Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 51
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    774
    vCash
    1500
    Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...consensus-not/

    According to Forbes, more than 31,000 scientists are skeptical. It's more CO2 levels than anything, but the thing is, greenhouse gases are mainly caused by water vapor, and CO2 is not a pollutant.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,788
    vCash
    1500
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...to-matter.html

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/huma...-emissions.htm

    Again, this is not something that is up for debate. Numbers are not an opinion.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,598
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Curtain View Post
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...consensus-not/

    According to Forbes, more than 31,000 scientists are skeptical. It's more CO2 levels than anything, but the thing is, greenhouse gases are mainly caused by water vapor, and CO2 is not a pollutant.
    Lol.. you don't evem know what you are posting. That petition was started in the 90s and pretty much anyone with a bachelors degree in any pretty much anything can sign it. If your an electrical engineer you are an expert. In fact I am an expert since I am a faculty member in molecular biology which has nothing to do with climatology. The people who actually publish in the field believe that gw is man made.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,626
    vCash
    1500
    again,
    please explain the problem with a pragmatic approach to the debate.
    On the RT people want to sell the idea that is is B.S.

    WHY?

    Because they are heavily invested in fossil fuels and manufacturing prcatices.
    Dont You Rs understand that?
    arnt you tired of Being Alex?

    Infact, that is my new name for all Republicans.

    Liberals, may be wrong(i dont believe they are,gut for the sake of argument,lets say they are.)
    so what...
    no one will debate that increasing co2 emissions are undesirable and change the natural balance ,so even if we are simply restoring natural patterns, who gets hurt by this?

    Well, Alex, the corporations have touted a enourmous number of lost revenues and spiralling costs associated with the changes.

    thats not to you ALEX,its to them.
    To us we get growing industries outside the old status qou, battery tech, wind tech, solar tech, bio diesel tech,electrical grid upgrade tech, everything that we need (lol). but nothing they have a financial stake in.

    arnt you tired of their cure....alex.
    STORK WAS RIGHT!
    Mcfadden is useless

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    774
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerlive
    Lol.. you don't evem know what you are posting. That petition was started in the 90s and pretty much anyone with a bachelors degree in any pretty much anything can sign it. If your an electrical engineer you are an expert. In fact I am an expert since I am a faculty member in molecular biology which has nothing to do with climatology. The people who actually publish in the field believe that gw is man made.
    There is plenty of good information in that article... I would suggest reading it. You can argue whatever about reducing Fossil Fuels and switching to wind power, but you can put fans up all over the country and you still would not be able to power California.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,598
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Curtain View Post
    There is plenty of good information in that article... I would suggest reading it. You can argue whatever about reducing Fossil Fuels and switching to wind power, but you can put fans up all over the country and you still would not be able to power California.
    So you just think I didn't read the article and assume that I am wouldn't hear out your argument.

    The fact is most people don't even know that Climategate was invistigated 9 times which included a federal investigation and NOTHING was uncovered that showed the science was false. PERIOD! I doubt you even knew that and the PhD in a irrelevant field who wrote that article in Forbes obviously just wants you to think there was a scandal when there really wasn't.

    PhD's who act like experts in other fields are frauds. They don't have the training and they are reduced to tabloid columinst trying to sell books like Mr. Bell who authored the Climate of Corruption.

    Point is if you work in the field of climatology then you believe in global warming and those ARE the EXPERTS. For goodness sake man you don't go to a plumber to figure out why you car is broke so why should you listen to some person who has no clue what he is talking about in climate change?

    I'll direct you to another paper to read.

    http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    774
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerlive
    So you just think I didn't read the article and assume that I am wouldn't hear out your argument.

    The fact is most people don't even know that Climategate was invistigated 9 times which included a federal investigation and NOTHING was uncovered that showed the science was false. PERIOD! I doubt you even knew that and the PhD in a irrelevant field who wrote that article in Forbes obviously just wants you to think there was a scandal when there really wasn't.

    PhD's who act like experts in other fields are frauds. They don't have the training and they are reduced to tabloid columinst trying to sell books like Mr. Bell who authored the Climate of Corruption.

    Point is if you work in the field of climatology then you believe in global warming and those ARE the EXPERTS. For goodness sake man you don't go to a plumber to figure out why you car is broke so why should you listen to some person who has no clue what he is talking about in climate change?

    I'll direct you to another paper to read.

    http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
    Look we can exchange links all day. It would be a waste of time though. You have your opinion, I have mine. I'll leave it at that, we are off-topic anyway.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,788
    vCash
    1500
    Well...

    U.S. temperature

    Every state in the contiguous U.S. had an above-average annual temperature for 2012. Nineteen states had a record warm year and an additional 26 states had one of their 10 warmest.

    On the national scale, 2012 started off much warmer than average with the fourth warmest winter (December 2011-February 2012) on record. Winter warmth limited snow with many locations experiencing near-record low snowfall totals. The winter snow cover for the contiguous U.S. was the third smallest on record and snowpack totals across the Central and Southern Rockies were less than half of normal.

    Spring started off exceptionally warm with the warmest March on record, followed by the fourth warmest April and second warmest May. The season’s temperature was 5.2°F above average, making it easily the warmest spring on record, surpassing the previous record by 2.0°F. The warm spring resulted in an early start to the 2012 growing season in many places, which increased the loss of water from the soil earlier than what is typical. In combination with the lack of winter snow and residual dryness from 2011, the record warm spring laid the foundation for the widespread drought conditions in large areas of the U.S. during 2012.

    The above-average temperatures of spring continued into summer. The national-scale heat peaked in July with an average temperature of 76.9°F, 3.6°F above average, making it the hottest month ever observed for the contiguous United States. The eighth warmest June, record hottest July, and a warmer-than-average August resulted in a summer average temperature of 73.8°F, the second hottest summer on record by only hundredths of a degree. An estimated 99.1 million people experienced 10 or more days of summer temperatures greater than 100°F, nearly one-third of the nation’s population.

    Autumn and December temperatures were warmer than average, but not of the same magnitude as the three previous seasons. Autumn warmth in the western U.S. offset cooler temperatures in the eastern half of the country. Although the last four months of 2012 did not bring the same unusual warmth as the first 8 months of the year, the September through December temperatures were warm enough for 2012 to remain the record warmest year by a wide margin.

    U.S. precipitation

    The nationally-averaged precipitation total of 26.57 inches was 2.57 inches below average and the 15th driest year on record for the lower 48. This was also the driest year for the nation since 1988 when 25.25 inches of precipitation was observed.

    The driest conditions during 2012 occurred across the central United States. Two states, Nebraska and Wyoming, had their driest years on record. Eight additional states had annual precipitation totals ranking among the bottom ten. Drier-than-average conditions stretched from the Intermountain West, through the Great Plains and Midwest, and into the Southeast. Wetter-than-average conditions occurred in the Pacific Northwest, where Washington had its fifth wettest year on record, as well as parts of the Gulf Coast and Northeast.

    Each season of 2012 had precipitation totals below the 20th century average:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/13
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,470
    vCash
    1500
    I enjoyed the last 2 pages
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    ^ESPN and PSD Agrees

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,347
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerlive View Post
    So you just think I didn't read the article and assume that I am wouldn't hear out your argument.

    The fact is most people don't even know that Climategate was invistigated 9 times which included a federal investigation and NOTHING was uncovered that showed the science was false. PERIOD! I doubt you even knew that and the PhD in a irrelevant field who wrote that article in Forbes obviously just wants you to think there was a scandal when there really wasn't.

    PhD's who act like experts in other fields are frauds. They don't have the training and they are reduced to tabloid columinst trying to sell books like Mr. Bell who authored the Climate of Corruption.

    Point is if you work in the field of climatology then you believe in global warming and those ARE the EXPERTS. For goodness sake man you don't go to a plumber to figure out why you car is broke so why should you listen to some person who has no clue what he is talking about in climate change?

    I'll direct you to another paper to read.

    http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
    Well written.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,347
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Curtain View Post
    Look we can exchange links all day. It would be a waste of time though. You have your opinion, I have mine. I'll leave it at that, we are off-topic anyway.
    Steel, this is not about your opinion or Pacer's opinion. In this case, Pacer has the overwhelming preponderance of the documented expertise on Pacer's side. Pacer has the overwhelming preponderance of the peer reviewed evidence on Pacer's side.

    What Pacer pointed out to you, and you did not respond to, was that the article you pointed to was not written by an expert in the field that he was writing in. I looked him up.

    I am an expert in insurance, gems, jewelry, wine, and staying married to the same woman for over 30 years. In all other areas, I look to documented experts to help me out in their field. My doctor may have an opinion on climate change, but he is not a reliable source, any more, than the PhD who wrote your article.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    774
    vCash
    1500
    Yall are stubborn. There are plenty of experts who deny man-made global warming. The issue is man-made. George Paltridge, for example, is a climate scientist who wrote a book called "The Climate Caper" which is a book proposing skepticism. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...climate_caper/

    Is CO2 really that big of a problem? Water vapor is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, should we try and stop water vapor emmissions too?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Louisville, Colorado
    Posts
    23,108
    vCash
    1500
    Haha I didn't mean this thread to be about global warming.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    indianpolis - north side
    Posts
    9,489
    vCash
    1500
    thanx though. i learned stuff.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,626
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Curtain View Post
    There is plenty of good information in that article... I would suggest reading it. You can argue whatever about reducing Fossil Fuels and switching to wind power, but you can put fans up all over the country and you still would not be able to power California.
    your completely wrong Alex.
    First of all, solar tech on buildings is generating MORE energy then needed to power homes for the majority of the year in the south west.Generation isnt the problem.

    The problem is the system is currently set up in such a way that the core power sources are "locked in".
    they are the Coal plants, and hydro plant, and Nuclear plants.
    To change the power grid would be very expensive and the technologies that would benefit are not in a position to fit the bill.

    The fossil fuel and coal people have no ineterest in improving the grid, they will lose money, who cares if its better for the countries future, THEY DONT CARE.
    http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...GBvf0yd5QV1fxw

    http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...JRl0JiFJRJ8C1g

    the argument is pointless.
    what is at debate here isnt even Really global warming,but renewables VS expendables.

    To continue with expendables until they are expended only serves those that make money off them.
    That is why they try to convince you that Global warming is a myth, so you feel that there is nothing wrong with the current system, only THERE IS something wrong with the current system wether global warming is real or not, and arguing about this silly issue only serves to delay our ineveitable path forward.
    STORK WAS RIGHT!
    Mcfadden is useless

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •