Is Global Warming Real?

[Not Safe For Work]

I think there is climate change, but I think there needs to be more research into what's causing it. It's most likely just natural.

No, it categorically is not 'most likely just natural'.

I'm pretty sure that myth has already been put to bed earlier in the thread.

[Danbershan]

I think there is climate change, but I think there needs to be more research into what's causing it. It's most likely just natural.

No, it categorically is not 'most likely just natural'.

I'm pretty sure that myth has already been put to bed earlier in the thread.

There's some strange 'climate change is a conspirary'/'its not our fault' brainwashing going on somewhere.

[New Dolgaria]

It doesn't matter if it's real or not. There's plenty of other environmental concerns related to fossil fuels and their extraction.

[Tmutarakhan]

I think there is climate change, but I think there needs to be more research into what's causing it. It's most likely just natural.

Why should anyone bother doing more research, since people like you won't pay any attention to research anyway?

[Lancaster of Wessex]

No, it categorically is not 'most likely just natural'.

I'm pretty sure that myth has already been put to bed earlier in the thread.

There's some strange 'climate change is a conspirary'/'its not our fault' brainwashing going on somewhere.

This is the fundamental problem - as a species, Homo sapiens have failed to accept responsibility for its actions, and choose not to believe in the consequences.

We also live for the now - and damn the future. Short term gain trumps future considerations, and that action is self-damning, and we will pay a severe price for it, and you know what? We deserve every damn bit of suffering b/c as a collective we cared more about profit and economic gain today than the long term viability of our planet and resources.

[Not Safe For Work]

No, it categorically is not 'most likely just natural'.

I'm pretty sure that myth has already been put to bed earlier in the thread.

There's some strange 'climate change is a conspirary'/'its not our fault' brainwashing going on somewhere.

I get that people don't like to feel responsible, so being able to say 'hey, it's not us' is comfortable.

The big argument is that people can't have that pronounced effect on their environment, and it's one that stops me in my tracks every time. Even if we ignore the technology of the last hundred years, and using the power of atoms to break cities, for example... 20% of the Netherlands is below sea level. We've been collectively reshaping our environment on a massive scale... for at least a millennium.

[Free Soviets]

It doesn't matter if it's real or not. There's plenty of other environmental concerns related to fossil fuels and their extraction.

this gives up way too much ground. we can solve most of the other pollution issues while still leaving ourselves entirely too vulnerable to the collapse of organized global civilization through climate change. it works by a different mechanism - one that is often orthogonal to things like clean water or reducing smog or reversing habitat fragmentation. it'd be almost easy to work on those things while leaving the giant hitler-marching-on-europe-only-vastly-worse issue entirely unchecked.

[Mavorpen]

http://www.theindiapost.com/enviornment/global-warming-man-made-dr-arya/

Just looking at this graph I can't take the guy seriously...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 84274.html

Complete bullshit. Moreover, scientists have given an explanation for this phenomena. The masking of global warming is temporary.

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=950

This one's just pathetic.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9338 ... alist.html

Basically this guy's saying it's a cycle. Try again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z1yGvBB0zJ

Wrong.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 21366.html

LOL! I actually laughed out loud at this one. It was debunked heavily in another thread. I won't go digging through threads to find it, but here you go.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-ga ... 34971.html

Yahoo...? Should I even entertain this one? After reading through the YouTube comments, I find this gem in the comments:"You're all aware that Forbes editor-in-chief is a former republican presidential hopeful. He's also on the board of directors for FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, a right-wing lobbying NGO run by the Koch brothers, libertarian billionaires that that secretly fund the tea party movement.... so excuse me when I say that this article is a little biased."

But anyway, the guy who co-authored it? Roy Spencer? Maybe you should have did research on him. If that's not enough, his studies were flawed.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... -are-flat/
http://mises.org/daily/2571

The first link contains a topic I already addressed (lol at Forbes). The second link is also lol worthy. A mathematician that doesn't understand climate. Go figure.

It's intellectually irresponsible to jump to conclusions about anthropogenic climate change. Data isn't conclusive - causal relationships between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and warming can't be adequately established, climate modelling has empirically failed, etc. etc.

No, what's intellectually irresponsible as well as lazy is that you seemed to refuse to research both sides. It seems that you wanted to be the "hipster" of this thread, so you quickly searched, "GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH!" into Google, and copy and pasted the "best" links you could find. The data is conclusive.

I'm no scientist, and this is an observational (as opposed to a priori) field, so I won't pretend to know the answer. But it's not so firmly established as fact that the common, uneducated man should push policy decisions to address it.

Uh huh, sure. I really expected more from you.

[Capitalist Running Dogs]

Let's see, psychological breakdown of those stupid Deniers, appeals to Consensus(!), conspiracies, statements that Skeptics have been debunked, questioning of funding (without acknowledgment of the huge amounts of cash to be had in Anthropomorphic Global Warming scam), and general personal attacks.

