Global Warming/Climate Change

[GTWT]

You know how you're getting perturbed by people who are claiming they understand climatology, but have never studied it themselves?

Same thing.

Sincerely,

Fundamentalist Christian (BA-Biology from UNT) - overwhelmingly cynical politically.

EDIT: ...and I'm trying to agree with you in this thread.

MeanGreenTexan, If I'm painting fundamentalists Christians with a too broad brush I appologize. Appearences acn be deceiving but it seems most fundamentalists deny an old earth, deny common descent, and deny anthropogenic climate change.

I trust that politically you're cynical about all politics.

[MeanGreenTexan]

MeanGreenTexan, If I'm painting fundamentalists Christians with a too broad brush I appologize. Appearences acn be deceiving but it seems most fundamentalists deny an old earth, deny common descent, and deny anthropogenic climate change.

I trust that politically you're cynical about all politics.

This thread is about climate change. Let's stick with that. The other points deserve their own threads, and would probably get shut down quickly.

The problem with politics is the politicians.

[UNT90]

I think you're right. Fundamentalist Christians - overwhelmingly right wing politically - seem to prefer their science come out of Genesis. "We didn't come from no darn monkeys - God made us special!" or "The kind, loving God described in 1 Samuel would never allow global warming harm us, his beloved children!"

Yes, and there is no tolerance in your world for people who believe in God?

Also, what about the volumes of peer reviewed research from the scientists I quoted in my previous link? Peer reviewed and cast doubt on man made global warning.

Is that not science to you? Or do you just pick the science that you want to believe? Like John Kerry?

Edited February 19, 2014 by UNT90

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Robert Balling, Sherwood Idso, Chip Knappenbergee, Patrick Michaels, and Sallie Baliunas are just a handful of many who have peer reviewed published work that doubts man made global warming.

But the global warming fear mongers (including John Kerry) ignore this work and choose to believe what they want to believe (although for Kerry, I'm sure it has far more to do with politics than belief).

People like GTWT who want to lie to you and say this is complete science have bought the political sell hook, line, and sinker. They will tell you that there isn't one doubt that it is happening and that we will suffer dire consequences in the future.

It's the politics of fear. It's been practiced for years. This is just a new face on an old, old game.

. Really ...

You insert politics into everything... Most credible people will admit they aren't sure what is causing it .... but cleaning up the environment (and air*) isn't a bad thing anyway .... Check out what oil companies did to early oil fields in west Texas.... lots of salt and other things getting into our water supply now and lot of "ruined" land that won't even grow weeds. . { it would bad to discover later we could have done something )

*Chinese cities and rivers are getting bad with health problems now occuring... not much of a problem when they weren't so industrialized but it is now.... should have done something earlier to keep it cleaner....A lot of industry here would do the same if the gov. would let them... (cheaper to just dump stuff) .

Edited February 19, 2014 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Censored by Laurie]

http://vimeo.com/69970735

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/one-in-four-americans-dont-know-the-earth-orbits-the-sun-and-only-half-believe-in-evolution-9131721.html

[UNT90]

. Really ...

You insert politics into everything... Most credible people will admit they aren't sure what is causing it .... but cleaning up the environment (and air*) isn't a bad thing anyway .... Check out what oil companies did to early oil fields in west Texas.... lots of salt and other things getting into our water supply now and lot of "ruined" land that won't even grow weeds. . { it would bad to discover later we could have done something )

*Chinese cities and rivers are getting bad with health problems now occuring... not much of a problem when they weren't so industrialized but it is now.... should have done something earlier to keep it cleaner....A lot of industry here would do the same if the gov. would let them... (cheaper to just dump stuff) .

Really.

I think my whole point is we don't know if global warming is happening or not because the science is not there to support that it is happening, and if it is, whether man has anything to do with it.

I believe GTWT was the one who labeled all non-believers of global warming right wing religious nuts, not I.

Yet you attack me, not him. I wonder why.

And no one addresses the fact that there is a plethora of peer reviewed science that disputes man-made global warming. Why? Because that would go against every group think fiber in their body. Everything they have been taught in school. And, most importantly, their political beliefs.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

To me seeing picture after picture of places worldwide with less ice tells me something... plus the huge state of Alaska having 100's of locations of melting glaciers is meaningful... Ignoring facts seems crazy ... So if you see your bank account has no money in it ... you still think you can write checks and they will be cashed. ??? hahaha...

[UNT90]

To me seeing picture after picture of places worldwide with less ice tells me something... plus the huge state of Alaska having 100's of locations of melting glaciers is meaningful... Ignoring facts seems crazy ... So if you see your bank account has no money in it ... you still think you can write checks and they will be cashed. ??? hahaha...

But what is actually causing it is the question, my friend. Humans want to believe humans are the cause because humans have an enormous sense of self-importance.

Temperatures fluctuate. The Ice build up in 70s had scientist concerned we were headed toward an ice age. Didn't happen. So now the ice melt means we are headed toward oceans rising 20 feet? Ain't happening.

Again, be very wary of those predicting doom and gloom.

[Quoner]

humans have an enormous sense of self-importance.

YUP.

[Censored by Laurie]

YUP.

you know what I'm diggin'?

[FirefightnRick]

you know what I'm diggin'?

A dingleberry out from between the cheeks of your ass?

Sorry I couldn't resist.

Rick

Edited February 20, 2014 by FirefightnRick

[GTWT]

Temperatures fluctuate. The Ice build up in 70s had scientist concerned we were headed toward an ice age. Didn't happen. So now the ice melt means we are headed toward oceans rising 20 feet? Ain't happening.

Again, be very wary of those predicting doom and gloom.

UNT90 and Rick are convinced that climate scientists were predicting a 'new ice age' in the 1970's. Here's the abstract from the American Meterological Society Journal.

Abstract

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Now they have no excuse for repeating what they know is a lie.

[FirefightnRick]

UNT90 and Rick are convinced that climate scientists were predicting a 'new ice age' in the 1970's. Here's the abstract from the American Meterological Society Journal.

Abstract

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting global cooling and an imminent ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Now they have no excuse for repeating what they know is a lie.

Again, you keep hind-sighting this thing to death with claims that a report on "A New Ice Age" never occurred. I guess Im going to have to go find an original copy of Time Magezine in a periodical archive at the library and post a photo of it for you.

In the meantime, how bout those carbon credits? You wouldn't have to ride your Vespa so much if you would simply relieve your heart of the pain and guilt from driving your car if you would simply buy a few from me.

Rick

[GTWT]

Rick,

Is this the Time cover you're referring to?

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/

Again, just because an idea is mentioned in Time doesn't mean it was the consensus of scientists in the 1970s.

The whole story is a myth based on conjecture reported in a popular magazine and embellished by science deniers. The fact it is still being repeated today illustrates the level of understanding of anthropogenic climate change critics. If you know it's not true and you keep repeating it, you're party to a lie.

[Censored by Laurie]

It's all going to be ok.

Time says so.

[UNT90]

UNT90 and Rick are convinced that climate scientists were predicting a 'new ice age' in the 1970's. Here's the abstract from the American Meterological Society Journal.

Abstract

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting global cooling and an imminent ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Now they have no excuse for repeating what they know is a lie.

Right, because scientist now are soooo much smarter than scientist in the 70s. Don't believe me? Just ask them (or read the abstract) GTWT just provided).

Dude. I know what I was taught in 7th grade science class. I was there.

Are you ever going to address the fact that there is plenty of peer reviewed science that is very skeptical of man made global warning or the authors of said research that I provided? Or do you just ignore what you don't want to here?

[UNT90]

Rick,

Is this the Time cover you're referring to?

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/

Again, just because an idea is mentioned in Time doesn't mean it was the consensus of scientists in the 1970s.

The whole story is a myth based on conjecture reported in a popular magazine and embellished by science deniers. The fact it is still being repeated today illustrates the level of understanding of anthropogenic climate change critics. If you know it's not true and you keep repeating it, you're party to a lie.

You do realize that this entire post could be applied to the global warming alarmist of today, don't you?

When will you address the peer review science that cast doubt on man made global warming?

Ever?

Just ignore it and it will go away?

It's not the "right" kind of peer reviewed research?

Or it just doesn't jive with a purely political view.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Right, because scientist now are soooo much smarter than scientist in the 70s. Don't believe me? Just ask them (or read the abstract) GTWT just provided).

Dude. I know what I was taught in 7th grade science class. I was there.

Are you ever going to address the fact that there is plenty of peer reviewed science that is very skeptical of man made global warning or the authors of said research that I provided? Or do you just ignore what you don't want to here?

..

