The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate warming up.

1. 0

   PeterStipposted 8 years ago

   The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate warming up..
   Why still argue ?
   
   There is a 99% Probability that Manmade Emissions Have Caused Climate Change
   Why do we still debate if there is a climate change at all ?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 61

   Superkevposted 8 years ago

   Because opinion is not proof and the whole AGW scam is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind maybe?
   
   We have set over 240 record low temps in my country alone this month. The IPCC now has 52 separate ideas as to why there has been an almost 2 decade pause in their alleged warming. They admit there has been no warming in at least the last 18 years and are now scrambling for any excuse they can come up with as to why.
   
   Lastly, this whole socialist debacle is based on provably flawed computer models that have failed to predict even one thing correctly. That's not science, not even close.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PeterStipposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Some people use the word global warming, I was using the word Climate Change. Locally it may seem that it is getting colder or wetter but it is a global weather change with consequences for crops and way of living that effects us all.

      replyreport
   2. 76

      lone77starposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Don't be fooled, Peter. Climate change is as old as the planet. Some scammers merely want to make $Trillion$ off of the scam. But more, they want the power that comes with being able to tax us.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Corrupt and greedy exploitation of resources is as old as the history of humans.  Work to stop that, Lone77star, and you will be doing the world a favor.  Leave any ideas about "god" out of it.

      replyreport
3. 74

   Aime Fposted 8 years ago

   Cognitive dissonance.
   
   The idea makes people uncomfortable so they choose not to believe it. Acknowledging the problem is inconvenient and it's easier to just pretend it's not happening.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PeterStipposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I don't have the answer but this sounds like a good one

      replyreport
   2. 94

      Dr Billy Kiddposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I like that "cognitive dissonance" thing you mention, Aime. That is so totally true. If the facts do not fit into one of a person's mental scheme of things, then it often cannot be accommodated (to use the psychological term).

      replyreport
   3. 76

      lone77starposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Also cognitive dissonance when people find out that they've been played by the corporations to buy this Global Warming hoax. Global Warming is good. See my answer to find out why.

      replyreport
   4. 74

      Aime Fposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing bad about protecting the environment. Even if it is a hoax, I'll continue to give a shit about the planet for the sake of future generations.

      replyreport
   5. 60

      Link10103posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Which is really all it boils down to Aime. It's surprising how that kind of logic flies over the heads of people who deny humans have any real kind of impact on the world.

      replyreport
   6. 0

      PeterStipposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      True Aime, we can fingerpoint and argue till hell is frozen but a more positive contribution is to care about our environment. May it be on a small scale like putting bottles in the bottle container or on a large scale.
      caring is not a bad thing.

      replyreport
   7. 0

      jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      This is the only safe way to proceed.... presume that the science IS right and develop ways to change our habits for the better.  If the science is in error we will not have lost, we will have improved our lot.

      replyreport
   8. 76

      lone77starposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Aime F, I care about the Earth & future gens. Shackle them with a multi-Trillion$ tax to solve a non-problem?
      
      https://youtube.com/watch?v=i1CR0v7dwXU
      https://youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg
      
      Science is right. This hoax is political, not science

      replyreport
   9. 0

      JThomp42posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Aime..... I would suggest you watching your profanity. It is not allowed on HP and can lead to a ban or suspension.

      replyreport
   10. 60

       Link10103posted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Excessive profanity is against the TOS, and her profanity is not directed towards anyone specific.
       What rules are Aime breaking, JT?

       replyreport
   11. 74

       Aime Fposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Thanks for your concern, JThomp. I know you would hate to see me leave. <3

       replyreport
   12. 0

       JThomp42posted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Just informing you Aimee. You are welcome!

       replyreport
   13. 0

       PeterStipposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Jthomp  are you now downgrading your climate change discussing with an attack on Aime language? Mmm. She still said the right thing. If you don't trust science you can still improve the environment on a personal level.

       replyreport
4. 94

   Dr Billy Kiddposted 8 years ago

   It's amusing: Germany now gets 30% of it's electric power from renewal resources. Iceland get's 100% of it's energy from renewal resources (and people drive electric cars). China is the largest producer of wind energy. Their so-called Communist Government just released a directive that fighting climate change is a top priority for the coming years.
   
   Meanwhile, in the U.S., there's climate change deniers. This despite 8 of the hottest years in history taking place this (21st) century. But meanwhile, crop land in drying up in California, where the water tables have dropped so much that the land has sunk 20 feet! Yet, the U.S. can do nothing because this is a political topic and her citizens are trained like pigeons pressing the button to get a kernel of corn. And Americans find it enjoyable to vent on this subject because it allows them to call each other jerks.
   
   So, call me a jerk for intervening in this name-calling fest!

   replyreport
   1. 76

      lone77starposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Climate change has been ongoing for 4.5 billion years. No one is denying climate change. Earth is far more resilient than you think. 1975 the big scare was Global Cooling.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Head in the sand?  Scientific proof is available that the temperatures are changing at a speed far, far greater than "natural."  Change your own lifestyle to make a positive difference. Just a bit.

      replyreport
   3. 76

      lone77starposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Jonny, my head used to be in the sand, believing this scam. But I was wrong. Real climate (empirical) scientists disagree with this AGW hoax.
      
      https://youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg
      
      https://youtube.com/watch?v=i1CR0v7dwXU

      replyreport
5. 59

   Snøwmanposted 8 years ago

   The Illuminati has a great influence on science. They could have started it and got other scientists to believe it until today when most scientists believe it because other scientists believe it.
   
   Al Gore, the global warming guy, uses more energy in his house than some small cities. You'd think if he actually believed it he would do his part to help the environment.
   
   There's not much evidence other than most scientists believe in man made climate change.
   
   The size of the people on earth is much smaller than the size of the earth itself. For example. Everyone on earth could live in New Zealand or Texas. If you put a pile of everyone on earth in the grand canyon it would not fill it up.
   
   Even when you take into account all the factories and cars, we're still pretty small compared to earth.
   
   There are more trees in NYC than people. There are also more trees on earth than people. Trees take CO2 out of the air. The ocean does too. The big huge ocean takes CO2 out of the air.
   
   If climate change is man made we have to compete with all plant life and the ocean.
   
   Volcanoes put out huge amounts of CO2 in the air. I don't know the exact amount, but it's a lot. Cows produce quite a bit too.
   
   The earth also goes through natural cycles of heating and cooling.
   
   I haven't yet come to a solid conclusion what is causing global climate change, but this is just what I've found. Some of this may be incorrect because I'm not a scientist and I haven't tested any of this myself.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PeterStipposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Climate change is a fact, and even if you think mankind is not the guilty one, we are the only species on this world that  can stop climate change and therefore have the obligation to do so.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Superkevposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      So we are not the cause but we now can control the weather? We can no more control the weather than we can the path of the earth along its elliptic. The cultishness of the AGW crowd never ceases to amaze and disgust me. AGW is a fraud.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      Snøwmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I never said we could control the weather.

      replyreport
   4. 61

      Superkevposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I was responding to Peterstip

      replyreport
   5. 60

      Link10103posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Super, I didnt see anything in Peter's comment that said humans could control the weather. Man made emissions cause environmental harm, that is fact. Since we cause it, we are the ones that are held accountable for stopping it.

      replyreport
   6. 61

      Superkevposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      "we are the only species on this world that can stop climate change" --sounds like controlling the weather to me.

      replyreport
   7. 60

      Link10103posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Drinking a cup of water sounds like gulping down Niagara Falls to me at that point.

      replyreport
   8. 0

      PeterStipposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Luckily we do not control the weather. But we do have an inormous impact on the environment (destroying rainforest,plains,cars,industry,cows and pigs etc.) and therefore does our actions influence the climate...

      replyreport
   9. 74

      Aime Fposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Do you have any evidence from a reputable scientific source to back up your claim that global warming is a fraud, Superkev?

      replyreport
   10. 76

       lone77starposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Peter, you're really naive if you think we can stop climate change. If you want to pay the $Trillion$ carbon tax, be my guest. Leave the rest of us out of your scam.

       replyreport
   11. 0

       jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       I suspect we cannot stop what we have started... but we can and should work to being more responsible for the life of our planet and its inhabitants.
       And get our heads out of the sand ....

       replyreport
   12. 76

       lone77starposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Sorry, Jonny. You really are misguided if you think climate change started with humans. It's been going on 4.5 billion years. Stop that? Wow! Climate change is nature itself.

       replyreport
   13. 0

       PeterStipposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Rod climate change is man made, we are part of nature too.  I wish I could pay a trillion in tax then I would be a trillionair. We,humans pieces,are the only ones that can change climate change. We are the cause of the problem so we have to fix it.

       replyreport
6. 91

   lisavollrathposted 8 years ago

   Money. As long as the purveyors of fossil fuels are making money, they will continue to pretend that their use doesn't cause greenhouse gasses, and there's nothing wrong. And they will continue to bribe politicians with campaign contributions to maintain their stranglehold on American energy policy. We look like the stupidest country on the planet on this issue, for not acknowledging that climate change is here, happening now, and that our way of fueling our lives is the cause of it!

   replyreport
   1. 76

      lone77starposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Your answer would be compelling if Big Oil wasn't behind this Global Warming hoax. Just look at the Rockefeller Fdn. website on climate change. They stand to make $Trillion$ on Carbon Tax. Pay up!

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Josh Personiusposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Pretty much exactly the issue.  Same thing happened with leaded gasoline.  Data was ignored, even when it was obvious that leaded gasoline was the cause for lead contamination.Same deal here.  We haven't seen the consequences yet, so people ignore it

      replyreport
7. 60

   Link10103posted 8 years ago

   Stupidity is really my only guess. Manmade emissions obviously have a negative impact on the environment. Do they have such a drastic impact as portrayed in the media? Maybe, maybe not, but they have an impact regardless.
   
   It is ignorant to believe that mankind is not capable of having such a big impact on the earth when we are capable of literally obliterating mountains in the blink of an eye.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PeterStipposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      We'll said Link10103 man is capable of many things and to ignore climate change and point the guilty finger to volcanos  is simpleminded behavior. We simply have to take responsibility and do something about it.

      replyreport
   2. 76

      lone77starposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Link, pollution is bad. Agreed. But CO2 is not pollution! It's the essential gas of life. Ask a climate empiricist (not climate modeler) and they think it's obvious from the facts that manmade climate change is a hoax.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      Link10103posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      CO2 is an essential gas agreed, but an excess of it is what causes the earth to warm up more than it needs to. Too much oxygen can kill someone, too much CO2 has the same effect. Why can't something similar be applied to the atmosphere as well?

      replyreport
   4. 0

      jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Gross, careless, greedy, unconcerned abuse and over-use of resources is bad for our entire planet, all species, not just human.  So let's use our good sense and intelligence to improve things.

      replyreport
8. 61

   cjhunsingerposted 8 years ago

   Peter
   
   Your statement is not true, as is the assertion of man made climate change. I would ask you to provide those facts that prove that climate change, is cause by man.
   In 2013, 31,487 scientists, to include 9,000 meteorological PhD's signed a petition to the government protesting such a claim. To research this type in "31,000 scientist sign OSIM petition." It is also interesting that this petition, which was sent to the government, was never picked up by the media or news outlets.
   "The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution." Roy Spenser PhD. (you might want to research this)
   Essentially the UN, the US and the EU simply insert their own made-up numbers into the computer programs and what comes is man-made climate change--no facts, .
   You might want to ask yourself the question, If Man is not causing this, is it really happening? What would be the purpose of such a claim, if it was not true?
   The first indication that a statement is false is when those making the statement vilify and discredit those who dissent by calling them names, by labeling them and "Deniers" would be a way to do that. Mush like the believers calling Atheists, 'unbelievers'. It is a pejorative.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PeterStipposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The osmium petition is simplistic. 32000 scientis sounds a lot but is only 0.3% of the total scientist graduates from the USA. Scientist outside the USA where not asked. And by the way the petition started in 2008 and is out of date.

      replyreport
   2. 74

      Aime Fposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      This is the first thing that comes up on Google: http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Pe … roject.htm
      
      If you want facts, do a search of peer-reviewed articles from accredited journals. There is plenty of scientific evidence for you there.

      replyreport
   3. 61

      cjhunsingerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Peter--When quoting one should, a matter of ethics, note the source and place the quote in "" marks. I guess one can argue that the calculated speed of light is out of date.

      replyreport
   4. 74

      Aime Fposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      So instead of addressing the flaws in the petition you're talking about Peter's lack of quotation marks? I guess that's telling.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      PeterStipposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Dear cjhunsinger, if you want to read the article where I got my numbers from read the link of Aime F above. It's from skeptical science.com
      But if you do not believe computer programs use your own logical sense. Or talk with a farmer.

      replyreport
   6. 61

      cjhunsingerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Peter--The Petition is not out of date and continues." A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era."

      replyreport
   7. 76

      lone77starposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Good job CJ. Perhaps a more potent point is that science is never "settled" or by "consensus." These are the terms of scamsters who use them on people who don't know better.

      replyreport
   8. 61

      cjhunsingerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Peter--Proof of climate change, "The imminent climate summit in New York is rapidly turning into an utter embarrassment for President Obama and UN Secretary General Bank Ki-Moon,--no one there.

      replyreport
   9. 0

      PeterStipposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The fact that the ocean has risen significantly the last 50 year, the fact that the % CO2 has risen enormous and the tempura urges has risen globally doesn't mean much apparently to you. These facts are easily measured without a computer model.

      replyreport
   10. 61

       cjhunsingerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Peter--You are not qualified to tell me what is important to me. To the oceans rising significantly and CO2--nonsense. Give me specifics, so I can show you how wrong you are.

       replyreport
   11. 0

       PeterStipposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Cjhunsinger. since the industrial revolution the CO2 has risen dramatically. Simply ask questions in Google.
       
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dio … atmosphere

       replyreport
   12. 61

       cjhunsingerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Let me help you out here.  I want you to give a specific figure, as to sea rise,  since that is your chosen path. If you do not, cannot,  relying on a  link is not an argument. Don't let someone else do your talking for you.

       replyreport
   13. 0

       PeterStipposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       This is Silly CJ You are asking me to proof that the sea level is rising without the research that's on the internet. You can simply proof that the sea level is rising by taking tests every year.  You are the answer to my question. Thanks.

       replyreport
   14. 61

       cjhunsingerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Peter--This is easy. Extract a figure that you believe to be correct. Put it in your owns words and then using your own conviction, your own words and back it up. You see this puts you on the spot, not a third party.

       replyreport
   15. 60

       Link10103posted 8 years agoin reply to this

       But then would you not ask for the evidence on where that number came from CJ? Seems you two would be right back at start then. It doesnt sound like you are entirely willing to listen to any of what Peter says at this point.

       replyreport
   16. 0

       jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       cjh, your being proudly American and claiming a like for reasoning power, I do not see much evidence of this.  Is it that you don't want to believe in anthropocentric climate change?

       replyreport
   17. 74

       Aime Fposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Do you want facts or do you want Peter to pull an original essay out of his ass in 250 characters? Seems you're dancing around the issue to talk about quotation marks and links.

       replyreport
   18. 60

       Link10103posted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Aime the Tigress

       replyreport
   19. 0

       PeterStipposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       If you don't trust science cj best thing to do is to talk with a farmer. He will tell you that he is planting his seeds on different times of the year then 30 years ago. This because the weather changed.

       replyreport
   20. 61

       cjhunsingerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Peter--National Geographic reports that ave increase in rise of seas is 0,14" per yr since 1990 --proof of manmade change. No-seas have been rising for 18,000 from last great ice age, as planet warms. Industrial age started when?

       replyreport
   21. 61

       cjhunsingerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Peter--I live in rural MI and last year was a bumper crop in corn. This year looks good. Last year the planting was early-this year late.

       replyreport
9. 76

   Marisaupaposted 8 years ago

   The climate changes. That is a matter of fact. It warms, it cools--it's dynamic.
   