Yep. Just what I have come to expect.

Climate Change is real. It has been going on since the Earth has had an atmosphere. If you wish a good explanation of the "science" behind the scare tactics, go here:

http://www.s8int.com/crichton.html

Many here would be wise to read the part about the bullshit of Consensus(!). You might see how un-Scientific that is.

For those who don't like the appeal of Science practised properly and responsibly, just consider the many scares, the Ozone Hole, the Population Bomb, the Ice Age in the 1970's, and the many other scares that have never materialized. The UN has admitted that the AGW is about wealth redistribution and its research, based mostly on computer models that can't replicate the real climate, has been thoroughly debunked and criticized by scientists who actually aren't the pawns of evil Big Oil. In the end, all the bullshit clamities that have predicted will not occur. Ocean's have risen before and civilizations have adjusted.

I now return you to the Chicken Little Network.

[Mavorpen]

Let's see, psychological breakdown of those stupid Deniers, appeals to Consensus(!), conspiracies, statements that Skeptics have been debunked, questioning of funding (without acknowledgment of the huge amounts of cash to be had in Anthropomorphic Global Warming scam), and general personal attacks.

Yep. Just what I have come to expect.

Climate Change is real. It has been going on since the Earth has had an atmosphere. If you wish a good explanation of the "science" behind the scare tactics, go here:

http://www.s8int.com/crichton.html

Please tell me this is satire.

Many here would be wise to read the part about the bullshit of Consensus(!). You might see how un-Scientific that is.

For those who don't like the appeal of Science practised properly and responsibly, just consider the many scares, the Ozone Hole, the Population Bomb, the Ice Age in the 1970's, and the many other scares that have never materialized. The UN has admitted that the AGW is about wealth redistribution and its research, based mostly on computer models that can't replicate the real climate, has been thoroughly debunked and criticized by scientists who actually aren't the pawns of evil Big Oil. In the end, all the bullshit clamities that have predicted will not occur. Ocean's have risen before and civilizations have adjusted.

I now return you to the Chicken Little Network.

http://www.theindiapost.com/enviornment/global-warming-man-made-dr-arya/

Just looking at this graph I can't take the guy seriously...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 84274.html

Complete bullshit. Moreover, scientists have given an explanation for this phenomena. The masking of global warming is temporary.

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=950

This one's just pathetic.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9338 ... alist.html

Basically this guy's saying it's a cycle. Try again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z1yGvBB0zJ

Wrong.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 21366.html

LOL! I actually laughed out loud at this one. It was debunked heavily in another thread. I won't go digging through threads to find it, but here you go.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-ga ... 34971.html

Yahoo...? Should I even entertain this one? After reading through the YouTube comments, I find this gem in the comments:"You're all aware that Forbes editor-in-chief is a former republican presidential hopeful. He's also on the board of directors for FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, a right-wing lobbying NGO run by the Koch brothers, libertarian billionaires that that secretly fund the tea party movement.... so excuse me when I say that this article is a little biased."

But anyway, the guy who co-authored it? Roy Spencer? Maybe you should have did research on him. If that's not enough, his studies were flawed.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... -are-flat/
http://mises.org/daily/2571

The first link contains a topic I already addressed (lol at Forbes). The second link is also lol worthy. A mathematician that doesn't understand climate. Go figure.

It's intellectually irresponsible to jump to conclusions about anthropogenic climate change. Data isn't conclusive - causal relationships between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and warming can't be adequately established, climate modelling has empirically failed, etc. etc.

No, what's intellectually irresponsible as well as lazy is that you seemed to refuse to research both sides. It seems that you wanted to be the "hipster" of this thread, so you quickly searched, "GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH!" into Google, and copy and pasted the "best" links you could find. The data is conclusive.

I'm no scientist, and this is an observational (as opposed to a priori) field, so I won't pretend to know the answer. But it's not so firmly established as fact that the common, uneducated man should push policy decisions to address it.

Uh huh, sure. I really expected more from you.

Learn to read.

[Frisivisia]

Let's see, psychological breakdown of those stupid Deniers, appeals to Consensus(!), conspiracies, statements that Skeptics have been debunked, questioning of funding (without acknowledgment of the huge amounts of cash to be had in Anthropomorphic Global Warming scam), and general personal attacks.

Yep. Just what I have come to expect.

Climate Change is real. It has been going on since the Earth has had an atmosphere. If you wish a good explanation of the "science" behind the scare tactics, go here:

http://www.s8int.com/crichton.html

Many here would be wise to read the part about the bullshit of Consensus(!). You might see how un-Scientific that is.

