Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Climate change deniers are ignoring science


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

President Barack Obama said denying climate change is like arguing that the moon is made of cheese, as he issued a call for action on global warming to Saturday's graduates of the University of California, Irvine.

Obama told the tens of thousands gathered at Angel Stadium that Congress "is full of folks who stubbornly and automatically reject the scientific evidence" and say climate change is a hoax or fad, while others avoid the question.

http://www.telegraph...ng-science.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Obama is an idiot and a puppet so he can take his views on climate change and shove where the sun don't shine.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Obama is an idiot and a puppet so he can take his views on climate change and shove where the sun don't shine.

That's smart. Ignore all evidence built up over years because you don't like Obama.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, mr. president, can we tone the rhetoric down a bit please, it sounds so like a religious doctrine and articles of faith that you have to subscribe to to hold the "correct" views. Is there a creed that you have to recite to prove that you're correctly pure in thought?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting to see Australian Prime minister Abbott along with Canada offered us the United Kingdom to them in an alliance against Obama's tax rises and unwise plan to address Global Warming. stupidly the UK said no to joining them. :angry: we should have jumped at the chance, the UK emits 1% of Global C02 why should we put ourselves in economic disadvantage when the USA alone contributes 18%. Yet between ourselves - Australia, Canada and UK. we emit about 4.3%

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climatgate and other events didn't help my faith in it.... Science is fine but it is ran by humans you know.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone really doubt that the climate is changing? I don't. I doubt that humans are the driving force behind it.

edit to add obligatory 'Obama is an idiot'.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting to see Australian Prime minister Abbott along with Canada offered us the United Kingdom to them in an alliance against Obama's tax rises and unwise plan to address Global Warming. stupidly the UK said no to joining them. :angry: we should have jumped at the chance, the UK emits 1% of Global C02 why should we put ourselves in economic disadvantage when the USA alone contributes 18%. Yet between ourselves - Australia, Canada and UK. we emit about 4.3%

No one ever seems to understand the concept of per capita emissions. Your statement is meaningless unless you grasp what per capita emissions means.

Unfortunately both Canada and Australia have elected right wing administrations who have followed the US Republican lead on science denial. Ideology over evidence its the conservative way :tu:

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one ever seems to understand the concept of per capita emissions. Your statement is meaningless unless you grasp what per capita emissions means.

Unfortunately both Canada and Australia have elected right wing administrations who have followed the US Republican lead on science denial. Ideology over evidence its the conservative way :tu:

Br Cornelius

that's why your on the forum to enlighten us all. everyone's post are meaningless to you except your own. you can do it per capita if you choose. you just burden many of the poor countries. shame on you. but that's the mentality the proponents of climate change. its a good job these fanatics are not in charge they'd bankrupt the country to save a tree.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's why your on the forum to enlighten us all. everyone's post are meaningless to you except your own. you can do it per capita if you choose. you just burden many of the poor countries. shame on you. but that's the mentality the proponents of climate change. its a good job these fanatics are not in charge they'd bankrupt the country to save a tree.

per capita comparisons favour poorer countries since they always have lower per capita emissions. This is the point - only by offering equity to every citizen of the world to make a fair and equal contribution to the overall emissions we are allowed can we hope to lower overall emissions whilst simultaneously allowing development in the poorest countries.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone really doubt that the climate is changing? I don't. I doubt that humans are the driving force behind it.

edit to add obligatory 'Obama is an idiot'.

To be honest, the greenhouse effect is very basic science. To deny the fact that we have been the most recent cause behind it is absurd.

But even if that were not the case, the fact that the climate is noticeably changing should give us enough to pause to consider doing something to mitigate further changes that will damage our civilization.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

per capita comparisons favour poorer countries since they always have lower per capita emissions. This is the point - only by offering equity to every citizen of the world to make a fair and equal contribution to the overall emissions we are allowed can we hope to lower overall emissions whilst simultaneously allowing development in the poorest countries.

Br Cornelius

where does China rank when emissions are calculated by country - compared to per capita. what is the difference, and do the same for Australia. what happens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, the greenhouse effect is very basic science. To deny the fact that we have been the most recent cause behind it is absurd.

