Al Gore & NY Attorney General Launch ‘AGs United For Clean Power’ Coalition

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

Yeah there was a point that was obviously IGNORED by the church of climatology.

Acting like there are 'NO' laws already on the books, and organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't exist.

It's not about new laws. It's about new thinking to match the evolution of science and understanding.

Are you EFFING kidding me ?

Climate change is EVOLUTION.

It's because of it mankind came about, and moved to where we are.

laws,taxes,and lawsuits ain't going to do anything to stop the planet from doing what it has been for eons.

Oh, I get it now. You're a denier.

Never mind then. Not going to waste my time on that ignorance.

Then why post your opinion if you cant be critisized on it? You dont want to debate you just want to be called automatically right.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

Yeah there was a point that was obviously IGNORED by the church of climatology.

Acting like there are 'NO' laws already on the books, and organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't exist.

It's not about new laws. It's about new thinking to match the evolution of science and understanding.

Are you EFFING kidding me ?

Climate change is EVOLUTION.

It's because of it mankind came about, and moved to where we are.

laws,taxes,and lawsuits ain't going to do anything to stop the planet from doing what it has been for eons.

Oh, I get it now. You're a denier.

Never mind then. Not going to waste my time on that ignorance.

Then why post your opinion if you cant be critisized on it? You dont want to debate you just want to be called automatically right.

People are more than welcome to criticize my opinions, but if we cannot come to a simple agreement based on scientific fact, there is no point in further discussion. It's a waste of time.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

Yeah there was a point that was obviously IGNORED by the church of climatology.

Acting like there are 'NO' laws already on the books, and organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't exist.

Keep wondering why you think there is a church involved. LOL

Because the church of climatology likes to burn the heretics at the stake for not believing the Gospel.

See the op.

But there is no Gospel. I believe in Global warming but for only one reason. Actual Scientists and Scientific papers telling me it's real.

Wow 97 percent of 37 scientist say global warmings a problem. yep we sure are in trouble. At the time of that percentage that is how many scientist were actually qualified to have a OP on it. The rest have been threatened with loss of research funding if they speak up against it.

And science papers can be manipulated.

That's not true my friend.

Although, If you want to argue the 97% number, I have no proof that you're wrong. I'll give you that, and tell you I don't know the number.

Here's what I know though...they got that number by examining over 4,000 scientific papers by thousands of Scientists.

So now we have a number that is thousands instead of your 37 number. Not sure where you got that.

I'm not a good researcher so I start google searching. Which scientists support Global warming and I keep getting dozens of propaganda pages from both sides. So I'm thinking how do I get to the bottom of this. So I start going to major universities and their science departments and almost every single one has a stance or statement that says they also believe that man is causing a global warming trend irregardless or inside of any natural warming trend.

Try it yourself. Go to LSU, Harvard, Standford, Oregon, MIT, Yale, Texas, Texas A&M, Auburn, Gonzaga, Villanova, Syrycuse, Maryland. That adds thousands of more scientists, professors, and students going for Bachelors, Masters and beyond to our list of who supports the theory fo man made Global Warming.

I give you this Challenge. Find me a University or College that has a stance on Global Warming that contraticts me. I don't think you can. Private Colleges too.

What a shock.

Democrat's keep their mouths shut during the Democrat administrations and then care about the environment when they think a Republican is going to take office.

Happened to Reagan (Costle Letter)
Happened to Bush II (Kyoto)

President Obama is on his way out. Look for his administration to set up the pitch for the presumed incoming administration to handle.

(this could signal good tidings for those that hate Hillary )

originally posted by: amazing
Not a bad thing. If this is what it takes to get rid of outdated technology like Oil and combustion engines, Coal powered plants, fracking etc. So be it.

There is a demand--supply and demand and there is a way--We have the technology to have 100% of our cars be electric and 100% of our houses to have solar power on em and we could get 100% of the energy we use from Solar and wind.

I don't know about just solar and wind, but if you throw in geothermal and nuclear we definitely have the tech. Geothermal is abundant in the US and cheaper than coal while nuclear is more expensive but produces massive amounts of power.

originally posted by: amazing
I give you this Challenge. Find me a University or College that has a stance on Global Warming that contraticts me. I don't think you can. Private Colleges too.

I bet Liberty University goes against it.

Climate change is man made, so everyone just cough up the money and give up all sense of freedom.

Now.

Or you'll be punished.

a reply to: amazing

What consensus?

The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

So it wasnt 37 scientist. it wa s a few more but still thats not all scientist worldwide,and certainbly not a consensus of all of them.

Heres th elink to th eentire artcile.

Climate change

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: amazing
Not a bad thing. If this is what it takes to get rid of outdated technology like Oil and combustion engines, Coal powered plants, fracking etc. So be it.

There is a demand--supply and demand and there is a way--We have the technology to have 100% of our cars be electric and 100% of our houses to have solar power on em and we could get 100% of the energy we use from Solar and wind.

I don't know about just solar and wind, but if you throw in geothermal and nuclear we definitely have the tech. Geothermal is abundant in the US and cheaper than coal while nuclear is more expensive but produces massive amounts of power.

My only problem with Nuclear is that we never seem to have a plan in place incase of meltdown or natural disaster. And we don't know what to do with the waste and by products. Look at Fukashima and how "keystone cop" the response seems to be.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: amazing
I give you this Challenge. Find me a University or College that has a stance on Global Warming that contraticts me. I don't think you can. Private Colleges too.

I bet Liberty University goes against it.

True. A quick search pulled up this so at least they're discussing it but how scientific can the discussion really be when you bring up Al Gore as a part of your argument.

www.liberty.edu...

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: amazing

What consensus?

The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

So it wasnt 37 scientist. it wa s a few more but still thats not all scientist worldwide,and certainbly not a consensus of all of them.

Heres th elink to th eentire artcile.

Climate change

You and I are having a difference of which survey to look at and how many actually papers and scientists were involved.

This from the Guardian but...it says this

..."Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers took a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the scientist self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. Many papers captured in our literature search simply investigated an issue related to climate change without taking a position on its cause.

Our survey found that the consensus has grown slowly over time, and reached about 98% as of 2011. Our results are also consistent with several previous surveys finding a 97% consensus amongst climate experts on the human cause of global warming...."

www.theguardian.com...

One of the previous ones is quoted below and I think they reviewed 928 papers.

"Oreskes 2004 and Peiser
A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

Benny Peiser, a climate contrarian, repeated Oreskes' survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:

"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

There's just so much out there.

originally posted by: amazing
My only problem with Nuclear is that we never seem to have a plan in place incase of meltdown or natural disaster. And we don't know what to do with the waste and by products. Look at Fukashima and how "keystone cop" the response seems to be.

Thorium reactors are much safer if we would put the money into developing them. If not, even 4th generation nuclear plants are safe. Fukushima was only 2nd generation (as are all currently operating plants in the US), several safety advances have been made since then.

The waste from nuclear is a very real issue, we're out of storage space for the waste and there's nothing we can do about it right now. It's a problem we can probably fix within the next 100 years though by using a space elevator.