   Sadly, such as religious leaders in the past could take natural occurrences (floods, droughts, etc.) and whip the masses into a frenzy about how those occurrences were "signs" that man's "evil ways" were bringing these maladies upon the Earth, so too have modern day climate changers, global warmers, whatever the current term is, done the same.
   
   Except now it is one's "evil carbon footprint" that is to blame. Whereas, before we were coaxed into buying dispensations to enter heaven, now we must be taxed for our own "good." It is the same end (control over people to advance a broader agenda of a select view over the many) by the same means (fear tactics, promoted self-importance, castigated opposition). Back then it was the Church, today it is big government.
   
   I suppose it will always be like this. Be it impending Armageddon yesterday, climate change today, or evil wayward flocks of mutated geese poking our eyes out tomorrow, we need something to collectively fear.
   
   We humans are as fatalistic as we are optimistic. Since the majority of us, even the well educated ones, are followers, we will always follow whatever the latest fatalistic prevailing trend happens to be. All that we demand is that it provides us with a self-righteous out. A way to demonstrate to ourselves and others that we "get it," that we are better and are "doing something."
   
   As long you dangle fear in one hand and salvation in the other, the ten percent of the population that are natural leaders can implement what they deem to be "best" and exert control over the remaining 90 percent.
   
   Personally, I am proud to be individualistic. I espouse critical thought. So if I am destined to be chastised for not being a climate change advocate, so be it. When we look back at the past it is the ones that were lighting the fires that burned the rational thinkers alive that are now seen as fools. The ones under the fire are now seen as brave free thinkers sticking up for what they believe.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PeterStipposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      We'll said. There is one difference though between the climate change debate and religion. Climate change you can proof the existence of a god you can't. And climate change is proven by scientist. What politicians do is a different thing though...

      replyreport
   2. 61

      cjhunsingerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Peter--Your scientists (politicians) have proven nothing. Give two facts of proof---no links and we will take it from there. "The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same.--no fact

      replyreport
   3. 76

      lone77starposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Bravo, CJ. There's a lot of chest thumping and "scientific consensus," but it's all smoke and mirrors. No proof; just empty claims. In 1975, the big scare was Global Cooling.

      replyreport
   4. 61

      cjhunsingerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Lone--I think this is the first time we have agreed. Yes, the world was ending then too. We would all freeze to death. My research indicates Al Gore is the cause of global warming and it is geared to the opening of his mouth & bank account.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Look at the traffic snarl-ups in every city of the world, twice a day, and consider the carbon dioxide and heat out put for travelling all of a few kms/miles.   And you think that is of no consequence?  Open your minds to more than you believe.

      replyreport
   6. 76

      Marisaupaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I could also look up in the sky and see multi-ton machines of metal flying through the sky and say, "how can that be?" "How do dey do dat?"

      replyreport
   7. 94

      Dr Billy Kiddposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The latest religious-like idea is that climate change partisans are trying to change capitalism into a socialist or communist state. Talk about a hair-brained conspiracy theory.
      
      But what's important is a sustainable future.

      replyreport
10. 54

    niveaboyposted 8 years ago

    Because it causes uncertainty, The evident, now is Mid of September, Whe I was A student of Senior High School of Agriculture 40 years ago, I got Agroclimatics, Schmidt & Fergusson Classification of areas based on rainfal type say my resident is C type means 4-5 months of wet month, and month of September is wet month. and farmers had planted the seeds. but now the same month we still undego dry season (dry month). change the habit uncertainty. I think that is one of the reason to argue climatic change

    replyreport
11. 76

    lone77starposted 8 years ago

    Lies! That's why.
    
    Scientific "opinion?" Opinion is never a good reason for belief, for creating policy, or for charging the people of Earth $Trillion$ in Carbon Tax.
    
