Manmade CO2 Driven Climate Change

[Pexster]

I am not neither a climatologist nor an oceanographer, so I listen to those who are. If they were fairly divided on the issue, I would be undecided. But they are not; not by any stretch of the imagination. The most respected minds from the most respected academic and research institutions around the world are nearly unanimous in their conclusions.

(Note to Bingo: these scientists are not all "lefties.")

[voogru]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pexster

I am not neither a climatologist nor an oceanographer, so I listen to those who are. If they were fairly divided on the issue, I would be undecided. But they are not; not by any stretch of the imagination. The most respected minds from the most respected academic and research institutions around the world are nearly unanimous in their conclusions.

(Note to Bingo: these scientists are not all "lefties.")

Yeah, so they are never ever wrong. And if you remove the creditials from people who disagree, they are no longer legitimate scientists and are just weenies.

[Beemer]

For those of you that want to debate climate change you may first want to read this page for your particular scepticism. Scott didn't want a GW debate on this thread. Go see if your concern has been dealt with by climate scientists.

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic

[lost-and-found]

These are some pretty biased and limiting poll choices, but that's not surprising after reading Scott's previous rant.

I agree that we have to be responsible as people in the way we treat the environment. I grew up in a mountain village, and people there started dumping every kind of waste (including sewage) into forests and local streams. In a course of 50 years, a river that was full of fresh water fish and crab when my parents were growing up, changed into a lifeless stream of sewage and waste. So, we do influence the environment on a micro scale.

What about global warming? Are we responsible for it? In a small part I do think that we have some effect. For example I'm sure that the CO2 that would have been absorbed by the rain forests that have been cut down has a negative effect on the planet. At the same time this isn't the end of the world as some would have you think. This planet's climate has been swinging ever since its creation, and man can't stop that from happening.

I also don't believe in the current fad (mostly politically driven) of "go green for the sake of going green." All of these rash decisions that are being implemented are done without thinking about further consequences. People trading in their working car for a hybrid contribute to landfill waste, for example. Everything has consequences, there is no one magic answer. I think the best solution is that of moderation. Even from a religious point of view (which I guess makes me ignorant and unedumacated) wastefulness is frowned upon.

[no1_vern]

The poll is fundamentally flawed. What you should have put was "For me, it's religious: God created this planet and we are required to care for it and all His creatures."

[Gomer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Real Bingo

It's all bullshit.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The Sun Also Sets
Canadian Professor: Prepare for Global Cooling
NASA: Solar cycle may cause “dangerous” global cooling in a few years time « Aftermath News
Global cooling gains momentum among scientists

You're right Bingo... that's all bullshit.

We've gone over this before, you've posted this before, it's garbage.

Regarding the IBD article:
What global warming?

And the Canadian Professor, Tim Ball:
More Global Warming info to consider

Same old crap.

I didn't read the rest. Why should I bother. You post the same tired crap over and over and over again. Aftermath News?????

ScottW: "to try to get to the heart of why people refuse to accept what science has been saying"

You let me know when you get that phenomena figured out. Regardless of what they are shown, they keep regurgitating the same tired crap as if saying again somehow makes it true.

And just for reference in this thread... here is what the most commonly accepted science is:

Quote:

• • 1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
  • 1.2 InterAcademy Council
  • 1.3 Joint science academies' statement 2008
  • 1.4 Joint science academies’ statement 2007
  • 1.5 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
  • 1.6 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
  • 1.7 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
  • 1.8 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
  • 1.9 Network of African Science Academies
  • 1.10 National Research Council (US)
  • 1.11 European Science Foundation
  • 1.12 American Association for the Advancement of Science
  • 1.13 Federation of American Scientists
  • 1.14 World Meteorological Organization
  • 1.15 American Meteorological Society
  • 1.16 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
  • 1.17 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
  • 1.18 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
  • 1.19 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
  • 1.20 International Union for Quaternary Research
  • 1.21 American Quaternary Association
  • 1.22 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
  • 1.23 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
  • 1.24 International Union of Geological Sciences
  • 1.25 European Geosciences Union
  • 1.26 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
  • 1.27 Geological Society of America
  • 1.28 American Geophysical Union
  • 1.29 American Astronomical Society
  • 1.30 American Institute of Physics
  • 1.31 American Physical Society
  • 1.32 American Chemical Society
  • 1.33 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
  • 1.34 Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
  • 1.35 American Statistical Association
• 2 Noncommittal statements
  • 2.1 American Association of State Climatologists
  • 2.2 American Association of Petroleum Geologists

[Gomer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by voogru

- I'm for:
Clean Coal

There is no such thing as clean coal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gomer

EVOLVE into new sources of energy?

Like I pointed out in another thread... there is no profit to be made in using/selling any less of anything. Big Business has ZERO interest in reducing the demand for anything. The concept of conservation doesn't stand a chance against the advertising machine. Burn it in the government furnace? Burn it in R&D into alternative energy. Invest in efforts to increase supply and production??? We ought to be investing in efforts to reduce demand and waste!!!!!

Those companies that currently suck and scrape it out of the ground leaving a wake of destruction behind them have ZERO interest in seeing any success whatsoever in efforts to harness the massive amount of energy output by the sun, the tides, and subterranean mass of the Earth. Who is going to invest in something like that that has a direct return on investment that is limited financially but an indirect benefit to society that is immeasurable? This effort is suppressed by the machinations of the entanglement of Big Business with Big Government.

CONSERVATION is free... but it too faces political pressures because of all of the special interest $$$ that goes along with Big Business and their desire to fill us with an emptiness that can only be filled with MORE MORE MORE.

There's no mandatory recycling. Why not? What is possibly wrong with that concept.

We can't even get a mandate for responsible packaging materials for all of the garbage that Big Business convinces us we need.

I don't have a landline... but I get three companies that leave over 10 pounds of phone books on my porch every year. I can't get them to stop. And they go straight to the recycling center.

I get pounds of junk mail every week. It's a waste of energy to produce the raw materials for it. It's a waste of energy to transport it. It's a waste of energy to print it. It's a waste of energy to deliver it. And ultimately it's a waste of energy to dispose of (or recycle) it. I AM POWERLESS FROM STOPPING THIS STREAM OF UNSOLICITED WASTE THAT GREETS ME AFTER WORK EVERYDAY. And if Big Business weren't gaining more in blurring the lines between wants and needs with all of that advertising than they expend in cost (WASTE) in producing it, they wouldn't do it. It's that effective. They send MORE MORE MORE and we buy MORE MORE MORE.

LESS is a hard sell when faced with the powers of Big $$$$$$$

[Atomic Rooster]

I believe that climate change, global warming, or whatever they are calling it now, is a naturally occurring phenomena and that we do contribute to a small part of it. I also don't believe that we can stop, nor even reverse it as some like to claim.

[Chuckiechan]

Quote:

Eventually we will have to abandon planned obsolescence, and instead manufacture products that are durable, easily recyclable or both, Moore said. And we will have to overcome our addiction to conspicuous consumption.

Are you quoting Ralph Nader from "Unsafe at any Speed"? I think you may be, or Moore paraphrased it from Ralph Nader.

Your new idea has been around since the '60's!

[ScottW]

When posting scientific opinions on global climate change that differ from the volume of published, peer reviewed papers, showing the link between man made CO2 and climate change, please state your professional degrees and experience, and reference your experiments and tests performed, which qualifies you to make such statements. I have no such qualifications personally, which is why I base my opinions on the research done by professionals in the field.

Voogru: you and I are saying the same thing. The CO2 reductions should be made - how it's done (alternative fuels, carbon credits, legislation on CO2 controls, cleaner vehicles, nuclear energy, etc) is definitely to be determined.