By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
HappySqurriel on 05 March 2008
Edit Thread
CrazzyMan said:
Slimebeast said:
ChichiriMuyo said:
Astrodust said:
dtekdahl00 said:
Bias exists either way. You're either labled a fool for dissenting the common view, or you're hailed for buying into an ideology thats not scientific

There is no common view when it comes to global warming. It's not an issue like cigarettes cause cancer. The problem is that people are not educated on the issues and form oppinions.

There is a goddamned concensus on the matter. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot or a liar, and anyone who rejects the idea outright is worse. Global Warming IS real and we DO have to fight it.

You and others who support actions against global warming, have to understand that when people say

"Global warming is a myth!" ,

they shouldn't be taken literally, because what they're trying to express is that there is an agenda exaggerating the size and the risks with man-made global warming.

So, let's agree that there is a strong concensus that man-made global warming is a fact.

But then what? How big of a factor is the man-made part of the green house gas effect compared to natural reasons? Is there concensus on that? No.

And if and when there is concensus on how much man is contributing to the global warming trend we have, then what?

What are the consequences of the warming on the planet and on us? How many degrees will the global average temperature rise in 10, 30 and 50 years? How many meters will the ocean level rise, and in what time, and what will the consequences of that be on the US, the EU, the rest of the rich world, and the developing countries?

You don't have an idea, do you? No one has, and there are no facts about that, and certainly no concensus. But you have tons of all sorts of people almost hysterically crying "Global warming is a threat to mankind! We must act now! We aren't doing enough!" as if they had facts.

Stop this madness.

Looks like some people haven`t watched  YET "Day after tomorrow". =) Of`course the scenario won`t work that fast, that will happen in a years, BUT you have tornados, floods in NA already TODAY, well in next decades everything will be only WORSE.


 

Kevin Trenberth[1], who is listed as a contributing author of the 2007 IPCC climate summary, surprised me, given his belief in anthropogenic global warming (AGW), when he said “climate models are markedly deficient by not adequately representing tropical cyclones.” Sea surface temperatures get too warm in the models due to improper handling of “surface energy exchanges from hurricanes in the global energetics of the climate system”. I’ve posted about several of the problems with the models before but this was confirmation from a major researcher.

In a study on the number of tropical cyclones, Gregg Holland presented his conclusion that there has been a doubling of the number of tropical cyclone in the Atlantic basin over the past 100 years and the increase had little to do with natural variability but was caused by a warming climate trend.

Chris Landsea was the very next speaker and said “No”, the increase is due entirely to our increased ability to detect storms that we wouldn’t have even known existed a few decades ago, which is what those of us who have been in this business for quite awhile have believed for some time.

Chris Landsea’s talk at the conference has now been published in EOS, a publication of the American Geophysical Union. ( http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20070510/20070510_07.pdf )