    Which scientists? One study I saw showed that most of the scientists who agree with this "Global Warming" are climate modelers (users of computer programs that predict climate change). But if you know anything about climate and chaotic systems, you know that a climate model isn't worth squat beyond 2-3 weeks. Ever hear of the "butterfly effect?"
    
    Most of the scientists who are against this scam are climate empiricists. They are the ones who deal with real measurements and factual studies -- not climate models in computer simulations. ClimateGate was only the tip of the iceberg -- UN climate scientists fudging numbers, fraudulently making it look like they're right.
    
    The UN statements on this are a farce. Why? Because many scientists who worked on the UN's IPCC and who quit in protest over the distortions made by the UN, found that their names were still used as if they supported the UN's reports on "climate change." Consensus? Hogwash! Especially when your name as a scientist is held hostage by those who are politically motivated.
    
    The new term is now "climate change," since global warming actually stopped 17 years ago. But the climate has been changing since climate began, 4.5 billion years ago. So, no one disagrees with climate change. But the smarter ones know that climate change is a "non issue!"
    
    And Global Warming is actually good. How? Think about it. How much steam comes off of a glass of ice water? None! That's right. And if the globalists get their way, they'll cool down the planet, reducing evaporation, reducing clouds, reducing rain and killing half the planet! Global warming means more evaporation, more clouds, more rain, more life! It also means a more stable atmosphere, because, once the polar caps have melted, there will be very little thermal potential to force air to storm.
    
    If you know anything about science, you'll start to see that you've been lied to.
    
    If you still don't believe it, check out some of the scientists who were brave enough to speak out against this "global warming" hoax in the following video:
    
    The Great Global Warming Swindle
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

    replyreport
    1. 74

       Aime Fposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       There are scientists and well educated people who think vaccines cause autism, too... but like the people in this video, they're in the vast minority. Opinion of scientists SHOULD count for something when so many hold the same one.

       replyreport
    2. 0

       jonnycomelatelyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       When belief is the basis for opinion, then the head goes into the sand and refuses to reason.  The scientists who are in disagreement over climate change mostly work for either the "believers" or big corrupt business interests, - or both! IMHO

       replyreport
    3. 76

       lone77starposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Aime, did you watch the whole thing? The so-called "majority" of scientists counted by the UN's IPCC don't agree with the IPCC.
       
       Too many scientists are not being counted by the IPCC. Science by politics. That's where the head in the sand comes from.

       replyreport
    4. 60

       R K Beranposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       YES! Exactly why I don't trust "science" that comes from or is funded by bureaucrats--it's biased, manipulative, and dishonest. Scientists who only rely on computer models can fudge constants and boundary conditions to "prove" anything they want to.

       replyreport
    5. 65

       road2hellposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       This video is a swindle!  The fossil fuel industry along with their climate skeptics buddies produce this so we believe the global warming is a hoax.  The hoax is believing it is one.  Study your science and learn!

       replyreport
12. 86

    John Dyhouseposted 8 years ago

    I ask myself why do scientists studyiing this phenomena always claim that more researcch is needed.
    
    Funding is one of the main issues for scientists. No research is absolutely necessary, so they must claim their field is the most urgent/important. They can do this by claiming apocalyptic results for the field of research.
    
    I am not adding to the claims and counter-claims here but I know which side of the debate I support and it doesn't make me use light bulbs I can't read by.

    replyreport
13. 94

    mikejhcaposted 8 years ago

    The reason some people disagree about climate change is because the world is a really big place. Where I went on vacation they just dumped garbage like cans and bottles in the ocean. The garbage disappears. Out of sight, out of mind but it is still in the ocean. If they did that in a small lake they would not be able to deny that they were polluting. They would still see it.
    
    Changes in temperature happen naturally. So many people think that global warming is natural. They don't think the houses, factories, cars, planes, the trees that were cut down, etc. are enough to change the temperature. I think they don't want to accept the truth. Even if the person does not believe in global warming they should believe in smog and bad air.
    