Actually they are.... weather satellites that exist now didn't exist then.... and if you remember you did not have many TV channels either ... similar reason... few satellites.... Now they can see world from a distance and even the changes and events... the world has changed. We did not even have PC's until the 80's and no calculators even in 1970... doubt you even saw the internet prior to 95...( Gore didn't invent it but he write the bill that put it in the public domain.. ie. created it for public use... He never said invent...). Yes we can know more now. Your 7th grade science knowlege is outdated..... how many times did the 7th grade teacher take away your cell phone..... hahaha .. didn't have that either did you. hahahahahaha

Edited February 21, 2014 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[GreenBat]

Utah lawmaker: Our atmosphere needs more carbon dioxide

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57562425-90/carbon-atmosphere-dioxide-utah.html.csp

[UNT90]

..

Actually they are.... weather satellites that exist now didn't exist then.... and if you remember you did not have many TV channels either ... similar reason... few satellites.... Now they can see world from a distance and even the changes and events... the world has changed. We did not even have PC's until the 80's and no calculators even in 1970... doubt you even saw the internet prior to 95...( Gore didn't invent it but he write the bill that put it in the public domain.. ie. created it for public use... He never said invent...). Yes we can know more now. Your 7th grade science knowlege is outdated..... how many times did the 7th grade teacher take away your cell phone..... hahaha .. didn't have that either did you. hahahahahaha

So how much more science will we have in another 40 years?

Will it make the disputed science of 2014 seem just as stupid as the science of 1970 in your eyes?

Or have we magically stopped learning in 2014?

Hahaha?

And why has NOBODY addressed the the peer reviewed scientists that cast a doubt on man made global warming that I have posted in this thread?

Again, your post is a prime example of how certain generations think they have all the answers to all the world's problems. Why? Because they need to have this belief to believe that nothing is out of their control. It is intellectually dishonest, and to be very blunt, intellectually stupid.

Edited February 21, 2014 by UNT90

[GTWT]

Dude. I know what I was taught in 7th grade science class. I was there.

UNT90, you really should have taken a science class post 7th grade.

[Quoner]

Certain generations think they have all the answers to all the world's problems. Why? Because they need to have this belief to believe that nothing is out of their control. It is intellectually dishonest, and to be very blunt, intellectually stupid.

Yup.

[Green P1]

Yup.

I mean... Right?

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

So how much more science will we have in another 40 years?

Will it make the disputed science of 2014 seem just as stupid as the science of 1970 in your eyes?

Or have we magically stopped learning in 2014?

Hahaha?

And why has NOBODY addressed the the peer reviewed scientists that cast a doubt on man made global warming that I have posted in this thread?

Again, your post is a prime example of how certain generations think they have all the answers to all the world's problems. Why? Because they need to have this belief to believe that nothing is out of their control. It is intellectually dishonest, and to be very blunt, intellectually stupid.

.

Always look both ways when crossing a street.... yes it usually will be a waste of time... no one will be coming but you still need to do it.

No where have I or most here claimed man is absolutely cause the melting.... but it is happening.... but in case we are causing it, we should not be doing something stupid (like doing nothing). .. besides cleaning up the air is not a bad thing anyway... ask the people of L.A. (smog) or China. Your claim of people saying it will increase the oceans by 20 feet is a bit radical as well... Some yes but 20 feet.??? That is only by extremists in the other direction...

Science learning did not stop when you were in the 7th grade and yes 40 years from now we likely will know even more... I know "conservative" means don't change anything, things are great now or before now... which seems to be your attitude to EVERYTHING.

I regularly tell my students [ college classes ] that the world outside the window will not be the same when they become the age I am..... I have seen TV, cable, satellites, cell phones, PCs, the internet, cell phones, the interstate, jet travel, and so much more show up in my lifetime.... My grandfather as a kid got out of a wagon on the Texas prairie and was home on land that had never been owned by anyone before except by the State of Texas .. and he was home... no house, no town nearby, no railroad, nothing.... . times and knowledge change... even if you still want to be in the 7th grade again....

PS: the picture I use is my grandfather (above) was about 1899 just prior to getting married.... I admire what he did and realize the difficult times he lived in. ... things change.

Edited February 21, 2014 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNT90]

UNT90, you really should have taken a science class post 7th grade.

Insults. Always the sign of a loser in an argument.

For the 6th time, care to address any of the peer reviewed science from the authors I listed? You know, the peer reviewed science that disagrees with the ascertion that man made global warming is happening?

Or will you continue to ignore science?

Edited February 21, 2014 by UNT90