Comments on: Humans fiddle while the planet heats up
Author of upcoming report on global warming, Stanford scientist Terry Root pulls no punches about what she says is happening before our eyes.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- The $199 tablet according to Freescale
January 3, 2010 9:30 PM PST
- Bono risks becoming next Lars Ulrich
January 3, 2010 4:40 PM PST
- Dell laptop using Intel Core i3
January 3, 2010 3:10 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
Nature will do what it is going to do regardless of what man does
or does not do.
Environmental whackos need a life.
Educate yourself.
change - how come you've been quiet all these years when NASA
definately has plans for terraforming other planets? Particularly
Mars - its been on the boards for years on how to do this.
when it suites them to maintain their comfy status quo.
Fight your fragile eggshell mind.
No sensible and rational person could possibly review the wealth of evidence linking human-produced C02 to global warming and maintain these attitudes.
There *is* scientific consensus that global warming is real and is caused by human activity. The only "scientists" who continue to debate the "science" are those who are receiving grants from the fossil fuel industry.
Most of the comments in here from those trying to debunk the science, or from those who call global warming a "hoax," are absolute and complete nonsense.
You could start educating yourselves by reading The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery. But I doubt very much you will, because there's something else going on that has little to do with a scientific debate. It actually reminds me quite a bit of the "debate" about evolution.
The difference here is that if we don't collectively do something, we're up the creek .. and judging from some of the attitudes posted here ... we're up the creek.
facts which pertain to the fundamentals of our very existence.
Ignorance is truely bless I guess.
The only "consensus" is amongst the tree hugger enviro-terrorists who think that the earth should be de-populated so Gaia can be free again. Oh wait, I think there is/was a consensus about acid rain and a second ice age also, isn't there? I guess maybe I'm wrong on the consensus front...
I studied climatology as a metorology major a number of years ago, and I am more than a little bit aware of the issues. The evidence is far from conclusive. Furthermore, the evidence *against* man-induced climate change is far more compelling to me than the opposite.
But like most lefties, you hold the typical attitude that anyone who disagrees with your KnownFact is irrational and ignorant. Surprise, surprise.
The climate isn't making significant changes in response to CO2 levels so why have so many people fixated on CO2? Simple, they have other agendas and CO2 levels make the case for their agenda.
Tim Flannery is a Zoologist, not a climatologist so why should his book be considered authoritive? And why are you recommending books instead of peer-reviewed science papers when you're criticizing others for not following the science?
Why don't you watch the video that's been referred to several times? It's not actually denying the change in global climate, it only disputes the cause and offers an alternative cause (which shows a pretty good correlation to the temperature changes, a much better correlation than the CO2 evidence does).
I agree we need to do something but lets make sure it's something that will make a difference instead of just flushing money and other resources on correcting the wrong problem.
Sorry I read those scientific reports, and found them to be full of fraud and hoaxes. Much like the Piltdown man fraud and hoax in evolutionary theory.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf
and another interesting, thought provoking piece from Michael Crichton about the whole global warming hoopla:
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
Since the last "Little Ice Age" ended.
It was not triggered by Big Oil Companies.
It was not triggered by selfish American Soccer Moms driving ?
SUV's.
It was not triggered by Coal Fire Power Plants.?
It's called "Climate Change" and it happens all the time.
It never stops.
Through centuries and millennia.
Throughout the entire history of this tiny little planet.
Just a little spec of dust placed with in a very vast universe.
Warming and Cooling periods are triggered by forces far greater ?
than man.?
Just look up to the sky in the daytime.
See that "Big Yellow Ball" up there?
That's called "The Sun".
Are you Global Warming alarmists going to try to tell me that ?
"The Sun" is inconsequential to this whole debate?
Yes you are.
Because, in your mind, "Man" is inherently evil.
More than that . . . "Man" is the root of all evil.?
When temperatures dropped between about 1940 and ?
1980 it was "The Coming Ice Age".
That was also being blamed on man.
Temperatures over the last few thousand years have been both a ?
whole lot hotter and a whole lot colder than they are today.
And you know what?
Over the next few thousand years the temperatures are going to ?
also be a whole lot hotter and a whole lot colder than they are ?
today.?
It's called "Climate Change".
Until man learns to control every element in the entire universe - ?
which man, in my opinion, will NEVER be able to do - Then ?
"Climate Change" will be with us until the end of Earths
existence.
Get used to it.
Don't get me wrong.
I think pollution is bad.
