Because Global Warming

[Townhallsavoy]

Does Climate Change happen? YES.

So you admit that studies reflect this statement?

Is it because of Billy Bob's 1988 Chevy Blazer? NO.

But any studies that reflect this one is automatically bullshit because _____?

[AUChizad]

Its this simple.....

Does Climate Change happen? YES.

Is it because of Billy Bob's 1988 Chevy Blazer? NO.

It's not that simple.
Does Climate Change happen? YES.

Is it because of Billy Bob's 1988 Chevy Blazer? PARTIALLY, YES.

Carbon emissions are absolutely pushing us closer to the grave, so to speak. It's been happening without us driving Blazers, yes. Carbon is not a new periodic element. But we've been using the shit out of it in increasing quantities since the Industrial Revolution. It's definitely, empirically, scientifically, factually, worsening a bad situation.

[AUTailgatingRules]

It's not that simple.
Does Climate Change happen? YES.

Is it because of Billy Bob's 1988 Chevy Blazer? PARTIALLY, YES.

Carbon emissions are absolutely pushing us closer to the grave, so to speak. It's been happening without us driving Blazers, yes. Carbon is not a new periodic element. But we've been using the shit out of it in increasing quantities since the Industrial Revolution. It's definitely, empirically, scientifically, factually, worsening a bad situation.

Bull Shit

[Kaos]

Its this simple.....

Does Climate Change happen? YES.

Is it because of Billy Bob's 1988 Chevy Blazer? NO.

It happens. Its been happening. As Kaos has said until he is blue in the KISS cat face, its cyclical. Always has been. Disasters, temp changes, cooling, warming, ice melting, ice freezing back, etc etc. This is what the Earth does to right itself. News flash - we also tilt. And rotate.

A few may not be old enough to remember, but as a young un in Jr High in the 80s, they tried to scare the shit out of us about the Ozone Layer and CFC's. That too was a scare that died out. Why? Well..it wasn't so bad as they thought. It would take millions of cases of hairspray being emitted per square mile to have any impact. Ozone is like anything in the atmosphere...its cyclical. Volcanos erupt sometimes...then sometimes they don't. Same with Earthquakes. Not sure why its so hard to believe that Earth is very very powerful and has many natural process that go on without our notice. Sometimes they produce a result that isn't exactly "friendly" to us humans. Not much we can do about it.

And all day long, people profit off of this fear mongering. And then others use it as a political weapon to implement certain environmental agendas that suits them and to satisfy their wacko donors and environmental lobbyists. If Al Gore really really believed what he was saying, would he really live the lifestyle that he does? (it costs as much to power his house per day as it does an average subdivision, plus he flies everywhere)

It pisses me off that they made me stop using hairspray in the 80s because I was burning a hole over South America and all the llamas were going to die. 

I liked my AquaNet.  It hasn't been the same since they took out the good stuff. 

[Kaos]

It's not that simple.
Does Climate Change happen? YES.

Is it because of Billy Bob's 1988 Chevy Blazer? PARTIALLY, YES.

Carbon emissions are absolutely pushing us closer to the grave, so to speak. It's been happening without us driving Blazers, yes. Carbon is not a new periodic element. But we've been using the shit out of it in increasing quantities since the Industrial Revolution. It's definitely, empirically, scientifically, factually, worsening a bad situation.

 

You should just put this image with everything you post about this subject. 

[Kaos]

So you admit that studies reflect this statement?

But any studies that reflect this one is automatically bullshit because _____?

Because there ARE no studies that reflect this.  They are all suppositions and bullshit. 

I'll wait for the ice age while I use my hairspray and give SUVs to every member of my family .  You wait for the beach to crawl up to Huntsville while you eat Kale and drive your Prius. 

We'll both be waiting for something that never happens.  But I'll have better hair and a cooler ride. 

[GH2001]

So you admit that studies reflect this statement?

But any studies that reflect this one is automatically bullshit because _____?

the first one is proven.

the second one is not...no studies can prove a direct correlation. there is evidence and proof of climate change BEFORE internal combustion became mainstream. Now...correlate that for me please.

SCIENCE!

[Townhallsavoy]

the second one is not...no studies can prove a direct correlation. there is evidence and proof of climate change BEFORE internal combustion became mainstream. Now...correlate that for me please.

Considering Chad's provided multiple links to multiple studies and an overwhelming majority of scientists agree with those studies, I'd say that enough of that has been provided. 

And this goes back to what I linked a little while ago.  You (and many others) are looking for the definitive statement.  The appeal to certainty - "Here it is!  The missing link between climate change and human fault!" 

That's not how scientists communicate.  They will always use verbs like appears and seems and observed, and much like the congressional hearing in 1986 and 1987, those verbs are easily dismissed by people not in the field of science. 

[GH2001]

Considering Chad's provided multiple links to multiple studies and an overwhelming majority of scientists agree with those studies, I'd say that enough of that has been provided. 

And this goes back to what I linked a little while ago.  You (and many others) are looking for the definitive statement.  The appeal to certainty - "Here it is!  The missing link between climate change and human fault!" 

