Climate change

[lvcabbie]

Originally Posted by jambo101

I'm seeing very little in the way of conflicting reports among the majority of the scientific community.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-ch...sensus-on.html


The only conflicting viewpoints i'm seeing are coming almost entirely from a certain American political demographic..

ivcabbie do you think there is any atmospheric consequence to mans usage of 100million barrels of oil per day? And if those responsible for studying our atmosphere and climate came out en mass claiming we are screwing up the climate wouldnt that give you pause to ponder?

I have seen so many conflicting articles, reports, and graphs that it is almost impossible to believe or understand WHAT is going on!

My general concensus is that each side touts what it feels to be in its own best interest, financially and politically.

Some say cow farts are as responsible as vehicle emissions.
Others claim that natural emission from volcanoes and other sources are equally culpable.
Others claim that sun cycles play a huge role in climate change. {This, in my mind, is the most valid of all claims.}

In other words, I don't think ANYBODY really know what's going on or who's to blame.

[jambo101]

For those who disagree or are undecided with the scientific communities assessment of the state of our climate there are some dire consequences we will have to deal with if it turns out the scientists are right and the GW deniers are wrong. i think the prudent course of action would be to err on the side of caution just in case.
https://www.google.ca/#q=consequence...ng&safe=active

[Eddie_T]

Originally Posted by jambo101

For those who disagree or are undecided with the scientific communities assessment of the state of our climate there are some dire consequences we will have to deal with if it turns out the scientists are right and the GW deniers are wrong. i think the prudent course of action would be to err on the side of caution just in case.
https://www.google.ca/#q=consequence...ng&safe=active

A dangerous position to take, but unfortunately the media has many people thinking this way. However, no one has proven CO2 to be our enemy, that it is causitive in global warming, or that any slight reduction that might be made worldwide in man's contribution (at great expense) would have any effect whatsoever. Also it's not scientists against deniers, it's scientists against scientists with the consensus scientists (and empty suits like Obama, Gore and Kerry) not willing to have debate. Real science does not shy away from debate. The global cooling alarmists predicted crop losses due to cooling, why do they not now predict crop gains due to warming. If indeed warming is real it can't be proven that man has any significant contribution other than maybe deforestation or that man can implement any changes. Climate and weather are directly related to solar activity (which is why NASA spent millions on satellite studies of the sun) which are beyond even Obama's executive orders.

[jambo101]

Ed i;m getting the impression you read none of the links i post as i've posted ample evidence of the scientific communities stance on the reality of global Warming and also a whole page of links to the environmental consequences of ignoring what the scientists are saying.
It puzzles me as to how you can be so sure the scientists are all wrong on their claims of Global Warming and your sources whatever they may be are so sure they are right and all the scientists are wrong.

[Eddie_T]

Originally Posted by jambo101

Ed i;m getting the impression you read none of the links i post as i've posted ample evidence of the scientific communities stance on the reality of global Warming and also a whole page of links to the environmental consequences of ignoring what the scientists are saying.
It puzzles me as to how you can be so sure the scientists are all wrong on their claims of Global Warming and your sources whatever they may be are so sure they are right and all the scientists are wrong.

You seemingly think all scientists believe in man made global warming, not so!

[jambo101]

Originally Posted by Eddie_T

You seemingly think all scientists believe in man made global warming, not so!

I'm just focusing on the ones that matter on this issue those climatologists whose job it is to study our atmosphere and its climate, particularly those working for major organizations such as NOAA and NASA and report their data and findings....
Ed you seem to imply these and many other similar organizations dedicated to studying our climatic conditions are in some way in collusion in some grand scheme of deluding the citizens of the world in some monumental hoax.As you represent a demographic that holds this view i'm trying to understand where this attitude is coming from and what its purpose is.

On a side note i was hoping our banter on the issue would have drawn some new members into the conversation but alas its not happening.

[oldognewtrick]

http://aninconsistenttruth.com/

Another viewpoint on climate change.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...3231720AAsNNaW

And why is co2 a bad thing? Seems plants need it and we need plants.

[jambo101]

An explanation of why an over abundance of CO2 isnt in our best interests.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghg...gases/co2.html

Here you have the underlying reason for such opposition to the Global Warming issue=

The most effective way to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

That course of action will cost a lot of people a lot of money so rather than take action on the issue better to call into question the findings and recommendations of the scientific community whose job it is to research and report such climatic data.

[samfloor]

The scientific community is well known to be full of "sheep". These "scientists" will agree to anything.
For example, did you know that the researcher who discovered that ulcers were caused by a bacterial infection fought the scientific community for years. They refused to consider that the accepted cause, stress, was wrong. Even after he proved it, some refused to change treatment methods.
Many climatologists will read a report and say, "I knew that". Besides if they want government grants, they better agree with it.

[Eddie_T]

Originally Posted by jambo101

An explanation of why an over abundance of CO2 isnt in our best interests.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghg...gases/co2.html

Here you have the underlying reason for such opposition to the Global Warming issue=

That course of action will cost a lot of people a lot of money so rather than take action on the issue better to call into question the findings and recommendations of the scientific community whose job it is to research and report such climatic data.

I did read the article and it was opinion rather than science. It sounds like it was prepared as talking points for Obama and the media.

Even some alarmists admit that human contributions to atmospheric CO2 are small in comparison to natural sources but insist it is just enough to upset the "natural balance". There is no such thing as natural balance just as there is no balance of nature. The planet is always in change and what appears to be a balance is just a small snapshot in time. Man didn't do so well in attempting to restore his version of balance in Yellowstone and is unlikely to fair better with his attempts to villify and manage CO2.

“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.”