The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences recently released a sobering new study that found climate change and human damage to the global environment to be essentially irreversible.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!Originally Posted by Lafaso870
Climate change. It's irreversible. Unstoppable. Unmanageable.
The climate never changed until the advent of the SUV, and now man has caused the ever-so-stable climate to start changing.
If we only had a model or 19 to predict what the climate will do. (LOL! If we only had 19 models that could predict what the climate DID do!!!)
Yes, and it is caused by shipping language software discs all over the planet, so stop it! That, and the production and consumption of SPAM are the primary causes.
Red to red and black to black, or it's ashes to ashes and dust to dust.
Good. Now we can stop worrying about it and go do something else.:-)
I'd like to understand what the skeptics are skeptical about. That's not saying I understand it or believe it to be human-caused or the like. I do know this is a very small petri dish we're living on and eventually, through over-breeding, something is likely to happen that will have negative consequences.
People seem so polarized about this subject and I'm not understanding why people are so touchy or flippant or otherwise dismissive about it.
fizzissit, are you saying that you don't think scientists can model climate change and therefore, any conclusions they make are of no consequence?
..or that there is no climate change
..or that climate change is of consequence?
.. or that climate change is out of our hands?
.. or something else?
God, I'm tired of going over the same stuff...over, and over, and over...Every time someone wanders into this thread, goes right to the last post without reading through...and asks the SAME question.
I've already answered your questions in earlier posts.
But, for the record, it isn't that I don't "think" scientists can't model climate change, I KNOW they can't....AND SO DO THEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The GCMs do NOT adequately take into account water vapor, clouds, or solar influence. They can't replicate what HAS happened, so they're invalid.
Only a moron would put stock into a computer program that adds 2+2 and gets 5.
Also for the record, I am NOT a skeptic. I work in science, and I'm not skeptical of proper science.
Good idea!
I read all the posts and the thread is only 7 posts long and you only posted 1 post, so I don't understand why you are taking an attitude with me. Why the temper? I'm just trying to understand people's position and what's behind it.
Since I don't know you, I don't know what is sarcasm and what is not in your post. I take it that you are saying that the effects of humans on climate change are negligible and therefore any change that may be occurring is out side of our control and therefore, let's not concern ourselves with it. Is that correct?
I do owe an apology, in that I mistakenly was referring to the most frequented thread Coming Climate Change and thought I was posting in that one.
The Coming Climate Change
I have never said that the climate is not changing, to the contrary, it is constantly changing, and is a chaotic system.
Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is less than 5% of the natural total. If you think that's a qualifier to be a first-order forcing, then be my guest.
Man's contribution to climate change is virtually unmeasurable relative to the natural variability, and when taking into account the error bars of measurement, claims of human forced climate change become more religious than scientific. One famous claim of increased CO2 is more frequent and intense hurricanes.
Care to comment on that one? We're at a 33 year low in tropical storms, yet there's more CO2. Where's the ocean heat that should be evident from the warming? Why are there less land based temperature measurement stations now than 20 years ago, and why are the temperature data altered without explanation...in a manner that results in higher temp trends?
Do you think Michael Mann really should be exonerated? Do you think Phil Jones is not guilty of manipulating the scientific process as revealed in the emails...whether obtained legally or not??
Have you actually READ any of the IPCC AR4 reports?
Thanks fizzissist. Can you site some sources of material that you would consider unbiased on the subject (besides what you already mentioned)? I'd like to read more.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUq0JnaIock"]YouTube - The Coming Ice Age - Climate Hysteria Circa 1978[/nomedia] This is a brief video summarizing the perspective many put forward concerning the future of this planet. To summarize, they stated there was a coming ice age. Today, many rage about a global warming and rising tides.
The reality is simply this, there is little science to be observed for these statements, and there is little to no evidence or proof of anything concerning the future of our planet short of a massive comet smashing into Earth.
To put things into perspective, a volcano puts out more co2 in one second than all of human kind has in the past 180 years or so.
CO2 is not a pollutant and this fear hysteria is damaging to civilization. Think back to 2000 and y2k, think back to west niles virus, think (briefly) back to swine flu. What is the source of all of this non-sense? A small group of overly powerful zealots who control the media and take advantage of the gullible and weak.
There is no single source that both sides would agree is unbiased. You're going to have to read both sides, and not just gloss over them, to get a comprehensive view.
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