That's not how scientists communicate.  They will always use verbs like appears and seems and observed, and much like the congressional hearing in 1986 and 1987, those verbs are easily dismissed by people not in the field of science.

Thats how science works sancho. Absolute truth. They dance around these unproven hypotheses because they can't be proven. Its not a lot to ask for proof.

All of the "science" sample studies mostly look at 50 to 100 year elapsed time frames. That is such a short frame of time compared to the existance of the overall age of the Earth.

Say globals temps rose 1% from 1970-1990, and in 1990 there are more cars on the road than ever. That is still not a direct correlation or proof.

Temps have risen and fallen before automobiles. Natural disasters, observations of ice melting and reforming....have all happened before mills and cars were the norm. And at the same rates. Its out of context science with a pre desired outcome from the very begining for political reasons. And its not just in the global warmin debate. "Science" has been doing this in many areas for many years. Rearranging data and not placing things in appropriate big picture context in order to get a desired result for whatever reason - lobbyists, grants, their own existence which is funded by those who want this result.

If youve got enough money and power, and you want to share it with me - I can find you just about any result you want in the name of concrete "science". Oh, you are Coke's CEO, and want me to prove that Coke is better than Pepsi and that Pepsi possibly causes cancer? You got it. Give me a week. I'll have some nice pretty graphs and everything.

Phillip Morris CEO wants to pay me a million bucks to study the harmful effects of Mary Jane and why it is a dertriment to society. No problem. I'll even color code the charts for that much, and put it in power point for you. We will even have Starbucks for the presentation.

[AUChizad]

Considering Chad's provided multiple links to multiple studies and an overwhelming majority of scientists agree with those studies, I'd say that enough of that has been provided. 

And this goes back to what I linked a little while ago.  You (and many others) are looking for the definitive statement.  The appeal to certainty - "Here it is!  The missing link between climate change and human fault!" 

That's not how scientists communicate.  They will always use verbs like appears and seems and observed, and much like the congressional hearing in 1986 and 1987, those verbs are easily dismissed by people not in the field of science.

Blah blah blah, smart talk. Sheep.

"Because there ARE no studies that reflect this.  They are all suppositions and bullshit."

Despite the fact that dozens have been presented in this thread already.

"If I don't want to see it, it don't exist."

When something stupid is posted in this thread and I don't respond? It's not a surrender. It's a 

[GH2001]

Blah blah blah, smart talk. Sheep.

"Because there ARE no studies that reflect this.  They are all suppositions and bullshit."

Despite the fact that dozens have been presented in this thread already.

"If I don't want to see it, it don't exist."

When something stupid is posted in this thread and I don't respond? It's not a surrender. It's a 

Ive still seen no proof. Just red herrings that you guys will follow right off a cliff.

I wonder if science still thinks blood letting rids of infections?

All of the links you guys post are basically about Carbon consumption and side by side graphs from the last 70 years with perfectly correlated scales so to show that the increase of man made byproducts (emissions) just so happen to match up perfectly with the amount of climate change that has also taken place. Show proof, not speculation. Its circumstantial evidence at best - which usually doesnt fly.

I respect your opinion to disagree, but in the end it will just be an agree to disagree on this one. I just think you need much more concrete proof and correlation between the 2 beyond the shadow of a doubt if you are going to start mandating and manipulating human behavior because of it. The last sentence is really where I am coming from on all of this.

[Townhallsavoy]

Thats how science works sancho. Absolute truth. They dance around these unproven hypotheses because they can't be proven. Its not a lot to ask for proof.

Scientists are not philosophers.  They are not going to syllogistically go from point a to point b just to satisfy the desire of a particular audience to have a complex, ongoing study simplified into a declarative statement.  Their "absolute truth" is a goal through various and many and ever-progressing studies that follow a particular method and end with a deliberative conclusion. 

No, they haven't finalized climate change study.  But their observations and analyses so far have indicated that climate change occurs and appears to have been altered by human influences. 

[Kaos]

Despite the fact that dozens have been presented in this thread already.

No. No they haven't. 

Theories and statistics have been posted. They prove nothing. 

I'm going to look at a statistical sample from 2000 to 2006.  Based on my intense study, the University of Alabama football team is one of the worst in the history of college football.  They've never beaten Auburn.

Want me to prove that Demontray Carter was a better tailback than Bo Jackson?  Give me two hours and I can get you a narrow statistical sample that will verify just that. 

There's a word you're not understanding here.  C.y.c.l.i.c.a.l.    It's been happening over and over (as GH said) at the same rates.  What you're seeing now and having chicken little panic over is the same thing that happened eons ago. 

In a million years we'll be covered with ice.  Or buried under water. Or sitting in the desert. Or in a tropical rainforest.  And in another million, it will be different again.   Our lifespans are miniscule and remarkably insignificant in the history of the earth.  The entire existence of the human race is but a blink in the world's lifecycle.  We are gnats.  Less than gnats. 

It's self-important arrogance to think otherwise.