For those who don't like the appeal of Science practised properly and responsibly, just consider the many scares, the Ozone Hole, the Population Bomb, the Ice Age in the 1970's, and the many other scares that have never materialized. The UN has admitted that the AGW is about wealth redistribution and its research, based mostly on computer models that can't replicate the real climate, has been thoroughly debunked and criticized by scientists who actually aren't the pawns of evil Big Oil. In the end, all the bullshit clamities that have predicted will not occur. Ocean's have risen before and civilizations have adjusted.

I now return you to the Chicken Little Network.

Civilization will just have to adjust to the majority of it's cities being underwater.

[Capitalist Running Dogs]

Please tell me this is satire.

No. Just a very good breakdown of the poor science involved in AGW scare-mongering. He has other ones that are as equally hard-hitting but I am sure you are unlikely to research an opposing view. You could go to the ClimateGate archive and read for youself how the pioneers of the AGW scam pushed their agenda while trying to destroy those whose science didn't confirm theirs. I know. Tall order and lots of heavy mental lifting.

Here is a good start:

http://junkscience.com/

[Capitalist Running Dogs]

Civilization will just have to adjust to the majority of it's cities being underwater.

Depends on which scary scenario being pushed on you. Is it the 1'/Century scenario or the 200' tidal wave in five years scenario?

[Frisivisia]

Please tell me this is satire.

No. Just a very good breakdown of the poor science involved in AGW scare-mongering. He has other ones that are as equally hard-hitting but I am sure you are unlikely to research an opposing view. You could go to the ClimateGate archive and read for youself how the pioneers of the AGW scam pushed their agenda while trying to destroy those whose science didn't confirm theirs. I know. Tall order and lots of heavy mental lifting.

Here is a good start:

http://junkscience.com/

I don't generally take poorly-constructed sites with the word "junk" in the url more seriously than the broad consensus of scientists around the world along with the fact that world temperature is rising and weather is becoming more and more extreme. I see plenty of evidence by looking out the window half the time.

[Mavorpen]

Please tell me this is satire.

No. Just a very good breakdown of the poor science involved in AGW scare-mongering. He has other ones that are as equally hard-hitting but I am sure you are unlikely to research an opposing view. You could go to the ClimateGate archive and read for youself how the pioneers of the AGW scam pushed their agenda while trying to destroy those whose science didn't confirm theirs. I know. Tall order and lots of heavy mental lifting.

Here is a good start:

http://junkscience.com/

So you don't have any evidence. Mmkay.

[Frisivisia]

Civilization will just have to adjust to the majority of it's cities being underwater.

Depends on which scary scenario being pushed on you. Is it the 1'/Century scenario or the 200' tidal wave in five years scenario?

Because the results of something are "scary", they obviously must be part of a plot to feed scientists research grants?

[Capitalist Running Dogs]

I have tons of evidence. What I don't have is an intellectually honest group of people to provide it to. I got people who won't explore the issue because the word 'junk' is used, a person who won't read a transcript of a speech because it conflicts with their world view, and a dude who looks out the window to know that weather is getting more 'extreme' (I find this funny since its this kind of idiot who is the first to cry foul when someone says that winter is too cold).

Funny how when I was a kid they told me stories in class of glaciers making my hometown uninhabitable. There was a Consensus after all...

Like I said, please continue this ignorant circle-jerk all you wish. It doesn't change the fact that the highly-manipulated and massaged models, whose creators rely on the AGW scare-mongering to fund their globe-trotting lifestyles, cannot duplicate any of what you see outside that window of yours.

[Avenio]

http://www.s8int.com/crichton.html

Michael Crichton is a quack.

the Ozone Hole,

Funny thing about the ozone hole. It didn't happen because we stopped it from happening, not because the prediction was wrong.

the Population Bomb,

In answer to the question: "Were your predictions in The Population Bomb right?", Ehrlich responded:

Anne and I have always followed UN population projections as modified by the Population Reference Bureau -- so we never made "predictions," even though idiots think we have. When I wrote The Population Bomb in 1968, there were 3.5 billion people. Since then we've added another 2.8 billion -- many more than the total population (2 billion) when I was born in 1932. If that's not a population explosion, what is? My basic claims (and those of the many scientific colleagues who reviewed my work) were that population growth was a major problem. Fifty-eight academies of science said that same thing in 1994, as did the world scientists' warning to humanity in the same year. My view has become depressingly mainline!

the Ice Age in the 1970's,

An ice age was never predicted outside of the popular press.

[Mavorpen]

I have tons of evidence. What I don't have is an intellectually honest group of people to provide it to.

Then where is it?

I got people who won't explore the issue because the word 'junk' is used, a person who won't read a transcript of a speech because it conflicts with their world view, and a dude who looks out the window to know that weather is getting more 'extreme' (I find this funny since its this kind of idiot who is the first to cry foul when someone says that winter is too cold).