But even if that were not the case, the fact that the climate is noticeably changing should give us enough to pause to consider doing something to mitigate further changes that will damage our civilization.

I didn't say we are not contributing, I believe that we do affect the climate. I do not believe that we are the main or even a very large factor and also believe it will happen regardless of what we do. However, I'm always for more environmentally friendly ways of doing things and I witness that we are constantly doing more and more of this at least where I live. People like the president that want to make huge sweeping debilitating changes right fricking now are extremist idiots. But what would ou expect from the puppet in chief?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say we are not contributing, I believe that we do affect the climate. I do not believe that we are the main or even a very large factor and also believe it will happen regardless of what we do. However, I'm always for more environmentally friendly ways of doing things and I witness that we are constantly doing more and more of this at least where I live. People like the president that want to make huge sweeping debilitating changes right fricking now are extremist idiots. But what would ou expect from the puppet in chief?

I don't think the problem is the president wanting to make sweeping changes. We should make sweeping changes and we should do it now, but that's not the problem. The problem bis that more than half of the people that are in power and could do something pretend like there is nothing going on. Climate change is going to start having major effects and these people still will just ignore it.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

where does China rank when emissions are calculated by country - compared to per capita. what is the difference, and do the same for Australia. what happens?

China has a per capita emission rate of about 3-4tonnes. Australia has one of the highest at about 20tonnes.

Sustainable emissions levels for the future are about 2tonnes per capita, which allows much of Africa and India to increase emissions along with their standard of living.

Those figures are off the top of my head - but are in the right ball park. More accurate figures are available at Wiki.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very odd that the first thread I find on this was only posted today, because today I had an interesting experience that prompted me to look for a thread in which to relate it.

Today, I was out hitting some garage sales that I'd missed yesterday. one of which turned out to be held by a guy to used to work on my mother's car. We fell to chatting and in the course of conversation I made the mistake of mentioning global warming, jokingly mind you. Well, this guy immediately responded that global warming wasn't real. Knowing that I can't argue these kind of things face to face, I proceeded to deflect as best I could while he presented his point of view

What does the government do, he said, when they want people to do things? Manipulate the facts . He knew better because he'd talked to this other guy , from NYC I think he said, who was an expert. According to this this expert and his buddies, there was no global warming. What was happening instead was the earth was tilting on it's axis. (for a moment I thought sure he was talking about a pole shift.) It wasn't going to happen overnight or even in our lifetimes probably but it would keep tilting until eventually New York was like Florida and Florida was like New York.

And they should know, my informant assured me in so many words, because they were alchemists...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

where does China rank when emissions are calculated by country - compared to per capita. what is the difference, and do the same for Australia. what happens?

Glad you brought up China. By exporting its manufac6turing to China, the US also exports its pollution and greenhouse emissions. So how do we get China to reduce its pollution? Quit buying products from them. Quite simple, really.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Barack Obama said denying climate change is like arguing that the moon is made of cheese, as he issued a call for action on global warming to Saturday's graduates of the University of California, Irvine.

Obama told the tens of thousands gathered at Angel Stadium that Congress "is full of folks who stubbornly and automatically reject the scientific evidence" and say climate change is a hoax or fad, while others avoid the question.

http://www.telegraph...ng-science.html

Climate change is natural and as nothing to do with global warming or what man is doing, the earth just has its cycles. Global warming was around before man ever existed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate change is natural and as nothing to do with global warming or what man is doing, the earth just has its cycles. Global warming was around before man ever existed

Care to show what natural cycle is causing it, or is it one of those magic cycles that has appeared out of nowhere.

What you just said is easy to say and easy to avoid supplying "any" supporting evidence and that is why it is complete and utter bull****.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are so many unknown factors in the Global Warming debate, that I just leave it alone instead of talk about it. I like knowing everything I can about an subject before I thrust myself head long into the debate, but this is one that will make both parties look stupid. Interestingly there is data to back up that the earth has wild swings in temps, it is called Milankovitch cycles which rely around the shifting of the poles. You would think if the Earth's shift poles, the Ice Caps would melt and relocate to an different part of the world where the new poles are. It would be slow and take thousands of years.

For this to happen, you would think the Earth would have to heat up first before all that ice moves to another location... we are due another ice age which has been stated by Scientists over and over. I just think we are accelerating the melting of the ice and displacement of large bodies of water during this transition period which can have devastating effects to local eco systems on islands. This is an theory, but it isn't something you should take to heart. No one knows for sure if this is really global warming or just some pompous being spouted out by political parties. I find my theory more plausible than humans being the sole contributor of global warming and changing of the landscape. We are not that powerful of species that we can change the whole dynamic of the planet by ourselves.

Edited by Uncle Sam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

, it is called Milankovitch cycles

No. climate scientists are well aware of these and many more that you are not. The climate is still being forced over and above all known factors. By a large margin.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why this subject has become a left or right debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate change is natural and as nothing to do with global warming or what man is doing, the earth just has its cycles. Global warming was around before man ever existed

Consider: The last time Wichita, Kansas saw temperatures of 40 degrees (F.) below zero was in February 1886. The last time it saw 30 degrees below zero was in January 1931. The last time it saw 20 degrees below zero was in January 1951. And the last time it saw 10 degrees below zero was about three years ago. Why did those low temps occur during the winter? Because there's a natural cycle - the earth's orbit interacting with the tilt of its axis - that controls when the lows happen. Climate changes in sync with the day of the year. But something else is going on or those low temps wouldn't be increasing. It's that something else that properly bears the name "climate change." The reccuring changes you see over years such as the change in the seasons, or over decades, such as the solar cycle are going to happen again and again. That eliminates them from the heading of "climate change." Only a permanent shift qualifies for the title of "climate change."

That's my job: analyzing sets of numbers, mostly time-series, to determine what is happening. Yes, there are natural changes evident in the numbers I work with. These mostly represent "steady-state" conditions - the climate varying within normal parameters. But one pattern keeps coming through the data: a logarithmic curve. Whether I measure tree ring thicknesses, or stream flows, or storm frequencies, or weather station readings, there is this logarithmic curve.

Logarithmic curves are indicative of permanent, increasing change. The curve might be negative - a variable getting closer and closer to, but never quite reaching, some minimum value, such as stream flows in an increasingly dry environment. Or, it might be doing the same thing with some maximum value. Or, it might be accelerating without limit, such as tree ring widths responding to increasing CO2 levels or temperatures. The common element is: permanent change. That's what I'm seeing in all sorts of natural systems.

Is this permanent change due to human causes? The default answer is "yes." Why default? Because we can think of a human cause - release of carbon to the atmosphere. But we can't think of a natural one. Not even the most-ardent deniers have proposed an alternative that has stood for more than a few months in the face of new evidence. If you are going to say that climate is not changing, then you need a dataset that shows that. All of the global temperature data sets show the world getting warmer - no exceptions. These aren't climate models. They are averages of day-to-day weather logs kept by a network of something like 10,000 different observers. These are not dire predictions of some future event, but records of what has already happened.

Could these temperature records be some kind of conspiracy to show the world getting warmer? James Inhofe - the Senator from Oklahoma - says there is. I don't know how he thinks we could keep a network of 10,000 observers working for more than a century without somebody spilling the beans. But if he's right, the CIA needs to take some lessons from the climatologists. Just one thing about James Inhofe - he's a lawyer. Can you imagine what the legal system would be like with me running the Department of Justice? The same thing happens when lawyers get involved in climate issues. Inhofe didn't cause "climategate," but he did a lot to disseminate the myth.

That the climate is getting warmer is well-established fact. That carbon retains heat in the atmosphere has been known for more than a century. That the world has enough fossil fuel reserves to warm the planet to near the boiling point if they are all burned, is also well-known and established. The evidence is in: The world is getting warmer and we are the cause. Now: what are we going to do about it?

Doug

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

per capita comparisons favour poorer countries since they always have lower per capita emissions. This is the point - only by offering equity to every citizen of the world to make a fair and equal contribution to the overall emissions we are allowed can we hope to lower overall emissions whilst simultaneously allowing development in the poorest countries.

Br Cornelius

I think the emissions per country is more important in this case because laws are made for the country not per capita. I think the higher emitting countries should pass the laws first. But I also think that these laws should not cripple an economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.