Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[iinii]

I did, that's why I'm asking.

Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension.

[unbillievable]

According to all these alarmists, it's already too late to change it. So what's the point of killing jobs if all these regulations make no real difference?

[KD in CA]

According to all these alarmists, it's already too late to change it. So what's the point of killing jobs if all these regulations make no real difference?

 

Aren't we all already underwater? Isn't that what ALGORE promised would happen by now?

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

Aren't we all already underwater? Isn't that what ALGORE promised would happen by now?

We had a bad winter in '14. Al baby was a little off. ;-)

[bbb]

My favorite Al Gore moment was when his talk on Global Warming at UB was cancelled by the October Surprise snowstorm.

[Logic]

The "climate change isn't real" stuff in this thread is so over the top that it's hard for me to tell if some posters are being serious or actually believe what they're saying. So if you were being facetious, please ignore the following. If you're serious, though...

http://grist.org/article/sorry-winter-storm-jonas-doesnt-make-climate-change-a-liberal-hoax/

"But what is the connection between climate change and snow storms? First, it’s important to remember that weather and climate are two different things: Weather is the rain falling on your head as you walk to work; climate is the very long-term forecast. NASA puts it this way: “An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.”

And, according to actual scientists and not conspiracy-addled politicians, climate change could actually make snow storms worse. ThinkProgress spoke to Michael Mann, the nation’s preeminent climatologist, about Winter Storm Jonas, which is currently blanketing the eastern seaboard in feet of snow. He said this is not a fluke. “There is peer-reviewed science that now suggests that climate change will lead to more of these intense, blizzard-producing nor’easters,” according to Mann. This is because a warming climate means increased moisture in the atmosphere, and when cold air meets moisture — surprise! — it snows. Sometimes a lot, like we’re seeing right now."


For good measure, here's another bit from https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."


On many issues discussed in this forum, there are multiple reasonable viewpoints. People's subjective opinions can be very different and not be "incorrect". On this issue, there really can't/shouldn't be any debate. When 97% of scientists in a given field agree on something, it's pretty foolhardy to completely disavow it and call it a hoax. I understand that climate change is scary, and that it is much easier mentally and emotionally to laugh it all off and call it a hoax. But like Neil Degrasse Tyson said: "The good thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not".

I now fully expect to be laughed at and told why I'm wrong by the chorus of like-minded climate change deniers on this forum. That's fine, I can take it. But no matter how much you want to put your head in the sand, the science is not on your side. And as I said, many of the "but it snowed a lot this winter!" comments are just absurdly ignorant of actual facts like, for instance, the difference between climate and weather.

Anyway, go ahead, tell me why I'm wrong like Al Gore and that I'm an alarmist liberal snowflake and blah, blah, blah. I'll just keep quoting peer-reviewed scientific research.

[meazza]

lol

 

141 pages and the same points are rehashed, over and over and over and over.

[Logic]

lol

 

141 pages and the same points are rehashed, over and over and over and over.

Because science.

[Tiberius]

The "climate change isn't real" stuff in this thread is so over the top that it's hard for me to tell if some posters are being serious or actually believe what they're saying. So if you were being facetious, please ignore the following. If you're serious, though...

 

http://grist.org/article/sorry-winter-storm-jonas-doesnt-make-climate-change-a-liberal-hoax/

 

"But what is the connection between climate change and snow storms? First, it’s important to remember that weather and climate are two different things: Weather is the rain falling on your head as you walk to work; climate is the very long-term forecast. NASA puts it this way: “An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.”

And, according to actual scientists and not conspiracy-addled politicians, climate change could actually make snow storms worse. ThinkProgress spoke to Michael Mann, the nation’s preeminent climatologist, about Winter Storm Jonas, which is currently blanketing the eastern seaboard in feet of snow. He said this is not a fluke. “There is peer-reviewed science that now suggests that climate change will lead to more of these intense, blizzard-producing nor’easters,” according to Mann. This is because a warming climate means increased moisture in the atmosphere, and when cold air meets moisture — surprise! — it snows. Sometimes a lot, like we’re seeing right now."

 

 

For good measure, here's another bit from https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

 

 

On many issues discussed in this forum, there are multiple reasonable viewpoints. People's subjective opinions can be very different and not be "incorrect". On this issue, there really can't/shouldn't be any debate. When 97% of scientists in a given field agree on something, it's pretty foolhardy to completely disavow it and call it a hoax. I understand that climate change is scary, and that it is much easier mentally and emotionally to laugh it all off and call it a hoax. But like Neil Degrasse Tyson said: "The good thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not".

 

I now fully expect to be laughed at and told why I'm wrong by the chorus of like-minded climate change deniers on this forum. That's fine, I can take it. But no matter how much you want to put your head in the sand, the science is not on your side. And as I said, many of the "but it snowed a lot this winter!" comments are just absurdly ignorant of actual facts like, for instance, the difference between climate and weather.

 

Anyway, go ahead, tell me why I'm wrong like Al Gore and that I'm an alarmist liberal snowflake and blah, blah, blah. I'll just keep quoting peer-reviewed scientific research.

 

Why should people believe scientists over politicians that are paid by the energy companies?

[meazza]

Because science.

 

Does science include searching for those points that are being rehashed and reading those responses instead of repeating what has already been debated for close to 140 pages?

[Gary M]

Why should people believe scientists over politicians that are paid by the energy companies that can't create an accurate model?