That's not my problem. My problem is that your website is full of non-peer reviewed bullshit. I would gladly consider it if it was actually scientific and if they did some research of their own. Moreover, I looked through the website. The links I posted to another NSGer debunks nearly all of them. But I noticed how you cut them out, refusing to even look at them. The irony here is hilarious.

Funny how when I was a kid they told me stories in class of glaciers making my hometown uninhabitable. There was a Consensus after all...

This isn't even coherent.

Like I said, please continue this ignorant circle-jerk all you wish. It doesn't change the fact that the highly-manipulated and massaged models, whose creators rely on the AGW scare-mongering to fund their globe-trotting lifestyles, cannot duplicate any of what you see outside that window of yours.

It's good to know you don't know the difference between climate and weather. How old are you?

[Frisivisia]

I have tons of evidence. What I don't have is an intellectually honest group of people to provide it to. I got people who won't explore the issue because the word 'junk' is used, a person who won't read a transcript of a speech because it conflicts with their world view, and a dude who looks out the window to know that weather is getting more 'extreme' (I find this funny since its this kind of idiot who is the first to cry foul when someone says that winter is too cold).

Funny how when I was a kid they told me stories in class of glaciers making my hometown uninhabitable. There was a Consensus after all...

Like I said, please continue this ignorant circle-jerk all you wish. It doesn't change the fact that the highly-manipulated and massaged models, whose creators rely on the AGW scare-mongering to fund their globe-trotting lifestyles, cannot duplicate any of what you see outside that window of yours.

It doesn't help your case that sea levels are rising significantly, temperatures are rising significantly, and weather patterns are becoming increasingly extreme.

[Norstal]

I have tons of evidence. What I don't have is an intellectually honest group of people to provide it to. I got people who won't explore the issue because the word 'junk' is used, a person who won't read a transcript of a speech because it conflicts with their world view, and a dude who looks out the window to know that weather is getting more 'extreme' (I find this funny since its this kind of idiot who is the first to cry foul when someone says that winter is too cold).

Funny how when I was a kid they told me stories in class of glaciers making my hometown uninhabitable. There was a Consensus after all...

Like I said, please continue this ignorant circle-jerk all you wish. It doesn't change the fact that the highly-manipulated and massaged models, whose creators rely on the AGW scare-mongering to fund their globe-trotting lifestyles, cannot duplicate any of what you see outside that window of yours.

See what I mean by this Mavor? These people won't change. They are only laymen. And scientists don't need the support of laymen like this poster because they will never give in even if their surroundings are flooded with bright hot lava.

They, like the WBC, should be quietly ignored.

[Mavorpen]

See what I mean by this Mavor? These people won't change. They are only laymen. And scientists don't need the support of laymen like this poster because they will never give in even if their surroundings are flooded with bright hot lava.

They, like the WBC, should be quietly ignored.

Norstal, I NEVER want to live in a world where people aren't called out on their bullshit.

[Capitalist Running Dogs]

See what I mean by this Mavor? These people won't change. They are only laymen. And scientists don't need the support of laymen like this poster because they will never give in even if their surroundings are flooded with bright hot lava.

They, like the WBC, should be quietly ignored.

Ah yes, look down at the little people who 'just don't understand you awesomeness'. By the way, vulcanism is quite different than climate but don't let your awesomely scientific mind be concerned by that. Far more easy to ignore a skeptic, which used to be a good word in the scientific world (y'know evidence and experimentation conforming with real word results and such), than to actually confront the evidence of the skeptics. Far easier to manipulate and bully scientific publications to not print conflicting theories and evidence than to address them in a straight-forward manner.

Boy. And people here call Christians and Republicans anti-scientific. You embody that term nicely.

[Capitalist Running Dogs]

See what I mean by this Mavor? These people won't change. They are only laymen. And scientists don't need the support of laymen like this poster because they will never give in even if their surroundings are flooded with bright hot lava.

They, like the WBC, should be quietly ignored.

Norstal, I NEVER want to live in a world where people aren't called out on their bullshit.

I agree.

[Frisivisia]

See what I mean by this Mavor? These people won't change. They are only laymen. And scientists don't need the support of laymen like this poster because they will never give in even if their surroundings are flooded with bright hot lava.

They, like the WBC, should be quietly ignored.

Ah yes, look down at the little people who 'just don't understand you awesomeness'. By the way, vulcanism is quite different than climate but don't let your awesomely scientific mind be concerned by that. Far more easy to ignore a skeptic, which used to be a good word in the scientific world (y'know evidence and experimentation conforming with real word results and such), than to actually confront the evidence of the skeptics. Far easier to manipulate and bully scientific publications to not print conflicting theories and evidence than to address them in a straight-forward manner.

Boy. And people here call Christians and Republicans anti-scientific. You embody that term nicely.

You keep using that word, skeptic. I do not think it means what you think it means.