New Scientific Report Destroys Global Warming!

page: 7
32
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
We should be exploring new energy sources or methods but before we use tax dollars into investing into this, we need to focus on reducing the cost of virtually everything and ensuring that the US isn't going to die out in 20-years when the last company relocates overseas. Solar power, nuclear power, fusion reactors, the list goes on... Those are amazing technologies that we should be able to look forward to regardless on whether it's better for our environment or not, but it comes at a steep price, and that price is unaffordable right now. So regardless on whether or not there is a such thing as global warming, we need to focus on being able to survive the next few decades, otherwise there won't be a future to save with smart cars or whatever.




posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I really don't care what this study says, it is immaterial. We are destroying, through many means, the ability of this planet to provide for our future. Not many will argue this. Global warming seems to be a cloak to show only certain things are destroying our environment. You can't pick these things apart and argue each piece, you have to look at the whole picture. Science's policy of taking things apart and proving the pieces is starting to irk me. This tactic to create small arguments on one little thing is going overboard. Who cares about global warming anyway, I worry about everything having a home in the future. I don't want my daughter to have to tell her grandchildren that we used to have things called dragonflies and frogs when I was young.

I am being forced to deal with a bunch of blind overeducated idiots in this world. People with knowledge but little common sense. Lot of you here understand this but others will go on taking pieces apart and TPTB want us to do......argue about meager things.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
After reading through the paper a more appropriate title should read, "New Scientific Report Confirms Global Warming!"

Fantastic work.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
The OP is trying to spin the study to fit his ideas all the while ignoring the very fact the article proves his claims false.

The OP cannot even defend his own argument siting the very article he based his assumption with.

This thread should be moved to the Hoax bin or maybe they should start a new one for complete BS.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
If seas rise and my home winds up underwater I am grabbing my rifle and going hunting for those responsible.

This statement shouldn’t be a problem for the naysayers because if they really believe they are right then it will never come to that.
edit on 4-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: spelling



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
It doesn't really matter if you believe in Global Warming is caused by man or if it's natural. We need to come up with alternate methods of energy because we will eventually run out of fossil fuels. Not to mention the many ecological and environmental disasters that come along with the usage of Fossil Fuels.

Go ahead and keep supporting the many companies that pump millions of tons of smog into the atmosphere and pollute our air. But hey as long as it fits your agenda.
edit on 9/3/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)


What agenda are you talking about ??

Tell us how to come up with these alternative that are shot down by the same junk science that wants us CITIZENS to take all the heat for Climate Change, Oh wait, i know,, LETS PAY MORE TAX, that will fix everything !... has not done a dam thing, and never will..

The thing is, this global warming, climate change is not going to affect the use of fossil fuels, through the TAXING OF US ALL, and the ATTACKS on normal everyday folk.

It does not appear to matter at all what we think, they have suppressed all the tech for hundreds of years, if not TENS OF THOUSANDS.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


you see this as a political issue ?

how sad



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Using the improved data set, the researchers re-examined patterns of marine invertebrate biodiversity over the last 540 million years. They found that while warm periods in the geological past experienced increased extinctions, they also promoted the origination of new species, increasing overall biodiversity.


So...what this says then, and what the righties are excited about, is that although the life as we know it will eventually become extinct and we will have baby on a pike economics, there will be 35 new types of swamp frog...so yay for global warming.


gotcha


I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
-Prof. Farnsworth



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Ironclad
 





So just because Global Warming is a crock, it's ok to give corperations the go ahead to curn out millions of tonns of polution "because it dosen't actually do any harm"?



you answered the question right there global warming is only about non CO2 pollution, if you get rid of CO2 output you get rid of the sources like power plants because the only way to really stop CO2 is to shut down the sources.
this stops all the other forms of pollution.

the tree huggers had a problem years ago because they were fighting projects one by one around the US.

By throwing all these projects under CO2 sources even if the project did not put out very much CO2 and calling it stopping global warming they thought they could save time and money on court cases and other cost to stop the projects. plus in many cases the government would be the ones stopping CO2 so that put the cost on the taxpayers not the tree huggers.

The best way to see this is to look at how the tree huggers are fighting green energy like solar and wind power.
tree huggers like Al Gore thought that they could make billions off carbon offsets(tree farms) only to find that the big corporations could get most of the offsets by building wind and solar plants.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by wittgenstein
“Show me the amount of CO2 generated by humans last year compared to natural CO2 generated last year. Good luck.”
Rwfresh
co2now.org...
Good grief! Do I have to teach logic 101 again?!
Even tho your statement is www.merriam-webster.com... (many fox “news”enthusiasts do not know what contentious means) , lets suppose that what you imply is correct , that comparing human influence on the environment to natural effects will show that the sun and earth have a greater influence on earth then man. DUH!
SO WHAT! If you have a leak in your gas tank , speeding up ( a human willed event) will still be a stupid thing to do!
I’m sure you will argue that ultimately, the sun is to blame and not humans. DUH!! That is like saying that if the thermostat is on high, that is the ultimate reason for the room being hot (greenhouse) and opening a window will do no good. DUH! Obviously, only a fool would not open a window if the thermostat was stuck.



You obviously know way more about fox news than i do. I don't get the channel. So what is the answer? DUHHH! Let me know. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by wittgenstein

Originally posted by wittgenstein
Tin foil hat time. EVERY reputable scientific organization in the world has issued statements that confirm that global warming is a fact and that humans have greatly contributed to it. To say that every scientific organization in the world en.wikipedia.org... www.ucsusa.org... is part of a conspiracy is ridiculous! Who is in charge of the conspiracy? Bigfoot? Not only the above but N.A.S.A , National Geographic, Scientific American are also part of the conspiracy!!! OMG!!!




“This statement is false. NO report says humans caused global warming. Not one.”
rwfresh

DUH!!! Scroll back. Here, I will do your work for you! See above!
EVERY scientific organization in the world has issued statements that humans caused global warming.




edit on 4-9-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)


Ohh. Ok. All scientific bodies state "humans caused global warming". Wow. Sorry i thought you were here for a real discussion. And no. NONE of them state that. Re-read my statements. You will find ZERO scientific organizations that state "humans caused global warming". What they do PROPOSE is humans have created an environment that "tipped the scale" of CO2 conditions in the atmosphere that "contributes" to global warming. Read friend. Read.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by wittgenstein
Only anti-science Neanderthals deny the obvious evidence. Humans have contributed to global warming and it is a real threat. I will still stand with science and rationality!



Ohh now humans have "contributed" to global warming. Wasn't a few messages you re-iterated your assertion that ALL scientific "organizations" have concluded "humans CAUSED global warming" haha. Reading is good isn't it. Funny thing about propaganda it makes you think something without directly and literally having to say it.

Humans account for a small amount (still waiting for you to let us know how much) of overall CO2 production on earth. There aren't many people on the planet that will deny that we need to stop poisoning the earth. But don't let the poisoners tell you what you need to do to fix it. You tell them. that's how it works.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by openminded2011
By the time all the warming deniers finally realize that they are wrong, it will be too late. If anything, scientists are realizing they were too CONSERVATIVE in their predictions. Global warming is accelerating beyond original predictions at an alarming rate. And the tipping point will be reached when all the arctic permafrost starts to thaw and release billions of tons of methane that is frozen inside it. Methane is a much more effective greenhouse gas than C02. Once that happens, its too late for us, there wont be any way to reverse it then (its probably already too late to be honest). I guess in a couple years when agriculture starts to collapse (actually that's already happening, as you will see shortly in food prices) and water becomes scarcer and scarcer, you will wish to God you had listened to the "tree huggers" and not the oil industry propagandists. So enjoy your gluttonous excesses while they last. Because it wont be long.

edit on 4-9-2012 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)


Our problems with agriculture have very little to do with "climate change" and WAY WAY more to do with the real problem. Monsanto. GMO. Pesticides. Herbicides. Poison. Poison. But don't expect the global warming fear mongering authorities to take ANY steps at suing monsanto out of existence. Because you will find Monsanto AGREES with climate change. And don't worry. they have a solution!! They also really like geoengineering. also known as climate-engineering. Hmm what are scientific bodies funded by Monsanto saying about these practices? Whatever Monsanto tells them.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh
Nice doc. Here's the SIMPLE TRUTH.

Industrial, high production GREEN HOUSES PUMP CO2 INTO THE ENVIRONMENT TO INCREASE YIELD.

ie: Higher concentrations of CO2 increase PLANT GROWTH. DUHHHHHHH.

Why? Because ALL plants NEED CO2 to live.


It's true, but there are many other things which influence agricultural yield. In particular H20 and night time temperatures.

it is extremely naive to believe that increased CO2 will cause global benefits to agriculture when the opposite is probably the case. In a warm world you get very strong droughts and strong floods.

