- Joined
- Jan 28, 2012
- Messages
- 16,386
- Reaction score
- 7,793
- Location
- Where I am now
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
And in a new poll...20% of respondents believed 20% of respondents will vote for the '20% of respondents will vote' option.
The evidence is that the Global average temperatures based on the GISS have increased by .8 C since 1880.
At the same time CO2 levels have increased from 280 ppm to 401 ppm.
The AGW predictions from the IPCC say doubling the CO2 level will result in a temperature
increase between 1.5 and 4.5 C.
Baede et al:
We are 43% of our way to doubling CO2, but the diminishing response curve of CO2
means we should have seen 52% of the effect, about .6°C.
This means all of the remaining variables of warming are contained in .2°C, over 133 years.
.2°C per century is well within the natural variability.
Does this mean Human activity is not causing some warming, of course not,
it does mean the warming will likely be in the low end of the IPCC prediction,
and not catastrophic.
We have real problems to worry about, without having to create artificial ones.
Well, Let's start at IPCC AR-5, who cites Baede et al as, "1.2.2 key concepts in climate Science"You're drawing a lot of conclusions and throwing a lot of things out there backed by what?
The temperature record is the GISS,If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm−2. To counteract this imbalance, the
temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the
climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the
overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase
to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises
from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with
radiation.
Having said that, I think the government should take a definitive stand on what it believes is the case.
Personally, I believe there is at least significant global warming...but I am far from certain.
Having said that, I think the government should take a definitive stand on what it believes is the case.
I also think that if the government does (or ever does) believe that there is significant global warming going on - then they should decide on a formula to determine how 'polluting' individual companies/corporations are and then publish those findings on a monthly basis.
Then I think they should do nothing (outside of environmental disasters obviously) and leave it up to the public to decide whether or not to boycott those companies that are the more egregious polluters.
You're equat scientific accuracy to computer models built on corrupted data.
You do realize that don't you ?
No...carbon is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases cause the planet to heat, and we're releasing a very large amount of greenhouse gases. You can argue over the models being a degree off here or not taking something specific into account but there's no doubt we're doing something that is causing havoc to the planet's current climate.
I just want to thank the liberal, progressive, and militant members who absolutely proved my point in the op.
Think about the responses so far...
I posted a poll that simply said that proponents of AGW in this country were in the minority, and further gave my opinion as to how they would respond to this information. ie; dumb, inflexible, attacking the poll, or myself from a 'victim' standpoint....etc.
They did exactly that.
Now, we hear all the time in these debates how 'the science' is settled, and how 'a majority' agree with them. That is simply NOT true. So, instead of addressing the simple point of how that small part of the overall argument is shown so with this poll, the knee jerk reaction of the AGW disciple is to employ the tactics of personal destruction, rather than introspective response to bolster their case.
I wasn't looking to have yet another thread arguing about all the facets of AGW, or whether or not it even exists as a response to man's actions, but rather trying to take small bites, we first have to agree that the so called science is settled. The majority of people in this poll say no.
From ad Homs to straw men. Well done!
Hint: a public opinion poll does not address whether the science is settled(it is not, but not in a way you understand), and no one is claiming a majority of any one except scientists agree with the science.
From highly insulting people that think that those that disagree with them are somehow just north of mentally handicapped, to the mockery of the disciple of Gorentology that comes at you with the viciousness of a typical cult member when their religion is under question, it is clear that the majority of voters in this country don't buy the lie that the case is settled, that the argument is over...
Back to fringe obscurity GW lunatics. :mrgreen:
Neither was employed here, (except by you)...
:lamo Are you serious....I can't even begin to count how many times I have been told in AGW debates right here at DP that "the majority of American's agree with the AGW side.."
Also, I suggest you go back and read the poll and my writing...I am not saying that the science is settled or not. I am saying that a poll says that YOU saying that the science is settled is just not believed by a clear majority of Americans.
I've said this over over again. If environmentalists wish to alarm me with their data about global warming - or whatever they want to call it now, they'd better show they are truly alarmed about global warming.This is the result of ignorance. People who don't understand science but think they do. I will never understand why people think that an idea they had while looking out the window is just as valid as a scientist... A professional, a person who went to college and got a degree, who spent many years studying after college and while working in the field many years as a career.
I've said this many times in the environmental forum and I will say it again here. Almost all of the questions about global warming can be answered simply by reading an introductory science textbook. The remaining questions can be answered by studying climate science and reading the IPCC's reports.
If you don't know anything about these things, you should not have an opinion that you think AGW is X(anything), because you have no idea. If you are going to have an opinion at least do a bare minimum of research and learn basic science first, it is not that hard at all. If you don't do this, you are at the mercy of whatever nonsense is spewed from television, radio, the internet. It is laughably stupid and you will immediately spot it once you learn a few basic things.
Whether its settled or not, what's frustrating to me is we should all agree that radical middle eastern extremists have painted a bulls eye on our backs and have targeted America. The one sure way to drive them into bankruptcy is by modernizing our transportation.
In doing this, we simultaneously defund the brutal dictators that have more control over the US than any president since Dwight Eisenhower. We also end any "vital interest" need to be entangled in middle eastern affairs and marriages of convenience with homicidal tyrants. To complain its just to expensive is to ignore the business model of every new technology to hit the market since the personal computer: extensive at first but in short order just by being on the market prices drastically drop while the product drastically improves.
To say its just too expensive is to completely ignore the costs of the war on terror and the
war in Iraq, neither of which would have occurred if not for the indirect connection they have to our oil dependency.
We have the power to defeat terrorism but it seems many of my conservative friends would rather not do that if it means cooperating with their fellow Americans with because our would be common objective is not driven by the same motive.
I've said this over over again. If environmentalists wish to alarm me with their data about global warming - or whatever they want to call it now, they'd better show they are truly alarmed about global warming.
If global warming is chronic (It may be or not, who knows, maybe it's cyclic? All we have is visual data of receding ice around the poles and we don't know what causes it) and earth threatening, wouldn't anyone try anything to cool the earth? For example, shoot debris in the upper atmosphere to help create a mini ice age?
Do you know there are 3 major greenhouse gases that could theoretically trap heat in the atmosphere? (1)Water vapor is the most prevalent - at 95% of all greenhouse gases. (2)CO2 is the second highest in concentration at under 5% of total greenhouse gases. (3)Methane has been scientifically proven to be approximately 25 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2.
What do environmentalists who believe greenhouse gases cause a deadly heating of the earth propose to stop global warming? Solely eliminating CO2? Really? That's your answer? That's your show of concern? ARE YOU CONCERNED? If you aren't concerned, why should I be concerned?
Huh ?
I'm referring to the " science " that is supposedly monitoring the increase in temperature.
Your assertions should be backed by something objective, but without ACCURATE data your assertions are only opinions.
Didn't you just do exactly what you claim j-mac was doing - i.e. insult him for posting a poll rather than debate the merits of the poll?
Part of the problem with environmental science is that it is entirely counter to people's own experiences and all of the remedies appear to be ones that almost totally destroy the lifestyle people have worked hard to create. No wonder people, those well informed and those not well informed, challenge the validity of the "science" presented to them.
I don't know if there is chronic global warming or not.. no one has provided the proof. AGW.. so man is the only causer of global warming. Give me scientific facts. Not your ideology. Your anti-pollution ideology.
Water vapor is always in the atmosphere. It's a never-ending cycle. Rain to water vapor to rain.
You just admitted global warming isn't a chronic and debilitating situation: "so it makes sense to do that first <reduce CO2, because global warming is man made, don't you know>and if we need to take additional steps then we'll do that as well." I wondering, wait, I know environmentalists are more concerned with man's effect on environment than the evils of global warming.
Nobody mkes the strawman argument you set up. Man has contributed millions of tons of the greenhouse gas Co2 into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, and you nonsensically opine that scientists who actually know what they are talking about are all part of a global conspiracy.
" Green energy " or renewable energy technology is a huge joke right now.
From highly insulting people that think that those that disagree with them are somehow just north of mentally handicapped, to the mockery of the disciple of Gorentology that comes at you with the viciousness of a typical cult member when their religion is under question, it is clear that the majority of voters in this country don't buy the lie that the case is settled, that the argument is over...
Back to fringe obscurity GW lunatics. :mrgreen: