Climate Change: Public Skeptical, Scientists Sure

ace's n 8's · Jan 26, 2012

Kimiko said: ↑

Ace, did you read the last two sentences?
Click to expand...

Fuck no,, and you should have not either.............

(what did it say??)

Kimiko · Jan 26, 2012

ace's n 8's said: ↑

Fuck no,, and you should have not either.............

(what did it say??)
Click to expand...

Well, I think you should have, because it might have prevented you from making a fool of yourself....again.

ace's n 8's · Jan 27, 2012

Kimiko said: ↑

Well, I think you should have, because it might have prevented you from making a fool of yourself....again.
Click to expand...

Tell me ,,,I beg of you,,,,tell me,,,,,,please,,,pretty please...........

I'll do anything,,,,please....

Whitey44 · Jan 30, 2012

Science is not a liberal conspiracy.

ace's n 8's · Jan 30, 2012

Whitey44 said: ↑

Science is not a liberal conspiracy.
Click to expand...

I'll agree it shouldn't be....but on the other hand.

It is when the ''facts'' and the ''evidence'' have been resoundingly questioned on a number of levels.

stumbler · Jan 30, 2012

And you know some people not only still claim there's such a thing as a 'liberal press" others will go as far as to use the Wall Street Journal as a credible source.

WSJ Publishes Op-Ed From 16 Climate Deniers, Refused Letter From 255 Top Scientists

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012...niers-refused-letter-from-255-top-scientists/

freespiritx · Jan 31, 2012

Canada saw fit to withdraw from global negotiations dealing with the prospects and solutions of global warming and climate change.
Canada then saw fit to promote the Keystone project to pipe oil extracted from the Oil Sands which have been recognized as a major contributor to global pollution and Global Warming.
Canadians are good people, the Conservatives who are the governing party in Canada at this moment, not so much.
The capturing of oil from the oil sands in Alberta Canada has destroyed surrounding water tables, rivers and streams. The fish can no longer be eaten. Major illnesses amongst the residents surrounding the oil sands has risen dramatically. Emissions are being identified as major contributing factors, destroying the atmosphere.
Canada was a leader in seeking environmental and global warming solutions. Since the Conservatives in Canada has taken power, Canada has become a major polluter.
Conservatives seem to be the same problem everywhere. Sad, isn't it?

Whitey44 · Jan 31, 2012

Jan 29, 2012
Plus & Minuses of Burning Fossil Fuels

Plus: In the beginning, we needed energy. We had no industry, no science, no knowledge of pollution problems. Fossil fuel was there, often right at the surface, for the taking. It fueled the industrial revolution.
Minus: fossil fuel energy required a processing industry and a supply line. This was created by ambitious industrialists (capitalism at work). But it then was easily captured by ambitious, rich, greedy oil barons (the CEOs, the 1%). Now 40 of the richest 100 incomes (Forbes) are oil dependent. They have the money to finance whatever it takes to protect this income. They are the super-rich who have corrupted our society, from the environment to capitalism. (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120127_CowardsPart1.pdf)
Minus: there is a huge air, land and water pollution associated with fossil fuel consumption.
Minus: the middle eastern countries’ corner on oil has led to extraordinary power in this region. We have consequently engaged in several wars with enormous costs there.
Minus: dependence on Iran’s oil currently places Europe and other countries under Iran’s thumb when trying to block Iran’s nuclear bomb program. It is Iran versus the world on this issue and Iran is cornered, a bad world situation with atomic weapons at stake.
Minus: Other countries with more intelligent leadership and less powerful big oil forces are marching into the future — alternate energy industries. Germany and China are far ahead in solar panel development and use; France in nuclear energy (oops, can’t include Japan here!); Scandinavia and others in wind power.
Minus: Our education system has decayed, because the oil money knows that an educated democracy will recognize the sciences that warn against fossil fuel burning.
Minus: Our political system has become polarized, largely on this issue. One party has succumbed to the oil barons’ propaganda, the other is afraid to contest it head on. They win by default. The coalition of the super-rich and the uneducated is in a stand-off with our democracy (Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes Psychological Science, Jan. 2012).

stumbler · Jan 31, 2012

Now this ought to prove just how far behind the rest of the world we are when in comes to human caused global warming.