    The earth is huge and earth's weather is complex. How can we possibly cause global warming or pollute the ocean? That is what some people think. The reason we still debate climate change is because people want other people to believe in the same things as they do. I don't see a point in arguing about it.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       PeterStipposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Sounds to me a sensible answer, people are not used to think global.we think local, and if you do not think to deeply all looks fine locally.

       replyreport
14. 60

    jstfishinmanposted 8 years ago

    I find it interesting that the Farmers Almanac has an 80-85% accuracy rate and has maintained that rate for over 100 years.
    In the 60s-70s it was fear of an ice age. In the 80s and 90s it was fear of global warming, Now we are supposed to be afraid of climate change, but climatologists will tell you that climate change runs in cycles and has been doing it for thousands of years.
    
    The Farmers almanac uses past history plus an algorithm to achieve their accuracy.
    It has been estimated that only 5% of all global pollution is man made, the rest is naturally occurring.
    The trade winds and the jet stream took only 17 days to circle the globe with Mount St. Helen's emissions.
    Do you really think humans can effect that?
    
    Or is it a case of world governments wanting to control peoples liberties and freedoms with the threat of another disaster.

    replyreport
    1. 74

       Aime Fposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       What source says that only 5% of all pollution is man made?

       replyreport
    2. 60

       jstfishinmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/jac … 1405290275

       replyreport
    3. 60

       Link10103posted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Jst, are you denying that humans have a negative impact on the earth then? Or simply denying we have an impact on the climate?

       replyreport
    4. 74

       Aime Fposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Ah, David Legates. The guy who was asked to step down as State Climatologist and signed a declaration about God creating an Earth that can sustain itself regardless of human impact. Of course.

       replyreport
    5. 0

       PeterStipposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Hi jst. Man has an great impact on the environment  with cutting rainforest , farming cattle , plains and cars,coal industry and electricity. This huge change in the earths environment  has a big impact on the climate, don't you think?

       replyreport
15. 0

    JThomp42posted 8 years ago

    And Al Gore won the Nobel peace prize for all of his gibberish. Nothing he said has come to fruition. This just proves how unreliable science really is.

    replyreport
    1. 76

       lone77starposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       JT, this isn't the unreliability of science. You're reading it all wrong. Science is highly reliable. Ego and politics are the problem, here. Just like the corruption of religion, Ego is the bad guy. Real scientists have abandoned the IPCC.

       replyreport
16. 60

    R K Beranposted 8 years ago

    It's simple. Because there is not a "99% probability that manmade emissions have caused climate change". Do you know what the most potent and abundant greenhouse gas is? Water vapor.
    
    The climate does change but "climate change" is not synonymous with "catastrophic global warming caused by man". The climate fluctuated long before man (because there has been water vapor in the atmosphere since long before man).
    
    It it were true that earths temperature can only ever increase in response to the presence of greenhouse gases, then it would have been increasing since shortly after the earth was formed (possibly the better part of 4.5 billion years)--meaning it would be ridiculous for life to exist here and now. And yet in those billions of years, we know that there were periods of warming, cooling, and even ice ages--and none of it was caused by man.
    
    Nobody is arguing the fact that the climate is changing (a thermometer and a lot of patience could tell you that much). What is being argued is the absolute garbage science being used to scare people into thinking that if we don't stop polluting, our great grandchildren will roast alive (i.e. Al Gore's brand of catastrophic global warming) and all life on earth will burn.
    
    Periods of global warming are just part of earth's cycle of warming and cooling, likely caused by our planet's wobble in conjunction with water vapor in the atmosphere. Even a worldwide 100% reduction in fossil fuel emissions would have virtually zero effect on this natural cycle (because water vapor in the atmosphere is vastly more abundant than even today's amount of emissions).

    replyreport
    1. 0

       PeterStipposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Climate change is made made, but the cause is not important any more. The question is : How can we change climate change. Because it's going rapidly. We're not talking about grandchildren. We are talking about 10-20 years.

       replyreport
    2. 60

       R K Beranposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       ^ Unfortunately the science and earth's history disagrees with you. H20 vapor is a greenhouse gas, and H20 vapor in the atmosphere (plus the earth's wobble) predates mankind. Therefore, the climate fluctuations do, too.

       replyreport