Over 90% of worldwide scientists accept climate change, so why not Americans?

[Canna Sylvan]

Anyone who doubts man is hurting the ecology of our planet needs to drive across the Rouge bridge on 75 going into Detroit. 30 years ago it was hold your breath bad, now it just smells like rotten eggs (so it's a little better). You can't possibly breath that air in and think it's not damaging something.

But is that only causing stinky air or the weather to change? Imagine how much money a weather man could make if all he had to do to manipulate the weather so he can predict it, is eat lots of eggs!

 

[ArcticGranite]

Anyone who doubts man is hurting the ecology of our planet needs to drive across the Rouge bridge on 75 going into Detroit. 30 years ago it was hold your breath bad, now it just smells like rotten eggs (so it's a little better). You can't possibly breath that air in and think it's not damaging something.

I live in an EPA non-attainment area. Air quality sucks. Mankind does shit in his own messkit. Would I like to breath cleaner air and do I think improving noxious emissions will help? Damn straight skippy.
Do I think humans emitting carbon is causing the earth to warm? Puh-lease!

 

[ArcticGranite]

But is that only causing stinky air or the weather to change? Imagine how much money a weather man could make if all he had to do to manipulate the weather so he can predict it, is eat lots of eggs!

I'd be content if the IPCC's modeling could vaguely predict weather in the Near future. Upcoming July will be colder than normal, normal, warmer than normal? Get that right a few months running and Maybe we can start looking long term and rationally instituting some policy changes.

 

[ArcticGranite]

Pad asked why Americans don't accept climate change? My first response being we are critical thinkers was sarcastic. For me- accepting climate change and the accompanying post made in the intro implies accepting global warming is human caused. That I don't accept. Put me in the 10%.

 

[cannabineer]

1. And that mechanism is?
There is no sign of a "hot spot" warming pattern caused by GHG. IPCC contends carbon is causing warming and GHG will leave a heat signature. Where is it? Ice cores show temps pushing up co2 and co2 lagging significantly behind temps. Not the other way around. Temp rise has been fairly flat for some time not following the modeled increase.
2. Agreed, possibly release of co2 from a warmer ocean.
3. Hmm! Just because the earth naturally warmed in the past doesn't prove it is naturally warming today. But- because the earth is warming today and we are emitting carbon that proves we are the cause?
4. Man's co2 contribution of carbon at arguably 50 of the +/-400 ppm. Yes that is an "unheard" of amount of carbon contribution. It's the first time in history man has been emitting. But even 400 ppm is only 1/10 of what earth was naturally at times. The temp was a lot warmer and sea levels higher too. And it wasn't man caused.
5. I'm not at all suggesting coincidence. Earth's natural history validates large fluctuations of temp and carbon.
*The coincidental logic of suggesting temp rise with co2 emission is squarely in the AGW reasoning!

Fact- there is no proof/evidence/record/sign/observation of CO2 "causing" warming.

Concession- perhaps raging is too strong a term but debate ensues, yes?

You brought a very important bit of info to this forum. The Ordovician cooling was probably caused by green plants soaking up some atmospheric carbon dioxide. That was an instance where changing the gas led to the change in temperature, thus breaking the ice-core dogma that CO2 concentrations are purely reactive. cn

 

[BadDog40]

I live in an EPA non-attainment area. Air quality sucks. Mankind does shit in his own messkit. Would I like to breath cleaner air and do I think improving noxious emissions will help? Damn straight skippy.
Do I think humans emitting carbon is causing the earth to warm? Puh-lease!

Do you or don't you believe carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes a rise in temperature?

 

[ginwilly]

But is that only causing stinky air or the weather to change? Imagine how much money a weather man could make if all he had to do to manipulate the weather so he can predict it, is eat lots of eggs!

To me the evidence is compelling but not settled. It's wise to maintain skepticism but not wise to completely discount it because of the idiots like Al Gore.

I admit to not having much obsession over the matter because of what China and India have in store for us over the next century. I also want the air that I breath and the water I drink to not be polluted and poisoned. It's almost the same goal as those that are convinced, stop shitting in my kitchen.

What concerns me most about the matter is the lengths and costs the fanatics are willing to go to in order to make sure we all comply with their "solutions". I'm also concerned what our politicians will push down our throats using climate change as an excuse. I don't have solutions, but nobody else seems to either. Viable ones that won't cause more harm than good anyway.

 

[echelon1k1]

And so you don't believe that we can ever rightfully convict a murderer unless there was at least one eye witness, is that correct echelon?

Try again. With the koch brothers / big oil argument you and those like you fall back on, there’s no mention of maurice strong, one of global warmings strongest proponents, a man who got the ball rolling, in what would become the IPCC. I question his motives, just as you would be wise in questioning the Koch brothers motives, which I am not naive to. Follow the money.

Rothschild Australia and E3 International to take the lead in the global carbon trading market

 

[cannabineer]

Echelon, the politics of carbon credits are a whole 'nother kettle of fish. They're not really relevant to the debate of whether or not anth. global warming is scientifically sound. cn

 

[Red1966]

because 90% of americans think they can live the large life and nothing will ever happen to them. that their country will be there to back them up. they dont understand that you cant just fix the problem its done over time. dont worry they will build bubbles around their cities because of it and the rest of us outside will be the ones with a better solution and living allot healthier lives with allot less cost.

Why live under bubbles if it's better outside?

 

[echelon1k1]

Echelon, the politics of carbon credits are a whole 'nother kettle of fish. They're not really relevant to the debate of whether or not anth. global warming is scientifically sound. cn

True Bear, but in such a politicised issue, proponents for or against have skeletons in their closets. I was trying to put across your point of sticking to the science, as money and politics have poisioned rational public debate on the issue, based on proven scientific findings.

 

[cannabineer]

True Bear, but in such a politicised issue, proponents for or against have skeletons in their closets. I was trying to put across your point of sticking to the science, as money and politics have poisioned rational public debate on the issue, based on proven scientific findings.

In this instance however, "proven" may be too late. Since we do have powerful monied interests on both sides of this question, "proven" can so easily be delayed and stonewalled and filibustered by a small but scrappy opponent with access to Assault Lawyers. I suggest you read about the antics of our (USA's) Tobacco Institute.

 

[Red1966]

all of you sciencephobes should go write some peer-reviewed research papers disproving global warming and collect your millions of dollars from the koch brothers. oh, wait. almost forgot that you're all just postulating absurd conspiracy theories on a pot website and lack any knowledge on the issue whatsoever.

You're all just postulating absurd conspiracy theories on a pot website and lack any knowledge on the issue whatsoever.

 

[ArcticGranite]

You brought a very important bit of info to this forum. The Ordovician cooling was probably caused by green plants soaking up some atmospheric carbon dioxide. That was an instance where changing the gas led to the change in temperature, thus breaking the ice-core dogma that CO2 concentrations are purely reactive. cn

There are unexplainable anomalies in something so complex as earths climate/weather/history. Data such as this seemingly contradicts data from opposite views at the same time. I read a gamut of views and chase rabbits down holes. It's enriching. You consistently contribute respectful thought provoking posts.

 

[UncleBuck]

You're all just postulating absurd conspiracy theories on a pot website and lack any knowledge on the issue whatsoever.

no, that would be your crowd, the ones calling ACC a hoax.

i'm simply deferring to the vast, vast majority of scientists who have reached overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue.

i await your next lame reply.

 

[Red1966]

let's see, the koch brothers, exxon, and others paying "scientists" millions to dispute anthropogenic climate change, versus thousands upon thousands of climatologists in dozens of countries receiving measly stipends for actual scientific research that is not aimed at a particular conclusion from the start. i hope you realize that your dumb ass is arguing against your own silly conclusion that thousands of scientists are working in lockstep to orchestrate an enormous, decades in the making hoax only to be found out by the dumbest among us. that, and the hottest decade on record and the hottest year on record (despite the lull in solar activity) are all just imaginary. you are a joke.

So you have proof scientists employed by the Koch bros are paid "millions" while everyone else receives a "measly stipend"? Or that only research by the Kock bros has a predetermined goal? Get real. You know nothing.

 

[UncleBuck]

So you have proof scientists employed by the Koch bros are paid "millions" while everyone else receives a "measly stipend"? Or that only research by the Kock bros has a predetermined goal? Get real. You know nothing.

lol, you make it too easy, red. you fucking idiot.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...declares-global-warming-real-article-1.969870

 

[Red1966]

​

you are aware this piece of shit was debunked a long time ago, right? that the list of "scientists" include engineers and dead people who have never opined on the issue or are not nearly qualified to opine, right? do you also go to a dead mechanic when you have a broken leg? that is the level of stupid on display from anyone who touts this stupid bullshit.

Debunked? Liar. This your usual response to anything you can't argue with. This "list" you describe is the problem with your "90% of scientists"

 

[UncleBuck]

Debunked? Liar. This your usual response to anything you can't argue with. This "list" you describe is the problem with your "90% of scientists"

go ahead and choose some "scientists" off that list at random, stormfront red.

the vast majority of them are nowhere near climatology, are dead, or are otherwise completely meaningless to the issue.

go ahead. please list some of them.

you must be one of these people who goes to a dead mechanic to fix your whooping cough. no wonder your family all died, you were bringing them to the wrong people for medical care.

 

[Red1966]

Why rational folks engage in debate with AGW deniers, creationists, truthers, birthers, etc. is beyond me. Retards are gonna retard; it's what they do.

Brilliant! Wonderful fact-based debate! Everyone who disagrees with me is a retard. Do you actually have any knowledge on the subject at all?