It is much better for human agriculture when you get snow in the winter which melts in a controlled fashion in to irrigate the fields in the growing season. In a warmed world, there is less snowfall (global warming is worse in high altitudes) and so more catastrophic floods, which is horrible for agriculture.

Look at what is happening in the USA this summer. Good for crops? Hell no. Is the extra CO2 making up for the extra heat and drought and floods? No way.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
If seas rise and my home winds up underwater I am grabbing my rifle and going hunting for those responsible.

This statement shouldn’t be a problem for the naysayers because if they really believe they are right then it will never come to that.
edit on 4-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: spelling



Why wait? Go after those actually responsible for the majority of the poisoning of the earth right now.

hint: it's not your neighbor.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
This thread should be moved to the Hoax bin or maybe they should start a new one for complete BS.

I second this emotion. The article basically says the opposite of what the misleading thread title claims that it does. Nor reason to allow it to remain as is.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh


Ohh. Ok. All scientific bodies state "humans caused global warming". Wow. Sorry i thought you were here for a real discussion. And no. NONE of them state that. Re-read my statements. You will find ZERO scientific organizations that state "humans caused global warming". What they do PROPOSE is humans have created an environment that "tipped the scale" of CO2 conditions in the atmosphere that "contributes" to global warming. Read friend. Read.


Here is a scientifically accurate statement of what scientists actually believe:

www.agu.org...

In a nutshell, humans are causing the global warming which is being observed now.

The "tipped the scale" is referring to equilibrium---natural greenhouse effect of course raises temperature above what an atmosphere-less Earth would be, but that is not the issue.

Note that human cause of global warming does not invalidate natural causes of global warming in geologically ancient times, however similar natural causes today would also result in clear experimental observations and mechanisms which are not observe today.
edit on 4-9-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-9-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
edit on 4-9-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne

Well, read my thread.

According to the laws of physics, Co2 does not have the capacity to retain heat, and actually has a cooling effect, and this has been demonstrated many times over by several very well known and accredited scientists and laboratories. Not only that, but the amount of Co2 that makes up our atmosphere is far too little to ever physically contribute to a temperature increase, which again, by very strict measurements, has been demonstrated. Methane, which is found in higher concentrations does, but I don't hear skeptics telling everyone not to fart.


This is a total piece of baloney.

The radiative transfer effect from atmospheric gases is a MEASURED FACT (as in observed with quantitative aircraft, balloon, and satellite measurements for decades) and the ""paper"" you referenced is nothing of the sort.

And secondly, actually yes the real scientists have been discussing non-CO2 human-caused drivers of climate change for decades. There's even a table in the IPCC reports, and some leading scientists have recently advocating concentratinng on non-CO2 emissions in the short run.
edit on 4-9-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by rwfresh
Nice doc. Here's the SIMPLE TRUTH.

Industrial, high production GREEN HOUSES PUMP CO2 INTO THE ENVIRONMENT TO INCREASE YIELD.

ie: Higher concentrations of CO2 increase PLANT GROWTH. DUHHHHHHH.

Why? Because ALL plants NEED CO2 to live.


It's true, but there are many other things which influence agricultural yield. In particular H20 and night time temperatures.

it is extremely naive to believe that increased CO2 will cause global benefits to agriculture when the opposite is probably the case. In a warm world you get very strong droughts and strong floods.

It is much better for human agriculture when you get snow in the winter which melts in a controlled fashion in to irrigate the fields in the growing season. In a warmed world, there is less snowfall (global warming is worse in high altitudes) and so more catastrophic floods, which is horrible for agriculture.

Look at what is happening in the USA this summer. Good for crops? Hell no. Is the extra CO2 making up for the extra heat and drought and floods? No way.


You know there are very warm places on the earth right now. Like the amazon jungle for example.

Without CO2 plants do not exist. Sure ANY upset in the environment humans have built their entire future on causes humans problems. But the earth has proven far more resilient than humans have. So yes. Humans may suffer. Mostly the humans that require controlling the environment to prosper. Let's also not forget that 2.4 billion humans live without running water. Billion + do not have electricity. 100's of millions suffer the effects of war. And few of these people give a # if the temperature goes up because the people that will be effected most already couldn't give ONE SH$T about them.

Does winter happen? What about spring? Do ice ages happen? Are humans going to stop volcanoes and animals from exhaling CO2? Get use to the climate.. no one is going to change it but the earth.





new topics
top topics
 
32
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join