Saudi Oil Minister Calls Global Warming “Humanity’s Most Pressing Concern”

In a speech at the Middle East and North Africa energy conference in London yesterday, Al-Naimi — who once called renewable energy a “nightmare” — hailed energy efficiency and solar as important investments, global warming “real” and “pressing,” and explained that drilling for oil “does not create many jobs.”

“We know that pumping oil out of the ground does not create many jobs. It does not foster an entrepreneurial spirit, nor does it sharpen critical faculties.”

In the U.S., which is definitely not the Saudi Arabia of oil (that would be Saudi Arabia), there is a major industry campaign underway to convince Americans that drilling for fossil fuels will create over a million jobs in the country. However, assuming we drill virtually everywhere possible in America, credible analysis puts the real figure at a small fraction of that claim.

Even the Saudis, who pump out 12% of the world’s oil, understand that simply drilling for more oil isn’t a long-term economic strategy.

A business-as-usual path also puts us deeper into environmental debt, a point that the Saudi oil minister seems to understand as well. While Al-Naimi said he believes that oil production “will continue to play a major role in the overall energy mix for many decades,” he also made some very explicit statements about carbon emissions:

“Greenhouse gas emissions and global warming are among humanity’s most pressing concerns. Societal expectations on climate change are real, and our industry is expected to take a leadership role.”

It’s still not really clear what that “leadership role” is — except to pump out more oil and gas. Although, Al-Naimi did give a plug to efficiency and renewables as increasingly important part of the country’s energy strategy:
Click to expand...

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/...lobal-warming-humanity-most-pressing-concern/

stumbler · Feb 1, 2012

Climate Scientists Rebuke Rupert Murdoch: WSJ Denier Op-Ed Like ‘Dentists Practicing Cardiology’

In a scathing letter to the editor, thirty-eight of the world’s top climatologists have rebuked Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal for its publication of a “scientist” op-ed denying the threat of manmade global warming. The letter, authored by climate scientist Kevin Trenberth and colleagues from the world’s top science institutions, tells the Wall Street Journal editors to “Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate“:

You published “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science.

The 16 climate deniers include a medical doctor, some engineers, and astrophysicists. One of the climate deniers who wrote the “No Need to Panic” op-ed, Richard Lindzen, questions whether smoking causes cancer, and another of the climate deniers, Claude Allegre, doesn’t believe asbestos is hazardous.

The climate scientists demolish the canard that global warming “stopped”:

Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean.

Such periods are a relatively common climate phenomenon, are consistent with our physical understanding of how the climate system works, and certainly do not invalidate our understanding of human-induced warming or the models used to simulate that warming.

The Wall Street Journal published the denier op-ed after rejecting a letter on the threat of manmade climate change from fossil fuel pollution by 255 members of the National Academies of Science.
Read the letter to the editors of the Wall Street Journal, in full:

Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.
You published “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science.
Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean. Such periods are a relatively common climate phenomenon, are consistent with our physical understanding of how the climate system works, and certainly do not invalidate our understanding of human-induced warming or the models used to simulate that warming.
Thus, climate experts also know what one of us, Kevin Trenberth, actually meant by the out-of-context, misrepresented quote used in the op-ed. Mr. Trenberth was lamenting the inadequacy of observing systems to fully monitor warming trends in the deep ocean and other aspects of the short-term variations that always occur, together with the long-term human-induced warming trend.
The National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. (set up by President Abraham Lincoln to advise on scientific issues), as well as major national academies of science around the world and every other authoritative body of scientists active in climate research have stated that the science is clear: The world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible.

Impacts are already apparent and will increase. Reducing future impacts will require significant reductions in emissions of heat-trapping gases.
Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused. It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that climate change clearly poses.

In addition, there is very clear evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered.

Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Richard Somerville, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego

Katharine Hayhoe, Ph.D., Director, Climate Science Center, Texas Tech University

Rasmus Benestad, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, The Norwegian Meteorological Institute

Gerald Meehl, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D., Professor of Geosciences; Director, Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy, Princeton University

Peter Gleick, Ph.D., co-founder and president, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security

Michael C. MacCracken, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, Climate Institute, Washington

Michael Mann, Ph.D., Director, Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University

Steven Running, Ph.D., Professor, Director, Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, University of Montana

Robert Corell, Ph.D., Chair, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment; Principal, Global Environment Technology Foundation

Dennis Ojima, Ph.D., Professor, Senior Research Scientist, and Head of the Dept. of Interior’s Climate Science Center at Colorado State University

Josh Willis, Ph.D., Climate Scientist, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Matthew England, Ph.D., Professor, Joint Director of the Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia

Ken Caldeira, Ph.D., Atmospheric Scientist, Dept. of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution

Warren Washington, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Terry L. Root, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University

David Karoly, Ph.D., ARC Federation Fellow and Professor, University of Melbourne, Australia

Jeffrey Kiehl, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Donald Wuebbles, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois

Camille Parmesan, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, University of Texas; Professor of Global Change Biology, Marine Institute, University of Plymouth, UK

Simon Donner, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Canada

Barrett N. Rock, Ph.D., Professor, Complex Systems Research Center and Department of Natural Resources, University of New Hampshire

David Griggs, Ph.D., Professor and Director, Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University, Australia

Roger N. Jones, Ph.D., Professor, Professorial Research Fellow, Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Australia

William L. Chameides, Ph.D., Dean and Professor, School of the Environment, Duke University

Gary Yohe, Ph.D., Professor, Economics and Environmental Studies, Wesleyan University, CT

Robert Watson, Ph.D., Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Chair of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia

Steven Sherwood, Ph.D., Director, Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Chris Rapley, Ph.D., Professor of Climate Science, University College London, UK

Joan Kleypas, Ph.D., Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research

James J. McCarthy, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Oceanography, Harvard University

Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D., Professor of Physics of the Oceans, Potsdam University, Germany

Julia Cole, Ph.D., Professor, Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona

William H. Schlesinger, Ph.D., President, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies

Jonathan Overpeck, Ph.D., Professor of Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona

Eric Rignot, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Professor of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine

Wolfgang Cramer, Professor of Global Ecology, Mediterranean Institute for Biodiversity and Ecology, CNRS, Aix-en-Provence, France
Click to expand...

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012...er-op-ed-like-dentists-practicing-cardiology/

ace's n 8's · Feb 1, 2012

stumbler said: ↑

Climate Scientists Rebuke Rupert Murdoch: WSJ Denier Op-Ed Like ‘Dentists Practicing Cardiology’

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012...er-op-ed-like-dentists-practicing-cardiology/
Click to expand...

It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to understand that the climate is changing,, and it has been changing since the first days of the birth of the planet..

Furthermore,,it does not take a genius to determine that the 'facts' that have been presented by the backers and supporters of 'MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING' are in question on many ,many levels.

stumbler · Feb 1, 2012

ace's n 8's said: ↑

It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to understand that the climate is changing,, and it has been changing since the first days of the birth of the planet..

Furthermore,,it does not take a genius to determine that the 'facts' that have been presented by the backers and supporters of 'MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING' are in question on many ,many levels.
Click to expand...

No the facts presented are not in dispute on any levels Ace. That's what this thread proves over and over again. Its just you brainwashed parrots and your right wing false propaganda machine that will publish a letter from 16 "scientists" denying human caused global warming/climate change and reject a letter affirming human caused global warming/climate change 255 climatologists.

And just like the rebuke from the 38 scientists from all over the world that just ripped the WSJ up for misinforming people.

Whitey44 · Feb 4, 2012

Kimiko · Feb 4, 2012

ace's n 8's said: ↑

It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to understand that the climate is changing,, and it has been changing since the first days of the birth of the planet..

Furthermore,,it does not take a genius to determine that the 'facts' that have been presented by the backers and supporters of 'MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING' are in question on many ,many levels.
Click to expand...

Yes, they're questioned by people who have an economic or political interest in confusing the public about the scientific facts.

Whitey44 · Feb 4, 2012

ace's n 8's said: ↑

It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to understand that the climate is changing,, and it has been changing since the first days of the birth of the planet..

