easier).  When the tundra melts, it releases its absorbed CO2 back out! 

And then we come to the question, what does it all mean?  What we can infer about non-typical CO2 increases in the atmosphere and ocean.  People have focused on temperature, sea level, ocean life and trying to predict what will happen.  I didnt work on that aspect it, but I wish it was reported in a more systematic way.  We should be able to show our raw data, the processed data, the statistical analysis, and finally the conclusion (which may or may not be 'doomsday') in public literature instead of hiding it away in scientific journals that most people do not read.

And finally, this is the tundra in the summer.  I had to walk on these mats every day for 12 weeks.  It was fun 

[Surfrider]

That changes nothing regarding the U.N. though.

You don't get it do you?

When somebody is as morally bankrupt as this administration is, it is hard to take them seriously as they finger point at other governing bodies. In fact it gives them zero credibility, which does in fact change everything about the UN, no matter how much you'd like to pretend otherwise.

You may now return to your koolaid.

Actually, you don't get it.  The same reason you think the Administration should not be trusted is the same reason that the UN should not be trusted.

[Mama Kin]

I read the entire article and that is what I am talking about.

They are predicting for the year 2100 and I just ask how they could possibly have any idea what the world is gonna be in 2100?

Their findings are vague hence the 3 to 35 inches. That is ridiculous and sounds made up.


How precise are their findings with that kind of margin of error?


So what if the world heats up 4 degrees by the year 2100? is that really that big of a deal? Once again, the earth cooled down for 19 years starting in the 60's, it is simply heating up again and soon it will go into a cool down period. (that is what the earth does)


I think Global Warming may exist on some level, I am only stating it isn't this big outrageous overblown deal we are being led to believe.


The earth heating up .3 to .6 degrees in 157 years is hardly a crisis.

Sea Level rising 18 Centimeters *we arent talkin inches, We are talkin Centimeters* in 157 years is not time for major panic.

The cooling of the Earth they found in 60's was leading to another massive Ice Age. Oops. Guess they had their results upside down.

Once again, we're leaving what is called "the Little Ice Age". The warming of the Earth is 100% natural. As is the cooling of the Earth.

99.9% of EVERYTHING that has EVER lived on this planet is gone.....guess who's gonna join them?? We are!! We're going away. The Earth will renew itself, clean the air and the water, and new species with emerge and thrive....and we won't leave much of a trace behind.

[Drew]

When somebody is as morally bankrupt as this administration is, it is hard to take them seriously as they finger point at other governing bodies. In fact it gives them zero credibility, which does in fact change everything about the UN, no matter how much you'd like to pretend otherwise.

I do get it. The U.N. is not the same as this administration. They are a complete and separate entity which currently leaves the U.N. with absolutely no credibility. Kofi Annan's corruption is by his own doing. Same with the Oil for Food scandal and the rapes commited by U.N. officials. The scandals were not driven by Bush and his administration.

[sandman]

just curious, what did al gore do with the earnings from the movie release? did he profit from it at all?

He gave 100 percent of his profits to a bipartisan educational fund for global warming, while paramount pitched in a measly 5 percent.

Nice try though.

thanks for the info.

you always assume you know people's intentions. i wasn't "trying" anything. if i was, i could have simply checked wikipedia first to find the answer. 

my question was an honest one, and one that i thought should be clarified in this discussion.

yet you reply with your typical cocky/miserable remarks. it must suck being you. you should smoke some weed.

[SLCPUNK]

thanks for the info.

you always assume you know people's intentions. i wasn't "trying" anything. if i was, i could have simply checked wikipedia first to find the answer. 

my question was an honest one, and one that i thought should be clarified in this discussion.

I base my responses on what I have seen prior, and I've seen more than enough from people like you. I believe your intentions about as much as I believe in the tooth fairy.

Thanks for your concern, however I have a great life- I just don't like liars.

[Axlfreek]

[Axl4Prez2004]

I wrote a 30 page paper back in my college days (31 to be exact)...I don't have it on me at the moment, but I believe I titled it:  The Problems with Doomsday Theorists (or something along those lines.  I wrote it in Fall of '95.  I guess I've always been a bit of a contrarian.  My prof was a very liberal fellow, and I looked at the task as a challenge. 