Reusable/Renewable energy is good.
Less dependence on oil or coal as a power source is good.?
I'd like to see more research into:
Solar Power
Hydrogen Power
Wind Power
Geothermal Power
Wave Power Generators
Cold Fusion?
But then the "Eco-Religious" would, and do, always find ?
something inherently wrong with any kind of man made ?
technology.
That's my rant for now. Sorry if I've offended any ones "Eco-
Religious" sensibilities.
( I had posted this earlier on another thread but I felt it was
relevent to this thread as well - Aloha!)
I did a copy and paste from an MS Word document which obviously
embedded some hidden code resulting in "?".
Thanks MS
These people are so stupid, of such low intellectual capacity, they can't even understand how stupid they are.
See, there's such a thing out there as reality. We know reality through the process of science. Scientists are not saying there's human-caused global warming because the earth is getting warmer , they're saying it because they have conducted science and presented their findings for falsification. A falsification doesn't look like anything you wrote. In fact, falsification of the theories through data has not been forthcoming. That is why they are saying what they're saying. IF you saw the papers and read the literature, you and would not be able to understand it, yet you are willing not just to go in a public forum and assert that you know better, but you BELIEVE THIS TO BE TRUE YOURSELF !
The people who deny human-caused global warming and who are not scientists and do not understand the theories have no reality testing whatsoever. When the same science puts a man on the moon or delivers an ordinance to within two inches of its target from 100 miles away, they cheer. But they deny the exact same science when it tells them they can't keep driving their SUVs. Like I said, no reality testing. No idea that there IS a reality out there. No idea that EVERYTHING is not political.
In more primitive times , tribes who listened to this type of ideological personality were just extinguished by nature. I have NO intention of letting the right-wing whackos destroy the earth and neither do the thinking people, who , thank God, outnumber the charismatic, agitated, ideologically driven, regressive, reality-denying, greedy, "it's all about ME and MY wants RIGHT NOW" right-wing nut jobs.
I'll stick with the experts on this one, thanks.
Over the last couple of centuries, science has evolved to offer a privileged perspective on nature. As more of the world becomes understandable in terms of chemistry, physics, biology, geology, astronomy etc., etc., more and more dogmas are upended and more and more dogmatists are offended. Some time ago the Church was offended by Galileo, but history has selected his observation-based version of the motion of the earth over that of his dogmatic critics. Now, climate science is producing a story that is increasingly compelling about human impact on climate. A variety of ideologues and special interests are offended. Some free-market fundamentalists worry that climate change will upend their favorite wealth-generating mechanism. Some wedded to the oil business understand that if they are rich enough, their heirs will be able to buy their way out of climate change inconveniences. So, they delay acknowledgment of the threat so as to shift the costs to others and maximize their wealth.
The opponents of climate science cling to any convenient fallacy and many are illustrated in many comments that follow the article on impacts of climate change. Many people can string together arguments that appeal to the uncertain and uninformed. These arguments can make it appear that climate scientists are missing some key truth and that the warming of the last years is neither extraordinary nor worrying. These arguments have been addressed head-on and dismissed by hundreds of scientists from dozens of countries. But they are ranted and re-ranted in efforts to show that ?it ain?t so?.
The facts are these:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working groups are issuing reports that are authoritative, comprehensive, accurate, inclusive and represent the best understanding that humans can muster at this time of climate change. They were written by hundreds of scientists from dozens of countries. Scientists with differing perspectives are routinely invited to participate so that the resulting view is inclusive. However, some have declined and others asked not to be invited. But their published work, and all relevant scientific papers have been considered in developing the summaries presented by the IPCC. The science is provisional in the same way that our understanding of gravity is provisional. Understanding of gravity evolved from the ancients through Galileo, Newton and Einstein. Even though dark matter may challenge present understanding of gravity, the consequences of jumping off a building have not changed. Similarly, it is clear that our understanding of climate is not perfect and that it will continue to evolve. But, science offers our best view of this issue and the current science is accurately captured in the IPCC reports. The dangers of ignoring that science are significant and real. Ideological rants against accumulating scientific certainty will not comfort our posterity in the face of climate change difficulties, many of which have been foreseen. It is time for the ranters to get over it and to get on with the changes we need to make to minimize the impact of our emissions.
LOL!!! And you're being serious. In that case: ROTFLMAO!!! Is that you
Al inventor-of-the-Internet Gore? (Um Al, as an aside, I think you meant
to write conclusive, not inconclusive. -- LOL! -- Be that as
it may, inconclusive is certainly the most accurate of the two.)
