What's it gonna take?

[jonfacebass]

I would like to ask an honest question. What, if anything, would make you change your mind about global warming? Is your mind 100% made up, and you will not listen to any opposing arguments, or are you still willing to look at the evidence?

I ask this because there is already a scientific consensus that humans are contributing to global warming. The journal Science published a study analyzing 928 scientific papers in the past 10 years adressing global climate change. The study found that out of all 928 of these scientific articles, not a single one disagreed with the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming.

If science confirms it, then why would anyone disagree with it? Do conservatives not believe in science? Or do you think that industry funded think-tanks and advocacy organizations are better suited to discover the truth about global warming than real scientists are?

It makes me laugh. You guys mock the scientific fact of global warming by saying "the sky is falling". Perhaps conservatives should be mocked by saying "the earth is flat, the earth is flat!" After all, denying the existence of global warming is about as scientifically inacurate as believing the earth is flat.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

For evey scientist that adheres to global warming, I'll show you one that doesn't.

So what happens when science is diametrically opposed to itself?

[Wadi66]

I would like to ask an honest question. What, if anything, would make you change your mind about global warming?How about hell freezing over.

[Dr. Madd]

I'll believe in Global Warming when, on christmas day, I get to go out and water the palm trees that sprouted spontaneously in my yard, and encounter wild Boa constrictors.

[jonfacebass]

Hmmmm....It's the coldest Chicago in history right now, with the most snow dropped at one time since 1854.......Global Warming is a hoax and it has been proved a hoax since well forever by the scientfic community. Did you know when Al Gore was a Senator he said Global Warming is not a threat but Global Cooling is more of a threat. Hmmmmmm the grand pupa can't make his mind up why should I?

The scientific community thinks global warming is a hoax? Let's see a source for that from a peer-reviewed journal shall we? I already provided a study showing the exact opposite. If you cannot provide evidence and admit you are mistaken I will understand. If you make another false claim, I will procede to ignore you because you are unworthy of debating.

Oh and btw, provide a source for that al gore quote. And while your at it, better explain to me why ad-hominem attacks against Gore suddenly disprove global warming. Because you know, I was under the impression that global warming was a scientific matter! I didn't realize that if 1 senator said something 20 years ago it would disprove the entire scientific community!!! Thanks for showing me the error of my ways.

[jonfacebass]

There is 112 threads on this bored that discuss this matter read them. For Global Warming to be true it has to Snow in June-July -August in Chicago just to prove Global Warming is true. And not since the records where first keep, did it ever snow in June - July - August in Chicago. Now for the million dollar question what does it need to snow in Chicago in the summer to prove Global Warming is real? It is discussed in Al Gore's Movie and talked abut by OCAA NASA and ICCC.

That's right, there are 112 threads. So why don't you tell me where you got your information?

I can see you trying to dodge, but I'm calling you out on it. Provide the source for that scientific claim you made, and for that made-up quote you attributed to Al Gore.

Funny, but why do I get the feeling you've never even read a scientific paper in your life, let alone one discussing the consensus among climate scientists about global warming. Come on and prove me wrong kid.

[jonfacebass]

That is not what I asked for. That is not a scientific paper. You did not find that in a peer-reviewed journal. That is an opinion column written by Richard Lindzen.

None of Lindzen's claims regarding the scientific consensus behind global warming have ever been published in a peer-review journal. Lindzen has not one standing paper in any peer review journal that can provide a mechanism as to why current global warming isn't something to worry about. NOT ONE. He also recieves royalties from oil and coal companies for his services. He is paid 2,500 a day by oil companies for his services. http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17

And this column is deeply flawed and poorly researched. For example, he writes about a study done by "the social scientist Nancy Oreskes". This is rather poor research on Mr. Lindzen's part because the woman is NOT a social scientist and her name is NOT Nancy Oreskes. Her name is actually Niomi Oreskes and she is a science historian.

Please do not post such trash again. I am growing very bored and tired with you and your scientific ignorance. Try a little harder next time, and find me a real scientific journal. Ok?

[jonfacebass]

Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. Leading Professor on the Climate of the Atmosphere in America and is a hard core liberal. Hence he is the only proof I need.

Sigh....

I already know who he is. It doesn't matter what he is the progessor of at MIT. None of Lindzen's claims regarding the scientific consensus behind global warming have ever been published in a peer-review journal. Lindzen has not one standing paper in any peer review journal that can provide a mechanism as to why current global warming isn't something to worry about. NOT ONE.

I am sick and tired of repeating myself. Do you really think that just because 1 liberal professor doubts global warming that this suddenly proves that global warming is false? The flaws in that logic are too many to count.


"You do realize the Science isnot factual all the time......

That's why I said "peer-reviewed". Do you even know what that means? I'll assume you don't. Peer-review is a process used in science where different scientists critique and analyze each other's work before allowing it to be published in a scientific journal. This is done annomously so that there can be no bias. The point of this is to weed out flawed studies and to improve the facts.

And, as I said before, there are virtually no peer-reviewed articles that doubt the existance of global warming.


If Global Warming is real, where is the proof?"

Use a search engine for academic papers and type in "climate change". Read any of the scientific articles that come up to see all of the facts that real scientists use to conduct research on global warming.

If you think those scientific journals are too technical, then I suggest you read this website:

http://www.realclimate.org/

This is a website made up of climate scientists who write for the general audience. I'd suggest reading that to get an idea of what scientists really think.