Like any issue, both sides of the debate can throw data together to suit their needs.  I got an A- on the paper.

Now at that time, I remember seeing a chart that gave the average world temps for the past 100 years, and I pointed out that something like 70% of the rise came in the first 30 or so years of that 100 year period.  It just didn't jive with the rise in atmospheric CO2. 

I should pull that thing out and see what else was on there.

That being said, I do believe global warming is real.  I do believe it is a real threat.  The last 10 years of very abnormally high temperatures alone would have been enough, but  coupled with the economies of China and India revving up their energy usage, (yes, the US is the worst and has no moral authority to demand the rest of the world behave any better, I understand that) the 21st century will be interesting to say the least.

Now about the side argument:  everything Bush does is not bad.  Everything the UN does is not bad.  Please.  Base the debate on science.  The results do favor the side of global warming being a true threat.   

[SLCPUNK]

  Base the debate on science.  The results do favor the side of global warming being a true threat.   

The pack of lies UN bullshit is only brought up so the poster can ignore science and smoke screen their ignorance on the subject.

[Axl4Prez2004]

One can most definitely side with science and not be swayed by either UN fans/enemies or Bush fans/enemies.  Just look at independent university research and combine it with basic science.  The Greenhouse Effect is real.   

On a slightly related topic, I'd be very interested to know President Bush's scientific background.  I imagine he's read more passages from the Bible than from scientific literature.  The inherent problem with not reading up on the topic is that you are at the mercy of those you surround yourself with.  In this case very strong lobbyists from the oil and energy industries who don't want to change a damn thing, especially when business is so damn good right now.   

[Mama Kin]

One can most definitely side with science and not be swayed by either UN fans/enemies or Bush fans/enemies.? Just look at independent university research and combine it with basic science.? The Greenhouse Effect is real.?

Yes, the Greenhouse Effect is very real, it's also a 100% natural process of Earth.

[Axl4Prez2004]

Yes Mama Kin, it existed before us, and it will exist after us...but if you think we have no effect on it at all, you are kidding yourself.  How much we are affecting the process is the debate right now.  It's not if, it's how much. 

[D]

I admit I havent watched Al Gore's Movie simply cause I dont like One Sided Documentaries. If he had both sides represented and let the viewer decide for themselves what they believe I would watch it, but I don't like hearing just one side.


Does anyone debate the findings of the earth heating up only .3 to .6 degrees since 1850? Hanna U say they haven't released the new data so why the hell is everyone up in arms over this then?

maybe they havent released the new data cause the new data isnt scary enough to freak people out?


I am skeptical by nature and I just don't believe in Global Warming as this Doomsday end of life as we know it plague.

I think it is a scary way to live to take things as Fact just cause a scientist or former vice President or whoever says it without studying both sides and forming an opinion based on both sides.  For every 100 scientists that believe in Global Warming u could probably find 100 that dont believe in it.

It is irresponsible to say this side is being honest and this side are liars just because they have different theories.

I think the world goes in cycles and right now it is in a heating up period just like in the 60's it was cooling down. a couple decades down the road it will start cooling down again.

[Axl4Prez2004]

Actually D, I'd challenge you to find 100 scientists who don't believe global warming is a huge issue for every 1000 that do. 

If you lived closer to the ocean shore, you might feel differently. 

If every country in the world is held to the same standards on CO2 emissions, what harm will be done?   

[Bodhi]

Actually D, I'd challenge you to find 100 scientists who don't believe global warming is a huge issue for every 1000 that do.?

If you lived closer to the ocean shore, you might feel differently.?

If every country in the world is held to the same standards on CO2 emissions, what harm will be done?? ?

actually I have seen on several news shows and reports that it is about 50/50 as far as scientists who believe in global warming....but forget about that....we have had the technology since the early 60's to use solar power in cars....yet we are still using oil...so lets recount...from 1963-1968 LBJ was in office(democrat) from 1968-1976 it was Nixon/Ford(republicans) 1976-1980 it was Carter(dem), 1981-1988 Reagan(R) 1988-1992 Bush (R) 1992-2000 Clinton(D) and 2001-Present day its Bush(R)....so lets review, over the past 45 years both political parties have had a fair amount of time running our country...yet NOBODY has done anything about getting us off of Oil...interesting....could it be because both the dems and republicans are getting rich off it?