Consensus is not Science. Galileo helped dispel the dfogma and
ignorance of consensus by the church. He replaced dogma and consensus with
valid scientific theory and proofs. The 2001 IPCC report on climate change
has been largely discredited due to its heavy reliance on the fraudulent
"hockey stick" graph. For three years Mann (a co-creator of the
hockey stick graph) refused to release the data and methodology so that
climatologists could verify his work or refute it. After its release it
was refuted by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. They found that
regardless of the data being input it always produced a graph in the shape
of a hockey stick.
The Vostok Ice Core Data is corroborated by ice core data taken from
Greenland and from Ocean Drilling Project Site 607. Here's a link http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html
Also, see earlier posts: Here's
the Sience -- Vostok Ice Core Data... and watch The
Great Global Warming Swindle. Everyone should watch this video. Science is grounded in
skepticism (falisification and replication are critical to science),
which can only be alleviated by empirical evidence. Further refuting
anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is that the ice core data shows that
CO2 lags temperature change. It clearly doesn't cause AGW, which is at the
foundation of the AGW argument.
Check your facts. The IPCC final report is written by politicians and government officials with input from special interest groups. This acts as a filtering process on the work done by scientists. Then the report is in turn reported on by the media, which cherry picks and filters the information again. Two examples for you, there is no science from IPCC scientists (or any other scientists expert in the relevant field) to back up the assertion that hurricanes will be stronger and/or more numerous, and yet this has been widely reported. Second, there is no science from IPCC scientists or others expert in the field that malaria will become more prevalent outside the tropics because of global warming. Again this has been widely reported in the media.
Your post is nothing more than editorial opinion with no substance. This is useless to the debate at this point.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4340135300469846467
Most states take more for state roads as well as state share of national routes.
Our Prius helps us to thumb our noses at all three! And our tax bill was paid for in part by the almost expired tax credit for hybrids.
We burn zero fuel at zero RPM at a stop sign.
When in jams that are prevalent in suburbs we also use no fuel. On the road at the old speed limit of 55 we burn less than a gallon an hour. At 65 we get more than 55 MPG. That makes fuel use about 1.18 gallons per hour. With a 11 gallon tank we can go 9 hours between fill ups. Or 585 miles.
That is about what my 75 pickup could do with dual tanks of 20 gallons each. And gas was a tenth of todays price.
Duke who has seen the light.
But I won't be caught dead in one. The second they make a hybrid vehicle that doesn't look like it took its design notes from the Aztek (which, as Dave Barry puts it, is "the only vehicle actually known to cause retinal damage"), sign me up. Until then, count me out.
The current global warming bunko scam is brought to you by the UN, whose greatest hits include Oil-for-Food, Darfur, East Timor sex slavery, North Korean counterfeiting operations, and "Zionism=Racism" proclamations. Yep, those are JUST they guys I'd trust to run the massive "carbon offset" trading floor.
This is yet another UN-created scam that will soon make Oil-for-Food look like a Girl Scout Cookie sale.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
- Who benefits?
- by mom1234_1985 April 8, 2007 3:54 PM PDT
- Whenever you suspect the "news" isn't all it's cracked up to be, ask yourself "Who benefits?" and almost more importantly, "Why am I being propagandized?"m And then do some digging to find out why. I guarantee your comfort zone will be upset, but the truth is worth it.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Robinson acknowledges he has done no direct research into global warming.
- by Steve Tsuida April 11, 2007 2:27 PM PDT
- http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1067
- Like this
-
Showing 2 of 2 pages (161 Comments)For some real science from real scientists on "global warming" please see http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p686.htm and http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm
From the article:
Oregon Petition and the Spice Girls:
According to the May, '98 Associated Press article , the Oregon
petition included names that were intentionally placed to prove
the invalid methodology with which the names of scientists were
collected. The petition included the names of "Drs. 'Frank Burns'
'Honeycutt' and 'Pierce' from the hit-show M*A*S*H and Spice
Girls, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell, who was on the petition as 'Dr.
Geri Halliwel' and again as simply 'Dr. Halliwell.' " Of the fake
names, Robinson is quoted as saying: "When we're getting
thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake."
Robinson admits he is not a climate scientist:
Of his own admission Robinson "acknowledges he has done no
direct research into global warming," and an ISI database search
of publications confirms that Robinson has never published any
research in the area of human-induced climate change.