 

Fixed

[/dev/null]

https://spectator.org/confessions-of-a-climate-change-denier/

[IDBillzFan]

Because science.

 

 

One man's science is another man's money-laundering scheme.

[bdutton]

http://dailysignal.com/2009/03/27/man%E2%80%99s-contribution-to-global-warming/

 

 

 

We only contribute 1/10th of 1% to the atmospheric C02.

 

On top of that, scientists cannot explain where much of the 'excess' c02 is going (i.e. naturally absorbed into c02 sinks).

 

http://www.science20.com/news_releases/where_does_co2_go_mystery_missing_sinks

 

I think what may be happening is as the Co2 in the atmosphere rises, it creates a 'richer' environment for plants to grow and absorb more Co2 and convert it to o2. There is a large delay between the Co2 release and the time it takes for plant life to fill the gap.

 

Also, the slowing down of deforestation is helping.

 

Either way, thinking that such a slight rise in Co2 could have long term ramifications doesn't make sense and there is much that is not understood about the disappearing Co2.

[/dev/null]

http://dailysignal.com/2009/03/27/man%E2%80%99s-contribution-to-global-warming/

 

 

 

We only contribute 1/10th of 1% to the atmospheric C02.

 

On top of that, scientists cannot explain where much of the 'excess' c02 is going (i.e. naturally absorbed into c02 sinks).

 

http://www.science20.com/news_releases/where_does_co2_go_mystery_missing_sinks

 

I think what may be happening is as the Co2 in the atmosphere rises, it creates a 'richer' environment for plants to grow and absorb more Co2 and convert it to o2. There is a large delay between the Co2 release and the time it takes for plant life to fill the gap.

 

Also, the slowing down of deforestation is helping.

 

Either way, thinking that such a slight rise in Co2 could have long term ramifications doesn't make sense and there is much that is not understood about the disappearing Co2.

[Tiberius]

http://dailysignal.com/2009/03/27/man%E2%80%99s-contribution-to-global-warming/

 

 

 

We only contribute 1/10th of 1% to the atmospheric C02.

 

On top of that, scientists cannot explain where much of the 'excess' c02 is going (i.e. naturally absorbed into c02 sinks).

 

http://www.science20.com/news_releases/where_does_co2_go_mystery_missing_sinks

 

I think what may be happening is as the Co2 in the atmosphere rises, it creates a 'richer' environment for plants to grow and absorb more Co2 and convert it to o2. There is a large delay between the Co2 release and the time it takes for plant life to fill the gap.

 

Also, the slowing down of deforestation is helping.

 

Either way, thinking that such a slight rise in Co2 could have long term ramifications doesn't make sense and there is much that is not understood about the disappearing Co2.

How was it determined that we only contribute 1/10 of the CO2?

[grinreaper]

This was posted earlier in this thread by Greg F:

 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

[DC Tom]

The "climate change isn't real" stuff in this thread is so over the top that it's hard for me to tell if some posters are being serious or actually believe what they're saying. So if you were being facetious, please ignore the following. If you're serious, though...

 

http://grist.org/article/sorry-winter-storm-jonas-doesnt-make-climate-change-a-liberal-hoax/

 

"But what is the connection between climate change and snow storms? First, it’s important to remember that weather and climate are two different things: Weather is the rain falling on your head as you walk to work; climate is the very long-term forecast. NASA puts it this way: “An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.”

And, according to actual scientists and not conspiracy-addled politicians, climate change could actually make snow storms worse. ThinkProgress spoke to Michael Mann, the nation’s preeminent climatologist, about Winter Storm Jonas, which is currently blanketing the eastern seaboard in feet of snow. He said this is not a fluke. “There is peer-reviewed science that now suggests that climate change will lead to more of these intense, blizzard-producing nor’easters,” according to Mann. This is because a warming climate means increased moisture in the atmosphere, and when cold air meets moisture — surprise! — it snows. Sometimes a lot, like we’re seeing right now."

 

 

For good measure, here's another bit from https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

 

 

On many issues discussed in this forum, there are multiple reasonable viewpoints. People's subjective opinions can be very different and not be "incorrect". On this issue, there really can't/shouldn't be any debate. When 97% of scientists in a given field agree on something, it's pretty foolhardy to completely disavow it and call it a hoax. I understand that climate change is scary, and that it is much easier mentally and emotionally to laugh it all off and call it a hoax. But like Neil Degrasse Tyson said: "The good thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not".

 

I now fully expect to be laughed at and told why I'm wrong by the chorus of like-minded climate change deniers on this forum. That's fine, I can take it. But no matter how much you want to put your head in the sand, the science is not on your side. And as I said, many of the "but it snowed a lot this winter!" comments are just absurdly ignorant of actual facts like, for instance, the difference between climate and weather.

 

Anyway, go ahead, tell me why I'm wrong like Al Gore and that I'm an alarmist liberal snowflake and blah, blah, blah. I'll just keep quoting peer-reviewed scientific research.

 

 

"Quoting peer-reviewed scientific research" doesn't mean **** when you don't read or understand it.

[bdutton]

How was it determined that we only contribute 1/10 of the CO2?

1/10th of 1%.

 

The links are provided for you to read the article and trace it back to the source as well.

[Azalin]

Because science.

 

Wrong, but don't take it from me. Ms McElhinney states it perfectly: