TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- $125,000 to prove global warming
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

$125,000 to prove global warming

http://junkscience.com/

These idiots are offering a prize to prove global warming is a crisis. I doubt they will accept anything at all contrary to their hypothesis. The fucking science is already here..
-------------------------------------------------------

CHALLENGE
$125,000 will be awarded to the first person to prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming. The winning entry will specifically reject both of the following two hypotheses:

UGWC Hypothesis 1

Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.

UGWC Hypothesis 2

The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered.

Yes, yes, I know. A very similar challenge by the esteemed Creationist twit Kent Hovind was also given for evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA341.html

The challenge was never objectively made nor truly engaged by Hovind.

Same shit, different topic.

Here's my recent quote on the issue from some other forum:

quote:

I already stated it a million times over and over on many forums that I am part of: Every year, the size of Wales in trees gets cut down. The amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere from that alone explains the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 doesnt cause global warming, cutting down trees does, just like the humid fog in your shower is not caused by the fog itself, but rather you turning on the hot water. Also, are human actions causing global warming effect on other planets in the Solar System as well? Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...rs-warming.html Breaking: Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence? http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007...rming031307.htm etc. etc. etc. = global warming caused by warming sun cycle. Make no mistake about it - I am an avid environmentalist. BUT, global warming, which is more appropriately called climate change, is nothing new. Instead, some politicians (rule number 1 - never trust politicians) like Al Gore have an agenda to make money off this thing, as Al Gore himself is involved with carbon credits. Big business. In 8 years as VP of the world's most powerful country, he didnt pass a single environmental law and didnt even push the Kyoto treaty. All of a sudden, once kicked out of politics, Al Gore has a vision ... to make money off something he never really stood for - the environment. As a die-hard environmentalist, I know that campaign behind global warming ignores the main reasons for greenhouse gas emissions - our continuing destruction, pollution and abuse of environment. The worst part about this smoke screen is that once in a decade or so from now current solar cycle will end and cooler times will follow (droughts, famines, wars, looting), environment will be ignored even more. Where's the movies like Inconvenient Nature? Drop the global warming bullshit. Lets start talking about ACTUAL issues that need to be dealt with - stopping the destruction of rainforests and halt to the pollution of the environment, among many other crucial things. Its our future at stake here, our children's and their children's children future. We have the most amazingly oversized brains that are capable of so much, yet we often are dumber than monkeys - and even monkeys are smart since they cant cause so much suicidal damage to their vital life-supporting resources they live in as much as we do. Humans are dumb - the more advanced we become, the stupider we are actually getting. I recommend watching a comedy mock movie that depicts this, a movie called "Idiocracy". Highly recommended - good laughs and quite scary as it has some truth to it.

Hm, I'm fairly confident that I could do this through the use of articifial closed systems.

I'm going to be rich!

I've always said right from the start it was solar activity. The theory sucks heavily. Simply knowing your history proves global warming is false. Medieval warm period anybody? Massive rescessions in ice caps and practically no human carbon emissions. Bah. Theres an industry around this bullshit now. You know things are truly fucked up when scientists are paid to lie.

quote:

Originally posted by The Arbiter Simply knowing your history proves global warming is false. Medieval warm period anybody?

O rly?

Cool.

Well then lads, that's that. The Arbiter has spoken, he was there back then and has all the info, global warming doesn't exist and we're all going to be just fine. The vast majority of scientists (>99%) are being paid to lie.

By who you ask? Eh, doesn't matter.

I know I'll be sleeping better tonight!

It is true, your all safe. From the possibility you might believe a false theory anyway. There's still plenty of shit that can kill you, like meteorites for example. And broccoli.

quote:

Originally posted by The Arbiter It is true, your all safe. From the possibility you might believe a false theory anyway. There's still plenty of shit that can kill you, like meteorites for example. And broccoli.

History has shown meteorites to be a myth. No record of a meteorite has ever been known, though unaccounted for acts of God are common.

And broccoli follows the fibanacci sequence and provides several essential vitamins and minerals, so sod off!

Right...Wierd thing is, there has been a couple of programs on the tele about how false the theory is and the public still believe it completely.

quote:

Originally posted by The Arbiter Right...Wierd thing is, there has been a couple of programs on the tele about how false the theory is and the public still believe it completely.

Hmmm, I guess you'll have to excuse me for believing what global warming researchers in their respective fields (climatology, glaciology, ecology, marine biology, oceanography, biology, etc. etc.) have all said as a consensus in scientific knowledge versus a "couple of programs on the tele" have to say about the "falsity" of the theory.

I address the solar arguments in the Gore thread here, as well as Occrider:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...66&pagenumber=2

I point out a number of flaws in the arguments of a cosmologist who attempt to argue in a different field from their expertise.

You can also read this article:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/...nk-between.html

which discusses the latest research refuting any causal link between solar activity and global warming. The paper that the article references can be read here:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf...0706.4294v1.pdf

You're welcome to address the specific arguments posed in any of those links. But please try to be specific and support your arguments as best as you can.

To be honest, I cant really be arsed for a serious debate. Especially on an issue like Global Warming were hard evidence each way is sparse.

quote:

Originally posted by The Arbiter To be honest, I cant really be arsed for a serious debate. Especially on an issue like Global Warming were hard evidence each way is sparse.

The evidence is pretty straightforward.

Temperatures around the world increase... then there is "Global Warming", and we've got a problem.

I should've added the term "Man-made." really. No doubt temperatures are rising, but who's fault it is remains another question.

Although in my eyes, I simply cant believe that the tiny amount of CO2 we pump out relative to the atmosphere has such dramatic effects on the plant.

quote:

Originally posted by The Arbiter I should've added the term "Man-made." really. No doubt temperatures are rising, but who's fault it is remains another question. Although in my eyes, I simply cant believe that the tiny amount of CO2 we pump out relative to the atmosphere has such dramatic effects on the plant.

I still fail to see how or why it matters what caused it.

Instead of trying to assuage our own foolish activities of the past, why not begin taking preventative measures while we still can? We really do act like infants.

Or are you suggesting that we should ignore the rising temperatures and any study of our interaction with that situation, because we may not be able to pin ourselves as the cause?

Im not exactly sure what we can do really. This is so much bigger than us, controlling a planets climate. Certainly controlling CO2 emissions is futile and the evidence that it will do anything at all is non-existant. What do you suggest?

People, within scientific circles, there is extremely little debate as to the cause of global warming. It is human-caused!

-------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...70202085036.htm

Evidence For Human-caused Global Warming Is Now 'Unequivocal'

Science Daily � The first major global assessment of climate change science in six years has concluded that changes in the atmosphere, the oceans and glaciers and ice caps show unequivocally that the world is warming.

An iceberg in Wolstenholm Fjord, just north of Thule, Greenland, is captured from the National Science Foundation/National Center for Atmospheric Research C-130 aircraft during the Tropospheric Ozone Production about the Spring Equinox (TOPSE) experiment. (Copyright University Corporation for Atmospheric Research / Photo by James Hannigan)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that major advances in climate modelling and the collection and analysis of data now give scientists �very high confidence� (at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct) in their understanding of how human activities are causing the world to warm. This level of confidence is much greater than what could be achieved in 2001 when the IPCC issued its last major report.

Today�s report, the first of four volumes to be released this year by the IPCC, also confirms that the marked increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) since 1750 is the result of human activities.

An even greater degree of warming would likely have occurred if emissions of pollution particles and other aerosols had not offset some of the impact of greenhouse gases, mainly by reflecting sunlight back out to space.

Three years in the making, the report is based on a thorough review of the most-up-to-date, peer-reviewed scientific literature available worldwide. It describes an accelerating transition to a warmer world marked by more extreme temperatures including heat waves, new wind patterns, worsening drought in some regions, heavier precipitation in others, melting glaciers and Arctic ice and rising global average sea levels. For the first time, the report provides evidence that the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland are slowly losing mass and contributing to sea level rise.

�This report by the IPCC represents the most rigorous and comprehensive assessment possible of the current state of climate science and has considerably narrowed the uncertainties of the 2001 report,� said Michel Jarraud, Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). �Progress in observations and measurements of the weather and climate are keys to improved climate research, with National Meteorological and Hydrological Services playing a crucial role.�

�While the conclusions are disturbing, decision makers are now armed with the latest facts and will be better able to respond to these realities. The speed with which melting ice sheets are raising sea levels is uncertain, but the report makes clear that sea levels will rise inexorably over the coming centuries. It is a question of when and how much, and not if,� he said.

�In our daily lives we all respond urgently to dangers that are much less likely than climate change to affect the future of our children,� said Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which, together with WMO, established the IPCC in 1988.

�The implications of global warming over the coming decades for our industrial economy, water supplies, agriculture, biological diversity and even geopolitics are massive. Momentum for action is building; this new report should spur policymakers to get off the fence and put strong and effective policies in place to tackle greenhouse gas emissions,� he said.

The report also concludes that:

� If atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases double compared to pre-industrial levels, this would �likely� cause an average warming of around 3�C (5.4�F), with a range of 2 - 4.5�C (3.6 - 8.1�F). For the first time, the IPCC is providing best estimates for the warming projected to result from particular increases in greenhouse gases that could occur after the 21st century, along with uncertainty ranges based on more comprehensive modelling.

� A GHG level of 650 parts per million (ppm) would �likely� warm the global climate by around 3.6�C, while 750 ppm would lead to a 4.3�C warming, 1,000 ppm to 5.5�C and 1,200 ppm to 6.3�C. Future GHG concentrations are difficult to predict and will depend on economic growth, new technologies and policies and other factors.

� The world�s average surface temperature has increased by around 0.74�C over the past 100 years (1906 - 2005). This figure is higher than the 2001 report�s 100-year estimate of 0.6�C due to the recent series of extremely warm years, with 11 of the last 12 years ranking among the 12 warmest years since modern records began around 1850. A warming of about 0.2�C is projected for each of the next two decades.

� The best estimates for sea-level rise due to ocean expansion and glacier melt by the end of the century (compared to 1989 � 1999 levels) have narrowed to 28 - 58 cm, versus 9 - 88 cm in the 2001 report, due to improved understanding. However, larger values of up to 1 m by 2100 cannot be ruled out if ice sheets continue to melt as temperature rises. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than at present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume caused the sea level to rise by 4 to 6 m.

� Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Large areas of the Arctic Ocean could lose year-round ice cover by the end of the 21st century if human emissions reach the higher end of current estimates. The extent of Arctic sea ice has already shrunk by about 2.7% per decade since 1978, with the summer minimum declining by about 7.4% per decade.

� Snow cover has decreased in most regions, especially in spring. The maximum extent of frozen ground in the winter/spring season decreased by about 7% in the Northern Hemisphere over the latter half of the 20th century. The average freezing date for rivers and lakes in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 150 years has arrived later by some 5.8 days per century, while the average break-up date has arrived earlier by 6.5 days per century.

� It is �very likely� that precipitation will increase at high latitudes and �likely� it will decrease over most subtropical land regions. The pattern of these changes is similar to what has been observed during the 20th century.

� It is �very likely� that the upward trend in hot extremes and heat waves will continue. The duration and intensity of drought has increased over wider areas since the 1970s, particularly in the tropics and subtropics. The Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and parts of southern Asia have already become drier during the 20th century.

� The amounts of carbon dioxide and methane now in the atmosphere far exceed pre-industrial values going back 650,000 years. As stated above, concentrations of carbon dioxide have already risen from a pre-industrial level of 280 ppm to around 379 ppm in 2005, while methane concentrations have risen from 715 parts per billion (ppb) to 1,774 in 2005.

� A number of widely discussed uncertainties have been resolved. The temperature record of the lower atmosphere from satellite measurements has been reconciled with the ground-based record. Key remaining uncertainties involve the roles played by clouds, the cryosphere (glaciers and ice caps), oceans, deforestation and other land-use change, and the linking of climate and biogeochemical cycles.

The IPCC does not conduct new research. Instead, its mandate is to make policy-relevant assessments of the existing worldwide literature on the scientific, technical and socio-economic aspects of climate change. Its reports have played a major role in inspiring governments to adopt and implement the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol.

The Summary for Policymakers for IPCC Working Group I, which was finalized line-by-line by governments during the course of this week, has now been posted in English at http://www.ipcc.ch. The full underlying report � �Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis� � will be published by Cambridge University Press.

The report was produced by some 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of government reviewers also participated. Representatives from 113 governments reviewed and revised the Summary line-by-line during the course of this week before adopting it and accepting the underlying report.

The Working Group II report on climate impacts and adaptation will be launched in Brussels on 6 April. The Working Group III report on mitigation will be launched in Bangkok on 4 May. The Synthesis Report will be adopted in Valencia, Spain on 16 November. Together, the four volumes will make up the IPCC�s fourth assessment report; previous reports were published in 1990, 1995 and 2001.

Sorry to spoil the fun ...

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/...359a5c7f723&k=0

quote:

Look to Mars for the truth on global warming The Deniers -- Part IX Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post Published: Friday, February 02, 2007 January 26, 2007 Climate change is a much, much bigger issue than the public, politicians, and even the most alarmed environmentalists realize. Global warming extends to Mars, where the polar ice cap is shrinking, where deep gullies in the landscape are now laid bare, and where the climate is the warmest it has been in decades or centuries. "One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age," NASA scientist William Feldman speculated after the agency's Mars Odyssey completed its first Martian year of data collection. "In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated." With each passing year more and more evidence arises of the dramatic changes occurring on the only planet on the solar system, apart from Earth, to give up its climate secrets. NASA's findings in space come as no surprise to Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at Saint Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. Pulkovo -- at the pinnacle of Russia's space-oriented scientific establishment -- is one of the world's best equipped observatories and has been since its founding in 1839. Heading Pulkovo's space research laboratory is Dr. Abdussamatov, one of the world's chief critics of the theory that man-made carbon dioxide emissions create a greenhouse effect, leading to global warming. "Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance." The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions. "It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations." Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated," he maintains. "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." The real news from Saint Petersburg -- demonstrated by cooling that is occurring on the upper layers of the world's oceans -- is that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and "will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60" lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again. Because of the scientific significance of this period of global cooling that we're about to enter, the Russian and Ukrainian space agencies, under Dr. Abdussamatov's leadership, have launched a joint project to determine the time and extent of the global cooling at mid-century. The project, dubbed Astrometry and given priority space-experiment status on the Russian portion of the International Space Station, will marshal the resources of spacecraft manufacturer Energia, several Russian research and production centers, and the main observatory of Ukraine's Academy of Sciences. By late next year, scientific equipment will have been installed in a space-station module and by early 2009, Dr. Abdussamatov's space team will be conducting a regular survey of the sun. With the data, the project will help mankind cope with a century of falling temperatures, during which we will enter a mini ice age. "There is no need for the Kyoto Protocol now. It does not have to come into force until at least 100 years from now," Dr. Abdussamatov concluded. "A global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse- gas emissions."

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Sorry to spoil the fun ... http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/...359a5c7f723&k=0

I addressed Dr. Abdussamatov's points in this thread:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...66&pagenumber=2

He's out of his field of expertise, which shows given his attempts to expand his area of expertise as a solar physicist into global warming. One has to also wonder why there was no peer-reviewed published research on his conclusions and implications on global warming based on his observations on Mars. I have some other notable criticisms of his conclusions and implications in that link as well.

quote:

Originally posted by The Arbiter I've always said right from the start it was solar activity. The theory sucks heavily. Simply knowing your history proves global warming is false. Medieval warm period anybody? Massive rescessions in ice caps and practically no human carbon emissions. Bah. Theres an industry around this bullshit now. You know things are truly fucked up when scientists are paid to lie.

so how do you explain warmer conditions when the solar activity is less than in the past?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I addressed Dr. Abdussamatov's points in this thread: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...66&pagenumber=2 He's out of his field of expertise, which shows given his attempts to expand his area of expertise as a solar physicist into global warming. One has to also wonder why there was no peer-reviewed published research on his conclusions and implications on global warming based on his observations on Mars. I have some other notable criticisms of his conclusions and implications in that link as well.

Give it time, my friend ;-) I am very certain of Abdussamatov and strongly share his view. There's too much concern given to global warming and not enough emphasis given to a strong possibility that a more devastating global cooling will probably occur later on this century.

Greenland colonies existed during a time of very high solar activity, which was higher than the current levels, for example.

EDIT:

Abdussamatov DOES HAVE technical relevance to the global warming field from his knowledge of the Sun. Why? Because the Sun IS THE KEY PLAYER on the so-called global warming. And its radiation cycles are not properly understood, and Mr Abdussamatov is probably one of the best experts in the world on Sun and irradiation of its energy and the effects of that on Earth. People still dont get it, that the Sun plays the most critical role on the whole global warming thing. Sadly, it will take another dozen years before people will finally clue in, but ultimately an appropriate action will not be undertaken in any case. Because humans are dumb, sorry to be so blatantly obvious about it.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so how do you explain warmer conditions when the solar activity is less than in the past?

About 10,000 years ago it was much warmer than it is now, about couple degrees actually. Medieval high was a warmer period, slightly, as well. Just look it up yourself, CO2 levels mean jack shit because they dont relate well to temperature fluctuations, they only RESPOND to temperature changes. Just like now - oceans are warming up, more CO2 is escaping into the air from the oceans. And many trees are chopped down every minute.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Give it time, my friend ;-) I am very certain of Abdussamatov and strongly share his view. There's too much concern given to global warming and not enough emphasis given to a strong possibility that a more devastating global cooling will probably occur later on this century.

I disagree. Again, it's not that I don't respect him with his given field of expertise. But crossing over to try and create causation from solar forcing to greenhouse gas forcing is fallacious on his part with no supporting evidence for that given causation. Again if you look at this graph:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/RadF.gif

along with this one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...-cycle-data.png

It's clear that there is no increase. If anything there's a decrease in the solar fluctuations, and when you look at the size of the y-line in the second graph you'll notice such fluctuations are quite small in the first place.

This is the other problem I have with Dr. Abdussamatov's commentary - he claims that he found just the opposite but fails to provide evidence to demonstrate that. Again, no peer-reviewed research by Dr. Abdussamatov has been provided to support his claims, which leaves me a bit skeptical not just on his attempts at correlation and causation between solar forcing to greenhouse gas forcing, but with his own claims on the solar cycle itself.

quote:

Greenland colonies existed during a time of very high solar activity, which was higher than the current levels, for example.

I'm a little confused as to what you mean or what you're trying to imply.

quote:

EDIT: Abdussamatov DOES HAVE technical relevance to the global warming field from his knowledge of the Sun. Why? Because the Sun IS THE KEY PLAYER on the so-called global warming. And its radiation cycles are not properly understood, and Mr Abdussamatov is probably one of the best experts in the world on Sun and irradiation of its energy and the effects of that on Earth. People still dont get it, that the Sun plays the most critical role on the whole global warming thing. Sadly, it will take another dozen years before people will finally clue in, but ultimately an appropriate action will not be undertaken in any case. Because humans are dumb, sorry to be so blatantly obvious about it.[/COLOR]

Then can you explain why his analysis has not been supported in peer-reviewed literature up to this point? Can you explain why he feels that explaining climate change via one single lonely variable is somehow sound science?

And where exactly does Abdussamatov demonstrate solar forcing being larger than greenhouse gas forcing? This would be a vital necessity in order to demonstrate causation, even correlation of some sort. Why do the graphs demonstrate solar forcing and fluxuations being so infinitely small in comparison to greenhouse gas forcing?

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium About 10,000 years ago it was much warmer than it is now, about couple degrees actually. Medieval high was a warmer period, slightly, as well. Just look it up yourself, CO2 levels mean jack shit because they dont relate well to temperature fluctuations, they only RESPOND to temperature changes.

Is this referring back to Greenland again? Is there evidence to support this beyond Greenland, i.e. on a more global basis? How about a hemispherical basis?

http://stephenschneider.stanford.ed...ers/Bradley.pdf

and

http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/medieval.html

http://iri.columbia.edu/~goddard/EE...s_mann_2004.pdf

Tend to disagree with that analysis. Plus if you look at this graph:

http://img528.**************/img528/...fig610lgjk0.jpg

Statistical evidence that the warm period during the Medieval times was not any warmer versus the last 25 years.

And it doesn't even hold a candle to the rate of change in global temperatures over the past 50 years or so.

quote:

Just like now - oceans are warming up, more CO2 is escaping into the air from the oceans. And many trees are chopped down every minute.

If the rising temps. in oceans are the source of CO2 escaping into the air, we should therefore expect a historical trend in CO2 dropping in our oceans, would we not?

So what do we actually see?:

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/spot_gcc.html

We see instead CO2 increasing instead despite the rising temperatures, which have resulted in a decrease in pH levels and it keeps falling. Furthermore, if we assume a hotter ocean was the source of CO2, we would expect O2 coming out as well. The problem, however, is that O2 is not increasing in the atmosphere - rather, it's decreasing:

http://environmentalchemistry.com/y...balwarming.html

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch02.pdf

So that argument is not convincing to me either.

Its a hopeless topic. Plus I am pissed off about one of my classes right now. Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of all the bullshit. If people like global warming, they can believe it as long as it keep them sleeping at night, because nothing else is ever going to be done about it. You keep listing all these mainstream article and publications on global warming, the bandwagon topic, which any doofis will claim as the real deal and since everyone's supporting Al Gore than means the majority is right. But looking around Earth tells you a different picture, environmental issues are getting ignored even more. People are dumb, and for many more generations, as long as human populations remain in current range or higher, the planet will continue getting butt-focked. To make it short, since I am very weary and tired and alll - how about this - you win. For now. I'll give it couple decades or so before the cooling will kill enough enough crops to send our civilization into chaos, plus all the natural disasters and earthquakes.

Go give Al Gore a nice pat on the back for me, and dont forget to congratulate him for winning the Nobel Peace Prize while you are at it (for his work on global warming).

Anyone that has even a semblance of knowledge on the issue would know to call it "Climate Change" not "Global Warming". The amount of people that use the term Global Warming in this thread is quite sad and shows how little you actually know about the issue as a whole.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.