Who’s Al Gore?I don’t recall his paper being part of the peer-reviewed 97% scientific consensus of agreement regarding man-made climate change.Yet Americans keep mentioning him. The Rest of the World has quite made up its mind on this issue, that’s because we use scientific evidence. A lot of it is from the USA actually. Seems like 97% of USA climate scientists also agree with the 97% of the world’s climate scientists.(Please do not confuse commentators wit scientists.)
The point is, please ignore politicians with regard to deciding the veracity of this incredibly important issue, and pay attention to genuine experts.Frankly, I had problems with accepting these issues due to ideologists exaggerating the facts, until I found out that real, evidence-based scientists were saying that is is a serious and proven matter.
Great graph!Yes, exactly how cherry-pickers work. Of course, they will only pick one segment and claim that “of course, the planet has not warmed for 17 years”, because they choose just the right points.Do they teach statistics in USA high schools, or do you have to go to college first?
(Anyone who mentions that English politician’s quote about statistics loses.)
Have you really NEVER read the complete explanation of global warming, or are you so shall we say limited in critical thinking skills that you really don’t understand how GLOBAL warming (increasing average temperature for the WHOLE world) doesn’t imply that every point on earth is warmer all the time? Do you even have an inkling of how to read that graph?
Harley, if you can’t find evidence for global warming on the internet, you really do have your head where it can’t see reality. It throws a light on all of the ignorant crap you spew on this news group on all kinds of topics where the truth is actually known. When one major political party can’t look at the sky and agree that it’s blue, it’s impossible for America to remain a great country.
The 0.04% pie graph means nothing. If that were the level of plutonium in your blood, you’d be dead. You are clearly not a climate scientist. Why not trust people who actually know their area of expertise?
I think we need a climate teach-in movement. Back in the ’64 or so, there was a Vietnam teach-in movement — academics and politicians on both sides would debate — usually on college campuses, but eventually on TV as well. The debates were usually well informed, and they helped to educate a lot of people, who could make up their own minds based on what the experts had to say. As it happened, they were a major element in the formation of the anti-war movement a couple of years later.
The climate has always been changing and that we, like our ancestors, either adapt to the changes or die out.…If you don’t like those prospects, then take them up with nature, which will never give you a hearing and just continue doing its own thing, regardless.…The only thing these “global warming” chicken littles and henny pennies out there did was just bring their message to a wider and possibly more gullible audience.…As for me, I just hope the great die-off will yield more free parking in San Francisco without the hassles of dealing with DPT or my competition out there wanting that spot, too..
You had the glaciers you had the warm period of the renaissance, wild animals survived and died. But when you use a wet land for a dumping ground because you can not build on it you are killing off a valuable resource."
Exactly! And that is what we are complaining about.
Climate change is a total non-issue; the issue is cleaning up the environment and keeping it that way.
As long as the ‘debate’ continues, nobody has to address that issue.
“Weather is going to change whether or not communists tax civilization into financial extinction. Find another ruse to control the masses, commies. “Climate change” (the new name after no one bought into the lies about global warming) is a flop.”
Nobody is trying to tax anything into extinction, but if we don’t clean up the environment pretty soon, the toxic waste will insure not only our extinction, but a substantial portion of the wildlings we claim to love so much.
Ottodesu: There may be an occasional use of statistics in high school (particularly relating to sports stars), but you will rarely get its end result (probability) until junior year college if an insurance major, otherwise not at all. On the other hand, you can get a good basis of both in a well-refereed table-top role-playing game.
If Jesus or Moses had said they caused “global warming”, the “righites” here would be proclaiming it totally true.
Arguing science,as Ahab and others often note, with the lunatic fringe on the right is useless. (Just like pointing out their bible is myths, collected over may years, from numerous previous cultures.)
I applaud those of you that are worried that man-made CO2 will be the cause of harm AND are trying to do something about it. Wetlands is a big issue and finding a practical solution will have a big positive impact.
Being a steward over the plant and animal kingdoms in our neighborhood is consistent with everything I have been taught in church.
The gigantic interacting systems in Nature are dynamic and who is to say what is the optimal equilibrium for today? And, I have no idea when or why the next 10 degree Cold Spike in Earth’s temperature will hit us.
Well done, excellent comparison. I always want to mention cyanide, which is fatal at that level, even though it is “all-natural”. Really absurd, and shows a pathetic lack of education.But your example is better, CO is typically produced at the same time as CO2 and it is also a “greenhouse gas”.In the United States, the OSHA limits CO long-term workplace exposure levels above 50 ppm.
Ottodesu almost 11 years ago
Who’s Al Gore?I don’t recall his paper being part of the peer-reviewed 97% scientific consensus of agreement regarding man-made climate change.Yet Americans keep mentioning him. The Rest of the World has quite made up its mind on this issue, that’s because we use scientific evidence. A lot of it is from the USA actually. Seems like 97% of USA climate scientists also agree with the 97% of the world’s climate scientists.(Please do not confuse commentators wit scientists.)
Ottodesu almost 11 years ago
The point is, please ignore politicians with regard to deciding the veracity of this incredibly important issue, and pay attention to genuine experts.Frankly, I had problems with accepting these issues due to ideologists exaggerating the facts, until I found out that real, evidence-based scientists were saying that is is a serious and proven matter.