[Kaos]

Scientists are not philosophers.  They are not going to syllogistically go from point a to point b just to satisfy the desire of a particular audience to have a complex, ongoing study simplified into a declarative statement.  Their "absolute truth" is a goal through various and many and ever-progressing studies that follow a particular method and end with a deliberative conclusion. 

No, they haven't finalized climate change study.  But their observations and analyses so far have indicated that climate change occurs and appears to have been altered by human influences.

My dick "appears" to be 14 inches long. 

[Snaggletiger]

My dick "appears" to be 14 inches long.

Objects in mirror are larger than they appear

[GH2001]

TL;DR From a scientist, a study done with no influence from the EPA, UN or any other moonbat from either side of a polticial aisle...look into this guy. Dude is brilliant and absolutely just loves science for what it is. I find his view very intuitive and informative. Oh yeah...hes an ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST and also has a meterology background as well.

This may very be an "Incovenient Truth" for many.

Global Warming: Ten Facts and Ten Myths on Climate Change

 
Ten facts about climate change

1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a “stable” climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.
 
2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.
 
3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.
 
4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.
 
Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.
 
5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).
 
6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.
 
Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that “the IPCC review process is fatally flawed” and that “the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz“.

7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).
 
The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism “one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism“. If Kyoto was a “first step” then it was in the same wrong direction as the later “Bali roadmap”.

 
8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.

9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.

10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.
 
The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.
 
LAYING TEN GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS

Myth 1 Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.
 
Fact 1 Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995.


Myth 2 During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.
 
Facts 2 The late 20th Century AGT rise was at a rate of 1-20 C/century, which lies well within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 yr. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many times in the recent geological past.


Myth 3 AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes “hockey stick” curve and its computer extrapolation).
 
Facts 3 The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway.

 
Myth 4 Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 60 C over the next 100 years.
 
Facts 4 Deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling.


Myth 5 Warming of more than 20 C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.
 
Facts 5 A 20 C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes.

 
Myth 6 Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.
 
Facts 6 No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 10 C. Atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including especially cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration.


Myth 7 Changes in solar activity cannot explain recent changes in AGT.
 
Facts 7 The sun’s output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth’s climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.80 C rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change.


Myth 8 Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.
 
Facts 8 Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness and cooling at their summit. Sea ice around Antarctica attained a record area in 2007. Temperatures in the Arctic region are just now achieving the levels of natural warmth experienced during the early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during earlier times.

 
Myth 9 Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global sea-level (SL) rise.
 
Facts 9 SL change differs from time to time and place to place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm (2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for environmental planning purposes. A global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr occurred naturally over the last 150 years, and shows no sign of human-influenced increase.


Myth 10 The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity.
 
Facts 10 Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of the climate system.



Robert M. Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience.

[AUChizad]

There's a word you're not understanding here.  C.y.c.l.i.c.a.l.    It's been happening over and over (as GH said) at the same rates.  What you're seeing now and having chicken little panic over is the same thing that happened eons ago.

What's maddening is when people who flatly refuse to understand the science behind climate change use this as a crutch. Yes. It is C.Y.C.L.I.C.A.L. That proves the theory. Climate is different than weather.

I already posted this video that attempts to explain this at a 1st grade comprehension level.

BUT DON'T CLICK! YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING!

[GH2001]

My dick "appears" to be 14 inches long.

It has showed 26% growth from the age of 13-17. This is unprecendented. We cant prove this for sure, but the way we see it, the increase in your diet of cheese and cheerios directly correlates with said penis growth during this time. We can definitely say with certainty that they have an effect on your dick's growth and if you dont stop ingesting both products we are heading to crazy levels of penis length by 2035.

Oh, wait...you mean it quit growing after age 19 and you didn't do anything different because its a natural process that has been ongoing for 1000's of years in humans? Wellllll SHIT.

[GH2001]

What's maddening is when people who flatly refuse to understand the science behind climate change use this as a crutch. Yes. It is C.Y.C.L.I.C.A.L. That proves the theory. Climate is different than weather.

I already posted this video that attempts to explain this at a 1st grade comprehension level.

BUT DON'T CLICK! YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING!

Chad - I do think one thing you are missing here is that some of us have explored both sides of this debate. I know I did...and I went with what I thought made the most sense.

All of your experts and most of the "scientists" that come up with the theories you believe in correlate weather and climate change. Yes..they do. Jim Cantore said that man made climate change caused the Tornado outbreak in AL in 2011. Because tornados have never happened when air from the carribean/gulf and air from canada mix and become unstable. Makes more sense to be caused by too many V8's. Who knew they had F150's in the 18th and 19th century.

[Snaggletiger]

It has showed 26% growth from the age of 13-17. This is unprecendented. We cant prove this for sure, but the way we see it, the increase in your diet of cheese and cheerios directly correlates with said penis growth during this time. We can definitely say with certainty that they have an effect on your dick's growth and if you dont stop ingesting both products we are heading to crazy levels of penis length by 2035.

Oh, wait...you mean it quit growing after age 19 and you didn't do anything different because its a natural process that has been ongoing for 1000's of years in humans? Wellllll SHIT.

That was funny and all, but is my dick really not going to get any bigger?