[Wadi66]

SF, we're coming up on the end of the winter semester in some colleges. Do you suppose you're helping to write a "project" or perhaps a term paper?

[jonfacebass]

Where is the proof. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter.....oh boy. Where is proof? No listed no proof yet. The sites you listed show no proof. Where is proof! John Hopkins University (America's Leading Scientists on Climate) is saying the Global Warming will never happen. Antartica has grown over the pass years and Greenland always has a cycle or melting ice and staying Green for a year. It Snows in South Africa every six years. Why because of Ocean Currents. Why does it Snow in Florida and the South every so often? Currents.

So where is your proof that Global Warming is Real? Why doesn't Snow in Summer, when that would be proof of Global Warming?

Sorry buddy, but I'm going to cut you off. I don't debate people who keep going in circles, fillibustering, and lying about facts. If you cannot formulate an honest argument, you are not worth my time.

[IHL]

I'll tell you what it will take. When Al Gore says global warming doesn't exist, I'll start to believe it might.

When you can show me statistics from 1000 years ago as to what the weather was, actual temperature (not presumptions) and a real trend that the earth is constantly warming and proof that nothing like this has ever happened before, that will be a start.

As far as articles stating global warming doesn't exist - is it really worth even trying. You will just find a way to discount them as you already have.

How about this one? The Cooling World (http://www.theamericanright.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4487) Just a few short years ago these same 'scientists' were telling us how we were headed for trouble because the world was cooling.

For starters, go ahead and tell us how wrong these people are or that they aren't real scientists:

Scientist say there is no evidence of catastrophic man-made global warming (http://oldfraser.lexi.net/media/media_releases/2001/20011101.html)

[jonfacebass]

I'll tell you what it will take. When Al Gore says global warming doesn't exist, I'll start to believe it might.

Whether or not global warming exists is a matter of science. Al Gore isn't a scientist, and what he thinks (or says) about global warming is irelavent. What matters is what the scientists say, and none of you have been unable to provide a single scientific study showing that global warming is not real.


When you can show me statistics from 1000 years ago as to what the weather was, actual temperature (not presumptions) and a real trend that the earth is constantly warming and proof that nothing like this has ever happened before, that will be a start.

Scientist Lonnie Thompson studies glaciers all over the world. They dig core drills down into the ice, extracting long cylinders filled with ice that was formed year by year over many centuries. Thompson and other scientists examined the tiny bubbles of air trapped in the snow in the year that it fell. They can measure how much CO2 was in the Earth's atmosphere in the past, year by year. They can also measure the exact temperature of teh atmosphere each year by calculating the ratio of different isotopes of oxygen. Scientists can do this the same way people can tell how old a tree is by looking at the rings. Measurements of Co2 and temperature go back as far as 650,000 years. And right now, the CO2 levels are way above anything ever measured in the past 650,000 years on record.

http://www-bprc.mps.ohio-state.edu/Icecore/Abstracts/Thompsonetal-climatic-change-2003.pdf


As far as articles stating global warming doesn't exist - is it really worth even trying. You will just find a way to discount them as you already have.

Everything that has been presented was from the popular press or from opinion columns. Nobody has presented a scientific journal article yet... because none of you can. Science disagrees with you completely, so you have no ground to stand on.


How about this one? The Cooling World (http://www.theamericanright.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4487) Just a few short years ago these same 'scientists' were telling us how we were headed for trouble because the world was cooling.

For starters, that article is from Newsweek. Newsweek is a popular press magazine, it is NOT a scientific journal. If you wanted to prove that scientists used to believe in global cooling, why didn't you show us a scientific article from the 1970s?

I found a summary of climate science published in 1975 by the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS is America's premier scientific organization. Here is what the NAS said in the introduction:

"Climatic change has been a subject of intellectual interest for many years. However, there are now more compelling reasons for its study: the growing awareness that our economic and social stability is profoundly influenced by climate and that man's activities themselves may be capable of influencing the climate in possibly undesirable ways. The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know".

and from the foward:

"...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate...".

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html

[Schmitty27]

Comparing planetary systems and atmospheres it is obvious that Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect. Global warming on that planet is a result of a completely natural cycle, its atmosphere is comprised of over 90% CO2.

It has a surface temperature of over 800 degrees Fahrenheit (the hottest planet in the Solar System) and resembles what many people consider Hell. (Of course that is due to extreme geological activity and sulfuric acid rain, but the heat isn't great either.)


Earth on the other hand has around 0.1% to 1% CO2 in its atmosphere. The proximity of Venus to the Sun compared to Earth isn't the reason though, its because Venus has so much CO2 in the air. Earth doesn't.

Do we have global warming? Yes. Is it of any appreciable size. No. Will it destroy the Earth in the near future? No.

We all have a 1/1 000 000 chance of dying from a collision with an asteroid or meteorite. And seeing as how we are well overdue for a cataclysmic hit, I like those odds better than global warming's.

[Wadi66]

I was the DU the other morning and they were talking about how "Peer- Reviewed Journals" and the "Scientific Community" are always right and the only right in America.Well then perhaps the new guy should spend his time there among his own kind. Birds of a feather and all that.

Frankly I find his continual reference to "peer review" etc. a lame attempt to elevate his flawed thinking. Hauntiness is so pathetic.