Ottodesu almost 11 years ago
Great graph!Yes, exactly how cherry-pickers work. Of course, they will only pick one segment and claim that “of course, the planet has not warmed for 17 years”, because they choose just the right points.Do they teach statistics in USA high schools, or do you have to go to college first?
(Anyone who mentions that English politician’s quote about statistics loses.)
Motivemagus almost 11 years ago
Excellent graph. But it also assumes that denialists even read graphs. That is optimistic at best…
lisapaloma13 almost 11 years ago
Have you really NEVER read the complete explanation of global warming, or are you so shall we say limited in critical thinking skills that you really don’t understand how GLOBAL warming (increasing average temperature for the WHOLE world) doesn’t imply that every point on earth is warmer all the time? Do you even have an inkling of how to read that graph?
ARodney almost 11 years ago
Harley, if you can’t find evidence for global warming on the internet, you really do have your head where it can’t see reality. It throws a light on all of the ignorant crap you spew on this news group on all kinds of topics where the truth is actually known. When one major political party can’t look at the sky and agree that it’s blue, it’s impossible for America to remain a great country.
ARodney almost 11 years ago
The 0.04% pie graph means nothing. If that were the level of plutonium in your blood, you’d be dead. You are clearly not a climate scientist. Why not trust people who actually know their area of expertise?
ossiningaling almost 11 years ago
HA!
lonecat almost 11 years ago
I think we need a climate teach-in movement. Back in the ’64 or so, there was a Vietnam teach-in movement — academics and politicians on both sides would debate — usually on college campuses, but eventually on TV as well. The debates were usually well informed, and they helped to educate a lot of people, who could make up their own minds based on what the experts had to say. As it happened, they were a major element in the formation of the anti-war movement a couple of years later.
stpfeffer almost 11 years ago
There is a difference between the weather and the climate! Look at your source!!! Fox News! Come on man!
echoraven almost 11 years ago
Clever. Nicely done.
californicated1 almost 11 years ago
The climate has always been changing and that we, like our ancestors, either adapt to the changes or die out.…If you don’t like those prospects, then take them up with nature, which will never give you a hearing and just continue doing its own thing, regardless.…The only thing these “global warming” chicken littles and henny pennies out there did was just bring their message to a wider and possibly more gullible audience.…As for me, I just hope the great die-off will yield more free parking in San Francisco without the hassles of dealing with DPT or my competition out there wanting that spot, too..
Hawthorne almost 11 years ago
You had the glaciers you had the warm period of the renaissance, wild animals survived and died. But when you use a wet land for a dumping ground because you can not build on it you are killing off a valuable resource."
Exactly! And that is what we are complaining about.
Climate change is a total non-issue; the issue is cleaning up the environment and keeping it that way.
As long as the ‘debate’ continues, nobody has to address that issue.
Hawthorne almost 11 years ago
“Weather is going to change whether or not communists tax civilization into financial extinction. Find another ruse to control the masses, commies. “Climate change” (the new name after no one bought into the lies about global warming) is a flop.”
Nobody is trying to tax anything into extinction, but if we don’t clean up the environment pretty soon, the toxic waste will insure not only our extinction, but a substantial portion of the wildlings we claim to love so much.
Time for a major cleanup.
hippogriff almost 11 years ago
Ottodesu: There may be an occasional use of statistics in high school (particularly relating to sports stars), but you will rarely get its end result (probability) until junior year college if an insurance major, otherwise not at all. On the other hand, you can get a good basis of both in a well-refereed table-top role-playing game.
lafayetteann almost 11 years ago
HaHaHaHaHa. “Air”!! HaHaHaHa!!
Dtroutma almost 11 years ago
If Jesus or Moses had said they caused “global warming”, the “righites” here would be proclaiming it totally true.
Arguing science,as Ahab and others often note, with the lunatic fringe on the right is useless. (Just like pointing out their bible is myths, collected over may years, from numerous previous cultures.)
Fuzzy Thinker Premium Member almost 11 years ago
I applaud those of you that are worried that man-made CO2 will be the cause of harm AND are trying to do something about it. Wetlands is a big issue and finding a practical solution will have a big positive impact.
Being a steward over the plant and animal kingdoms in our neighborhood is consistent with everything I have been taught in church.The gigantic interacting systems in Nature are dynamic and who is to say what is the optimal equilibrium for today? And, I have no idea when or why the next 10 degree Cold Spike in Earth’s temperature will hit us.
But, it sure is fun to talk about the weather.
timewell almost 11 years ago
@ongardYour graphic shows that our air currently contains 0.04% (400 parts per million) carbon dioxide and mocks it.
Rather than using an absurdity like plutonium for comparison, let’s use something much more closely related : carbon monoxide.
100 parts per million (0.01%) of carbon monoxide is considered dangerous to breath.
our carbon dioxide levels are 4 times higher.
source :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_poisoning
Ottodesu almost 11 years ago
Well done, excellent comparison. I always want to mention cyanide, which is fatal at that level, even though it is “all-natural”. Really absurd, and shows a pathetic lack of education.But your example is better, CO is typically produced at the same time as CO2 and it is also a “greenhouse gas”.In the United States, the OSHA limits CO long-term workplace exposure levels above 50 ppm.