Furthermore,,it does not take a genius to determine that the 'facts' that have been presented by the backers and supporters of 'MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING' are in question on many ,many levels.
Click to expand...

It does take climate scientist to make valid climate change / global warming arguements. It's not up to laymen,politicians, and people that work in other fields to settle this science.

Although there are some climate scientists are at issue with some aspects of climate change, they are definitely in the minority. There are a minority of contrarions to every scientific theory. They have a difficult time proving their point, however. Climate change is still the only theory that explains what is physically occuring. Until another theory can explain it better comes along, we have to go with what most climatologists are saying.

The science should not be debated in scientific forums. Only the policies should be debated in a mixture of scientific, technological, political, and economic circles.

CS natureboy · Feb 4, 2012

Yet more embarrassing emails have been released by an unknown hacker or hackers that show the top climate scientists engaging more in political activism than in science. In many of the emails they seem to out right admit that they have a weak argument, but that didn't stop them propaganda.

Here are some quotes from one of the scientists to another.

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others.

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC

See The Telegraph article for much more information and quotes.

Whitey44 · Feb 4, 2012

Whitey44 said: ↑

It does take climate scientist to make valid climate change / global warming arguements. It's not up to laymen,politicians, and people that work in other fields to settle this science.

Although there are some climate scientists are at issue with some aspects of climate change, they are definitely in the minority. There are a minority of contrarions to every scientific theory. They have a difficult time proving their point, however. Climate change is still the only theory that explains what is physically occuring. Until another theory can explain it better comes along, we have to go with what most climatologists are saying.

The science should not be debated in scientific forums. Only the policies should be debated in a mixture of scientific, technological, political, and economic circles.
Click to expand...

I just reread my last paragraph which does not make sense. I have to rewrite it below.

The science should only be debated in scientific forums. The policies should be debated with a mix of people. which includes scientists, engineers, politicians, and economists.

Whitey44 · Feb 4, 2012

CS natureboy said: ↑

Yet more embarrassing emails have been released by an unknown hacker or hackers that show the top climate scientists engaging more in political activism than in science. In many of the emails they seem to out right admit that they have a weak argument, but that didn't stop them propaganda.

Here are some quotes from one of the scientists to another.

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others.

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC

See The Telegraph article for much more information and quotes.
Click to expand...

Emails can't prove or disprove science. They are just words. Most scientists often question themselves and each other because they have to be objective about their observations. Your emails could be fabricated and are taken out of context. Scientists are also capable of being wrong, but not on purpose.

ace's n 8's · Feb 5, 2012

Whitey44 said: ↑

Emails can't prove or disprove science. They are just words. Most scientists often question themselves and each other because they have to be objective about their observations. Your emails could be fabricated and are taken out of context. Scientists are also capable of being wrong, but not on purpose.
Click to expand...

You contradicting fool,,,in one breathe you claim,,,,''MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL'',,,,,,,,but in the next breathe you claim, ''scientists can be wrong''......

stumbler · Feb 5, 2012

Whitey44 said: ↑

Emails can't prove or disprove science. They are just words. Most scientists often question themselves and each other because they have to be objective about their observations. Your emails could be fabricated and are taken out of context. Scientists are also capable of being wrong, but not on purpose.
Click to expand...

I haven't bothered yet but I bet a 30 second google search would prove this is either a fake or has already been debunked.

By the way did you see where the meteorological association is going to take on some of their own denier weathermen? I thought that was pretty interesting.

Log in or Sign up

ace's n 8's Porn Star

Kimiko Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

Whitey44 Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

freespiritx DreamWeaver

Whitey44 Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

Whitey44 Porn Star

Kimiko Porn Star

Whitey44 Porn Star

CS natureboy Porn Star

Whitey44 Porn Star

Whitey44 Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

Climate Change: Public Skeptical, Scientists Sure

Log in or Sign up

ace's n 8's Porn Star

Kimiko Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

Whitey44 Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

freespiritx DreamWeaver

Whitey44 Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

Whitey44 Porn Star

Kimiko Porn Star

Whitey44 Porn Star

CS natureboy Porn Star

Whitey44 Porn Star

Whitey44 Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

Useful Searches